Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2018/Promoted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Successful

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Landing at Jacquinot Bay

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Nick-D (talk)

Landing at Jacquinot Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


This article looks at an amphibious operation that marked the start of Australian ground operations on New Britain in late 1944, as they relieved the US garrison on the island. Nick and I have worked on this together and took it to GAN a couple of years ago. Last Christmas holidays we took the overarching campaign article through ACR, and I figure that we are slowly working through the child articles. (Nick's article on Arawe is already an FA, and the other battles are all B-class, some of which I hope to improve further these holidays). Thank you to everyone who stops by to help improve the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Australian_6th_Inf_Bde_stores_Jacquinot_Bay_November_1944_(AWM_photo_076679).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Australian_soldiers_disembarking_from_a_US_Army_landing_craft_at_Jacquinot_Bay_on_4_November_1944.JPG, File:Australian_Army_power_shovel_unloading_gravel_into_a_truck_at_Jacquinot_Bay_in_December_1944.JPG
    • All three images are PD as they're Australian Government created/owned and are more than 50 years old - I've updated the copyright tags. Their records on the Australian War Memorial's website also all state that they are PD. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:New_guinea.png: what is the source for the battle locations? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I read through this as soon as it was nominated, and it looks in fine shape. I have a few comments:

  • should an alternative bolded title in the lead be Operation Battleaxe?
  • suggest "Battle of Arawe, Battle of Cape Gloucester and Battle of Talasea" → "Battles of Arawe, Cape Gloucester and Talasea" with the links piped
  • suggest "with the unitformation to assume responsibility"
  • perhaps mention where the Gazelle Peninsula is when it is first mentioned?
  • I reckon you could drop the parens from "(approximately 100 miles [160 km] east of Arawe)"
  • were the AIB NCOs also Australian? Perhaps reword this sentence?
  • is the SS Cape Alexander (AK-5010) likely to be notable? If so, redlink?
  • if ML 827 is notable, perhaps ML 802 is too? redlink?
  • I don't think the apostrophes on either side of 'B' (or 'A' etc) are needed, just B (or A) Company should suffice in each case
  • do we know which squadrons from the RNZAF were based there?
    • Quite a few - the RNZAF practice was to rotate fighter squadrons between NZ and the Pacific every few weeks. The official history of the RNZAF actually says that three squadrons were at Jacquinot Bay, with the two fighter units rotating fairly frequently. I've fixed the number, but would prefer to not go into details on the rotations as it's a bit off the article's topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done, not much to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The sources used all appear to be of high quality and reliable, mainly campaign-specific books and official Australian and US histories. The use of primary sources is limited to uncontroversial detail from war diaries, and I spot-checked all the primary source footnotes. The book source footnotes I've AGF'd, because they are published by reputable publishing houses, there doesn't appear to be anything controversial to be concerned about, and I know the standard of the work produced by the noms. A Google Books and Scholar search indicates that there isn't much recent scholarship on this operation other than Grant, which explains the relative age of many of the campaign-specific sources. The only thing that I might remark upon is the cluster of four footnotes starting with [36] in the Landing section relating to the ORBAT of the force, could this footnoting be done in a bit more granular way? That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, thanks for looking at this. I have split out the citations you have highlighted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Initial Comments by Cinderella157

[edit]

Hi, here are some initial observations.

  • Firstly, the article appears to struggle a little - perhaps because it was largely uneventful. This causes some concern WRT the balance between the parent and daughter article. Suggest that expanding base development might go some way to this (Hawkeye7?).
  • Suggest reorganising background section along these lines.
  1. Background (general military situation NG/New Britain)
    1. Geography
    2. Preliminary ops (AIB)
  • I am seeing many localities mentioned which are not on the maps provided or which are not otherwise referenced relative to localities on maps. further, many don't have links making it more difficult. The map in Long (CH 10 p 243) of New Britain covers all of the key locations he mentions. The map "Australian operations in central New Britain", used in the article, covers the area in sufficient scale but lacks many of the locations. It may be possible to add these? It does not; however, cover some locations between Gasmata and Jacquinot Bay. Locating Cape Dampier on the map "eastern New Guinea and New Britain" would probably resolve any residual problems, since Massau and Awul are either side of the base of the cape. You might check I have not missed any other locations that cannot be dealt with by adding to "Australian operations in central New Britain". I might be able to help but I think we asked for help WRT the NG map previously.
  • The question begging for me, was "where was (the rest of) 5 Div?". Long didn't clarify this for me nor did 5th Division (Australia). It might be necessary to go the war diary to get some idea of who, what and where, at the time in question?
After being re-designated once again as the 5th Division, the headquarters moved to Finschafen, assuming control of the 4th and 8th Brigades, and taking over the advance along the Rai coast towards Madang, which was secured in April 1944. Throughout the coming months, the 15th Brigade was reassigned to the division, as was the 7th Brigade, although both the 15th and 4th Brigades were returned to Australia in July and August 1944.
This too is refed to MacKenzie-Smith p 2036. Not strictly part of this but if MacKenzie-Smith is handy, it might be possible to add a bit more there so there is no "appearance" of inconsistency between the two articles. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified the reorg at the 5th Div article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed some repetitive phrasing, passive voice etc that I might tweak as I have done in the past with AR.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noticed result in infobox as allied victory. This is more an "operation" than a "conflict" and "Allied success" might be a better result. Not saying that the infobox type has to be changed. I am looking at making some amendments to the infobox guidance re this but leaving off ATM as the close for the RfC might still be up in the air. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The southern part of the island is dominated by a densely forested central mountain range that rises to 6,000 feet (1,800 m) which sits inland from a narrow coastal shelf." Presumably this is that part of the island excluding the Gazelle Peninsula and isthmus? I suggest that southwest is a better description that might be clarified similar to what I have done here.
  • The data for temp and rainfall precedes by date the time of the landing. Is there info more relevant to the time of the landing, even if only qualitative - even if it uses more recent data that can be contexturalised?
    • Not that I've found yet. I've adjusted the wording to make it clear that the figures come from prior to the operation. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • [1][2][3] Might be helpful? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure, really. These are from the late 1950s, some 12-14 years after the operation and don't seem to cover Jacquinot Bay unless I missed it. The figures from the 1943 study seem more likely to me to be closer to the situation in late 1944 and are what the planners would have used. They are only meant to be indicative anyway. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both are long-term averages(?) so the extra years isn't that significant. The difference in average rain in September and November is more significant? If Gasmata is indicative of weather at JB then it follows that the relative changes in the amount of rain are also indicative. The Gasmata rain data follows a similar pattern (broadly) to JB and the monsoon. From the Gasmata data, falls in November are about half of September's. It is likely similar at JB. Suggest a note citing Gasmata data "For comparison, average rainfall in at Gasmata in November (the month of the landing) is less than half that in September." Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... with the heaviest rain falling between July and September, mainly during periods of darkness." Suggest: "... with the wettest period between July and September. Rain events were mainly at night [or "in darkness"]". I note your edit to "periods of darkness" but suggest a more active voice and shortening sentences for readability.
  • Per immediately above, active voice and shortening sentences (less complex structure) is a general observation. I mentioned this before. The article has been in a bit of flux as a result of review comments until now. @Nick-D: are you comfortable with me copy-editing IAW this rather than toing-and-froeing and on the basis that edits are suggestions subject to discussion?
  • "The indigenous population was concentrated in two areas: the coastal area and the mountains." There is something wrong with this but not certain what or how to fix. It is almost tautological? There were only two choices and both were taken? There were indigenous communities (villages?) in both the coastal areas and the mountains? (ie they lived all over the place) Perhaps: "Both the coastal area and the mountains were inhabited by the indigenous population?"
  • Was it "under control" since 1920 or was it mandated in 1920. It reads to the former but was more likely the latter? Suggest then: "... was mandated in 1920 and considered under gov control ... "?
  • To "Strategic situation": perhaps a little (tiny) more "big picture" detail re what was happening on New Guinea mainland and south (Bougainville etc).
  • As a general point, why Jacquinot Bay? My brief reading is that there were many possible options on the south coast?
    • I'm not sure, sorry, beyond the recon assessment, anchorages (added some more on this), suitability for liberty ships and airfield development possibilities. From a quick map recon, I'd consider a few options: Montagu Harbour, Jacquinot Bay and Waterfall Bay. Montagu Harbour was probably too exposed to the weather to the southeast, and may have been too far away from the objective (establishing a defensive line across Wide Bay-Open Bay). Waterfall Bay appears to be smaller and less sheltered, and is also closer to the Japanese airbases at Rabaul, so maybe that had something to do with it. All speculation on my part, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first couple of paras of the 'preparations' section provide all that the sources say on this. Jacquinot Bay was one of two sites investigated for the 5th Division's logistical base, but the source (the official history) doesn't give the criteria used to assess the sites. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi @Nick-D:, I raised the question, inpart, because I think Long indicated multiple possible locations along the south coast. It is also a question begging an answer. However, if there is none available, there is none. Some edits by AR have been helpful in making the question "less prominent". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rupert is correct. The area was selected as most the most suitable for the development of a base on the basis of:
            1. The area had suitable locations for brigade groups
            2. There was a suitable area around the Palmalmal Platation for the establishment of a base sub area
            3. There was a protected anchorage capable of accommodating up to six Liberty ship, and a suitable site for a wharf in the Palmalmal Platation area
            4. There was a suitable site for an aircstrip between Cape Cunningham North and Manginuna
          • See [4], which also details the problems with Cape Hoskins/Talasea Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nick-D: G'day, Nick, have you got anything that could be added here? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All points above resolved. Will get more done. regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
[edit]
  • After my copy-edit, last para in "strategic situation" reads: "The main force was stationed around Rabaul." There are two other statements in this section of the Japaneses force being concentrated on the Gazelle Peninsular. A bit repetitive?
  • Second para of "Landing" section. I hope my edit rearranging the para is self-evident but I can give a detailed rationale. References will need to be checked for possible dislocation. Is it known where the MLs escorted from? I am guessing they were from separate locations but it may have been from the same loc but separate because of speed? The text may need tweaking to make it clearer that they were separate movements but I have left it pending as the answers (if known) may make it easier to deal with. Might clarify that Frances Peat was a cargo transport (I assume it was?). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just clarified this. Frances Peat was carrying the New Guinean troops, and the coastal craft departed from Arawe with all others departing from Lae. 10:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ogders p 328 identifies Japanese Division on New Britain at the time and the proportion of naval/army personnel. Suggest incorperating this. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think those figures may be outdated - the 'Strategic situation' provides other numbers from the most recent source. The unit designations aren't terribly meaningful given that the various formations had been bashed up, and none were near complete - even by Japanese standards the order of battle was a mess. As they weren't engaged in this landing or the subsequent campaign, I'd rather not name them here. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Nick-D, Ogders gives 50k army and 30k navy. The Grant probably counts some omitted by Ogders (perhaps labour units) that were not reported by Ogders - ie a difference in reporting rather than an error. Long also quotes 93k and gives some break-down, similar to Ogders.
      • Then, "there were 93,000 Japanese on the island,[14] forming part of General Hitoshi Imamura's Eighth Area Army" but were they all part of the Area Army, as this reads? Were marines under army command?
      • "forming part of General Hitoshi Imamura's Eighth Area Army" It begs the question regarding the rest. As you say, you would rather not name the actual formations defending the island but this statement; however, makes the article look vague rather than that the situation was vague.
      • I previously suggested additional material to give a more top-down view from the Allied perspective. I might suggest something similar for the Japanese situation - for balance. A broad brush of the Japanese campaign might form a new first para in this section - ie main base in SWP AO for ops in Solomons, mainland New Guinea and Islands of Aust Territory of New Guinea; 8th area Area Army formed in ... and HQ there; naval base, suffered reversals in Solomons, Papua etc and gradually isolated ...; garrison troops for defence plus support units etc. This can then follow much as it does, through the allied intent etc to the penultimate para that details the current Japanese situation. In Summary, add a new para at the start but keep everything else pretty much as is (broadly speaking). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a bit on the Japanese defensive priorities and strategy on New Britain, noting that they made few efforts to defend anywhere outside the positions around Rabaul which I think covers those topics adequately. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi, I was thinking more globally (ie, from the assumption that a reader had no prior knowledge of what had happened in the theatre (so - for those that came late). However ... : " or if the size of Australian forces on the island was increased.[15] Imamura retained almost all of the forces on New Britain in defensive positions near Rabaul until the end of the war, and made few efforts to contest the Australian operations on the island; Australian official historian Gavin Long wrote that it was unclear why the Japanese stance on New Britain was so passive when the Australian offensive on Bougainville was strongly resisted.[16][17]" As a summary of the strategic situation (ie before the fact) the references to "Australians" appear to be temporally out of context given the Australian forces had not landed? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: Are you now in a position to support this nomination? Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the short break. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several LCMs were used to move water forward." A little ambiguous as to where forward was. From where? presumably the wells were saline and water was shipped from nearby sources to the base? Pls clarify as best the sources might. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source is a bit unclear, but states that the water was delivered to "the forward area", which would have been the troops operating near the Japanese. I've tweaked the wording. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Politely, nup. I agree: would have been the troops operating near the Japanese. Question is: how close? JB was operating near the Japanese [and is likely "forward" in this context]. A lack of water at JB does not necessitate LCMs moving water from JB forward? The tweaking is worse and does not resolve the ambiguity. Your "tweak" just clarifies how ambiguous this is. I am looking at the source. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • ? Go for it then. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • HI, don't know if I have been successful in communicating the issue I see; however, ... Have looked at Mallett and war diary for 5th Div and 5th Sub-Area and have not seen ref to lack of water, water restrictions or transport of water by LCMs that would clarify Mallett. There is no specific citation by Mallett wrt this? Logically, if water was low at JB, it would be shipped to JB. Mallet's water carts might be a Furphy? Unless there is a source that can clarify where the water was being shipped from and to, it might be safest to remove the reference altogeather and simply say that: "... began to run dry. Water restrictions were imposed. While wells were dug the water found ..."
            • From re-reading the source, it seems that Jacquinot Bay was totally out of water for few days, so water was shipped there. I've amended accordingly. This could be omitted given that it seems to have been a minor crisis. Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following day, bad weather affected further landing operations around the bay. The beachhead around Wunung was found to be unsatisfactory, while operations ceased at Kamalgaman and the landing of the 1 NGIB troops around Pomio had to be delayed, although the beach around Mal Mal was useable and the nearby road found to be suitable for jeeps. This "although" seems out of place and what follows seems unclear. Is this what is intended?
The following day, bad weather affected further landing operations around the bay. The beach around Mal Mal was useable and the nearby road found to be suitable for jeeps; however, the beachhead around Wunung was found to be unsatisfactory. Operations ceased at Kamalgaman and the landing of the 1 NGIB troops around Pomio had to be delayed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that reads better. Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, have revised sections and made suggestions for voice/readability. Please check re 8th Area Army edit for citation continuity and generally that I haven't made any typos - if acceptable. Regards Cinderella157 (talk)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • IJN is the Imperial Japanese Navy. not the Army
  • In late April 1944, the US Army's 40th Infantry Division assumed responsibility for garrisoning the Allied positions in New Britain. The use of an Australian division was considered at this time, but rejected in favour of bringing the 40th Division up from the Solomons as requiring too much shipping. It was understood that the move would have to be done later.
  • As a result, the fighting on New Britain devolved largely into what Peter Dennis has called I know who Peter is, but the reader is probably none the wiser.
  • In mid-1944, the Australian Government agreed to take on responsibility for the military operations in the northern Solomon Islands and Australian New Guinea, including New Britain, as US troops were reallocated towards operations to secure the Philippines. These were Australian territories. (For some reason, people forget that Bougainville was part of Australian New Guinea - Blamey had to remind Curtin of this.) The Australians also took over in Dutch New Guinea.
  • By the time of the Australian take-over New paragraph here.
  • Sandover and his three battalion commanders were all Australian Imperial Force veterans who had taken part in the fighting against the Germans and Italians in North Africa, Greece and Syria during 1941 and 1942. Actually, they fought the French in Syria. (Why not name the battalion commanders at this point?)
  • The 36th Battalion was dispatched to Cape Hoskins from Lae, in early October,[28] and relieved a battalion of the US 158th Infantry Regiment. This was the 158th Regimental Combat Team (Bushmasters), was not part of the 40th Infantry Division, and was not there. (Has a look.) Argggh, typo. You want the 185th Infantry, which was part of the 40th Division.
  • The company from the 594th Engineer Boat and Shore Regiment, equipped with 14 LCMs and 9 Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel (LCVPs) Perhaps mention this when B Co., 594th EBSR is introduced?
  • allowed the LCMs to withdrawn by mid-April 1945 Be withdrawn?
  • As Allied intelligence regarding the Japanese was still uncertain Or indeed, as has already been mentioned, incorrect. Ultra tended to miss small logistical units, but as the combat units diminished, they were fed into the fight as reinforcements. Repeated underestimates in 1942-44 made Australian and American commanders wary, especially as they could not be quickly reinforced if things went wrong. In some areas, the Japanese were quite aggressive; those in Rabaul were not.
  • The Australian advance was hampered by shortages of shipping, aircraft and communications What communications are we talking about? And how did an aircraft shortage affect the advance?
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for taking a look at this, Hawkeye. Please let me know what you think of the changes? @Nick-D: would you mind taking a look and adding anything you think I may have missed? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good to me Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi @Nick-D and AustralianRupert: just a few gnomish suggestions and questions...

Citations and Bibliography

That's all folks, thanks JennyOz (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz: thanks your time with this, Jenny. I have responded to your comments above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @AustralianRupert: happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

James Crichton (soldier)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

James Crichton (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

James Crichton was the last soldier of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) of WWI to be awarded the VC, for his actions during the Hundred Days Offensive. The article went through a GA review earlier this year. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and, all going well, seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

  • Copyedited as usual so pls let me know any issues; outstanding points:
    • "Nicknamed Scotty, he joined the British Army by enlisting in the Royal Scots Regiment at the age of 18" -- Are nicknames usually italicised? I would've expected either quote marks or nothing at all... Also, did one directly enlist in a British Army regiment back then? Or did he enlist in the army and was allotted to the regiment?
    • I take it none of the sources elaborate on his experiences during the Boer War?
    • "Promoted to corporal" -- I'm guessing that although we can assume he joined the NZMF as a private, the sources don't say so explicitly?
    • "Crichton harboured a desire to serve with the infantry" -- "harboured a desire" reads a little oddly to me, do the sources support "expressed a desire", or something else?
    • "He later stated that he had been selected for officer training, but a senior officer in the Auckland Infantry Regiment offered to arrange his transfer if permission was obtained." -- Do we mean selected for officer training in his bakery mustering? I assume so but we should probably spell out...
      • Have clarified that the officer training would have been with the NZASC. 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Zawed (talk)
    • "Crichton was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his subsequent deeds." -- I realise the citation tells us everything but perhaps we could paraphrase that into a sentence in place of the somewhat bland "subsequent deeds"...
    • "Crichton resumed his pre-war profession as a cable splicer" -- It seems a bit odd we didn't learn of this pre-war profession in the pre-war section of the article...
    • "worked on merchant ships travelling between New Zealand and England" -- Again I assume nothing in the sources on his specific role or duties?
  • Detail-wise I feel there are some gaps for A-Class, per comments above -- hoping there might be some more info out there.
  • Images -- Licensing of works from IWM and Auckland War Memorial Museum looks satisfactory.
  • Sources -- Appear reliable and formatted correctly.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert: Support: G'day, nice work. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox, it lists his years of service as 1899-1904, however, in the prose it says he joined the Royal Scots at the age of 18. He would have been 18 over the period 15 July 1897 to 14 July 1898, so this seems to contradict the infobox. Additionally, the body of the article implies he served in the British Army for seven years, not five ("at the age of 18. Two years later, he transferred to the Cameron Highlanders. He remained with the Highlanders for five years...)
  • (NZEF) in October 1914..: remove the second full stop
  • He served in the Gallipoli Campaign: I assume with the New Zealand and Australian Division at Anzac Cove?
  • In May 1918: we seem to jump from mid-1916 to early 1918 between the first and second paragraphs. Is there anything that could be said about Crichton's service in this period? I understand that he was in a support role, and that such service tends to be glossed over, but even a single sentence might work. For instance, "After their arrival in Europe in [DATE], Crichton's unit was employed behind the lines in support of the New Zealand Division, moving many times throughout the next two years to various locations around France and Belgium"... Of course, this requires a source that actually says this, so if it doesn't exist, obviously it can't be said, but I wonder if you could look for something like this to fill in the gap here.
  • he would be reduced in rank if he was to proceed with the transfer --> "he would be reduced in rank if he proceeded with the transfer}}?
  • Auckland Infantry Regiment appears to be overlinked
  • He later stated that he had been selected for officer training with the NZASC: this seems a rather passive way of wording this. Is there reason to doubt it is true? If not, I'd suggest maybe rewording, thusly: "He had been selected for officer training with the NZASC, but he turned this down when a senior..."
  • Too easy, sounds fair enough. 02:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • During the Hundred Days Offensive, on 30 September 1918: was this action part of a named battle? If so, I think we should mention it here?

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • The lead seems a little light on detail, particularly on what he did to earn his VC, considering it's the sole reason for his notability
  • I agree with Sturm that a little more detail on the Boer War would be nice though I can believe there's nothing specific about Crichton in the sources so maybe a sentence or two about what his regiment was doing during the time he was there?
  • This was always a part of the article that was a bit frustrating to deal with since there is so little about his service during this time. I have expanded with a bit of detail about what his unit did during some of this time. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crichton's VC was the last to be won I believe the term "won" is frowned upon for military awards
  • Since you only have one short footnote, why not just incorporate it into the prose in parentheses?
  • It is a style thing for me, I have used this format with a few other VC articles that I have brought for A-Class review. If you insist I will do so, but my preference would be to use footnotes. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace on 27 February maybe change "ceremony" → "investiture"?

These are all fairly minor points. With a little spit-polish, I see no reason why this shouldn't succeed at ACR and FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell thanks for the review, much appreciated. I have responded to your various points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm happy with the responses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Catrìona (talk)

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This event, described as "one of the most bizarre escapes" of World War II, involved an SS guard who risked (and ultimately lost) his life to help an Auschwitz prisoner escape. The escapee then insisted on breaking into a different concentration camp. The article has recently benefitted from a thorough GA review by Gog the Mild.

The literature is somewhat sparse, but my search was very thorough. Recently I went through both Google Scholar and Google Books with both spellings of Lederer's name and found nothing new with substantive coverage. The only scholarly source that I am aware of offering substantive coverage that I haven't referenced here is a four page report by Alena Vlčková in Štěnovice a osobnosti. A bigger problem is that many authors have not applied a rigorous investigative approach to this subject, even the ones that really should really know better. Catrìona (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Do we know exactly which Waffen-SS unit Pestek was in?
Unfortunately, the unit name/designation is not to be found in any of the sources.
Pity. Is there any info on when he enlisted? Or if he was a Party member?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of the sources give dates. (OR alert) He must have joined the SS after April 1941, because the SS did not accept recruits under 17. Given what we know about him I find it highly unlikely that he was a party member, but there's no information on that either. Catrìona (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was forgetting how young he was. I was just kinda curious because there weren't many Waffen-SS units on anti-partisan ops during Barbarossa in that area. My best guess would be the SS Cavalry Brigade or the 1st SS Infantry Brigade, but that's entirely speculation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain what BII-d is
Clarified "BIId section". I also added an aerial photograph/map.
All linked
  • It's not immediately clear what "deported on the next transport" really means. The following bit about the murder of his family does show that it means something really bad, but I think that the current phrasing is very euphemistic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does come off as euphemistic, but that is how it usually described in most of the sources. The authors expect the reader to know that "less than half a percent [of those deported in 1942] survived the war." (as is stated in one of the footnotes of this article). One can't write "deported on the next transport to a death camp" because it's not strictly accurate. Many of the transports in 1942 went to ghettos, although almost all the victims ended up dead either way.
Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • This is a really interesting episode, thanks for putting it together.
Thank you for reviewing it.
  • link antisemitism in the lead
Linked Soviet anti-Zionism
  • I had the same query as Sturm regarding what Waffen-SS unit he was in, but if it isn't in the sources there is little that can be done.
  • who is Langbein? I mean this in the sense that you should introduce him. You should also link him because he is notable. You could split this sentence and make the second sentence about what Langbein said. Along the lines of "...adventure.[3] According to the writer and Auschwitz concentration camp survivor survivor Hermann Langbein, Pestek's mother persuaded him to join the Waffen-SS."
Done
  • suggest "During his service, Pestek was involved in anti-..."
Done
  • link Lederer at first mention
Done
  • state that Lederer was a Jew, this isn't explicitly stated from the outset in his section
Done
  • link Lieutenant Colonel
Done
  • is Weidmann likely to be notable?
If so, there is no indication in the Karny paper, which just has a passing mention.
  • suggest "Zbraslav gendarmerie" and link gendarmerie
Done
  • so, was Lederer not arrested for being a Jew, but for resistance activities? This becomes clearer later, but perhaps it should be explicitly stated that the Gestapo picked him up for his political activities, if sources are clear on this?
Done
  • what family did Lederer have?
Zdražilová mentions a father and sisters

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cierer and his family" who is this? They should be introduced when first mentioned. Is it necessary to intro them at this point, or should this be later?
clarified
  • link Kapo (concentration camp)
Already linked (blockältester redirects to that article)
  • suggest "Leichenkommando, which was responsible for the disposal of corpses."
done
  • suggest "When interrogated later, Cierer..."
done
  • suggest "Other sources state that it was Lederer..."
done
  • suggest "because he was wanteddetained"
done
  • suggest "They planned to escape with Lederer disguised as an SS man. They planned to return to the camp as SS officers, and then present a forged Gestapo warrant for the arrest of Renée Neumann and her mother in order to effect their rescue." or similar
rewrote
  • suggest "he obtained an official Gestapo form for the forging of the arrest warrant." If that is what is being referred to? Or is this the request for the vehicle and driver?
done
  • suggest "and Lederer bicycled out of the gate after Pestek." if that is what is meant?
changed to "both men bicycled out of the gate". The source doesn't say who was first.
  • link Prague
done
  • is Birkenau shorthand for Auschwitz II-Birkenau? With no link, this might be confusing for the casual reader, so I suggest using the full name of the camp
done
  • it is unclear what Pestek had to do to modify his uniform, as he was already in the Waffen-SS?
This is what it says in the source. I'm guessing that, when serving in concentration camps, Waffen-SS men wore the death's head tabs on their uniforms.
  • suggest "to arrest the two womenRenée Neumann and her mother."
done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having read through it a few times to try to make sense of it, the set-up of the Return and Aftermath sub/sections threw me. Surely the article should be in chronological order with Lederer's activities in the Protectorate before returning to Auschwitz preceding the Return? From my reading of it, it appears he broke into Theresienstadt concentration camp several times to try to warn the inmates before he went back with Pestek? Is that right? I'm going to review these in order, but I suggest re-arranging the narrative to flow chronologically, with his activities in the Protectorate, then the Return, then his activities after.
I've changed the structure here although I'm of two minds about it, since it requires making a determination of the unclear chronology. Only the first visit to Theresienstadt was definitely before the return to Auschwitz.
  • suggest "Pestek and Lederer returned to Auschwitz, probably in late May,[p]"
I think the jury is still out on this one, since the highest quality source available, Karny, only gives a range and discusses conflicting testimony. It's unclear where Levine, Langbein etc. are getting the exact date from. Also, if it was in late May, it's unclear where Pestek was hiding in the meantime.
  • kapos is italicised here but not earlier, be consistent
Fixed
  • when we get to "the nearby town of Travčice", it isn't clear we are back in the Protectorate, and nearby to what city/town?
Near Theresienstadt
  • "how to sneak past the sentries" of what facility? Is this Theresienstadt concentration camp? But then there is a reference to a ghetto? Which ghetto is this? Theresienstadt Ghetto?
"Theresienstadt concentration camp" can refer either to the detention facility for Jews or a nearby Gestapo prison (the Small Fortress) or both. Some sources describe the Jewish location as a "camp-ghetto" but recent opinion puts it more into the ghetto category. Anyway, for clarity I've changed all references to Theresienstadt to "ghetto" where appropriate.
  • was the report to Holzer a verbal or written one?
Presumably verbal, but not specified. Changed the wording so it doesn't suggest a written report.
  • Mischling is used in Note [t] but not explained or linked
Linked
  • Czechia?
Changed to the Protectorate
  • I don't follow "he fled to Slovakia, where he joined the Kriváň partisan group and tried to cross the border to fight in the Slovak National Uprising (August–September 1944), and was wounded in the attempt" Should the Slovak Republic be linked here? If he joined a partisan group in the Slovak Republic, why would he need to cross a border to engage in the uprising?
Clarified this
  • first it talks about a partisan group named after S. P. Vezděněv, then immediately discusses his role in the Plzeňák 28 group. Are these one and the same? If not, I don't see the connection here.
Lederer said he was involved in both groups, but there is only documentary evidence for his membership in the latter group. I've tweaked the text to be more clear.
  • suggest "Lederer remained in the Slovak Republic and then Czechoslovakia..." if that is what is meant
No, he went back to the Protectorate after the uprising.
  • now we learn that Lederer was previously married. What happened to his first wife?
I had assumed that he was previously married, but I can't find a definitive reference. I've changed this to "married."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler likely to be notable? If so, redlink.
They are bluelinked in the "Auschwitz" section.
  • who is/was Eduard Kotora?
He is introduced in the Switzerland section, but I've clarified his role in the postwar period.

That's me done. Just a couple of additional points to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thrown by the reorganisation of the chronology. This is a great article, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:BIIb_block_Birkenau_aerial_photograph.png should include a source and copyright tag for the underlying image
Done (PD-ineligible, made by a mechanical process)
Looks like the source file has a different tag - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it's wrong on the source file, so I changed it. The original uploader specified PD-ineligible. Catrìona (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Per the USHMM record, now linked, the photograph was first published with the rest of the Auschwitz Album in the United States in a 1980 book. Courtesy ping @Nikkimaria: Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The EU-anon tag has copyright persist "70 years after the work was made available to the public" - if that didn't happen until 1980 then the tag would have this still copyrighted in the EU. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've removed the tag. The Auschwitz Album is still non-controversially PD, per Yad Vashem, the USHMM, and deletion discussions on Commons. Catrìona (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which deletion discussions? I don't see one for this image... Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The Auschwitz Album photographs were taken together and published at the same time, so the same copyright status should apply to all of them. See this DR for another one of the images which was dismissed as a "Non sense request" by Yann. Catrìona (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright

Be aware that this article was already copyedited by Baffle gab1978. I think the syntax is pretty good, and while I welcome improvements please be aware of Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Things that do not need to be fixed. I think that your extremely prescriptive version of grammar doesn't necessarily improve the article. Catrìona (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am aware - I reviewed the article’s talk page before offering my comments and it tells a different story. In your post to the editor referenced, you said, "thanks for agreeing to review the article". In response, the editor said, "I am far from an expert on A-class, but I shall make what suggestions I can." This seems to refute the notion that a suitable copyedit was actually made. In any case, a formal copyedit would certainly benefit the article, if made by an independent and experienced copyeditor.
  • As for the syntax comment, most people acknowledge that they are not always the best judges of their own work. That's why articles are copyedited and reviewed, especially at the A-class level.
  • In your last comment you said, "I think that your extremely prescriptive version of grammar doesn't necessarily improve the article." You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. It's not my version, it's an accepted rule of grammar, and it is hardly prescriptive. The MOS recognizes parenthetical material under Commas and Appositives. The MOS also says Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with modern editions of other guides to style and usage, which may cover details not included in the MOS. Those that have most influenced the Wikipedia Manual of Style are the Chicago Manual of Style (University of Chicago Press), my favorite, as well as many other editions.
  • I don’t know what prmpted your comments, perhaps it was my remark about parenthetical material, or maybe it was just the fact I questioned your work. What I do know, though, is you probably didn’t do too well on the basic Wikipedia etiquette level, which stresses be polite, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. Pendright (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: I think you might be confused. The article received a GA review from Gog the Mild, which is on the talk page. I think this might be what you are referring to? After passing this review, I submitted a copy edit request to the Guild of Copy Editors. This request was answered by Baffle gab who made a series of copy edits to the article. Incidentally, Baffle gab is in the GOCE hall of fame. I intended no personal attack in my remarks but I was concerned that some of your suggestions did not actually improve the article. Catrìona (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Catrìona: If it is what you say about the copyedit, I stand corrected.
  • You said, “I was concerned that some of your suggestions did not actually improve the article.” I assume it’s the parenthetical material comment. As for your response, it’s still an opinion, not a rational discussion of the rule of grammar covering the situation, which you would afford any other reviewer. In any case, I’ve had my say and I have no ill feelings, whatsoever, but I do hope you’ll brush up on parenthetical usage. Pendright (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • On the night of 5 April 1944, Siegfried Lederer, a Czech Jew who was imprisoned at the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, escaped wearing an SS uniform provided by SS-Rottenführer Viktor Pestek.
, a Czech Jew who was imprisoned at the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, - This phrase is punctuated as a parenthetical element, which is a word or group of words that interrupts the flow of a sentence and adds additional (but nonessential) information to that sentence. Commas are generally used to set off the element in a sentence. It is a part of the sentence that can be removed without changing the essential meaning of the sentence. However, this phrase is an essential part of the sentence: suggest changes to reflect this.
 Not done Per WP:LEDE, the lede only contains the most important information. Does that mean that parentheticals should never be used in the lede?
@Catrìona: Context: The issue is still the same, which is, treating essential information as nonessential information. While the MOS is Wikipedia's in-house style guide, it is not the last word in usage and style guides. Under further reading, the MOS speaks to external style guides in this way:
Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with modern editions of other guides to style and usage, which may cover details not included here. Those that have most influenced the Wikipedia Manual of Style are:
  • The Chicago Manual of Style
  • Oxford Guide to Style
  • Scientific Style and Format
  • Garner's Modern English Usage
  • Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage
  • The Elements of Style
The Chicago Manual of Style has been in print since 1906, and has this to say about essential and nonessential information:
  • A phrase that is restrictive, that is, essential to the meaning of the noun it belongs to, should not be set off by commas. A nonrestrictive phrase, however, should be enclosed in commas.
  • A relative clause that is restrictive-that is, essential to the meaning of the sentence-is neither preceded nor followed by a comma. But a nonrestrictive clause that could be omitted without essential loss of meaning (nonrestrictive clause) should be preceded an (if the sentence continues) followed by a comma.
  • A word, abbreviation, phrase, that is a appositive to a noun is set off by commas if it is nonrestrictive-that is, omiitable, containing supplemental rather than essential information. If it is restrictive-essential to the noun it belongs to-no commas should appear.
The act of Setting off the phrase by commas made the phrase supplemental or omittable information. Grammatically, such information can be or is excluded when reading the sentence. Pendright (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He accompanied Lederer out of the camp and the two men traveled together to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia to obtain false documents for Neumann and her mother.
(a) Did anything notable happen in therir travels to obtain false documents?
I stand corrected - Pendright (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(b) Quite a long sentence, consider breaking it up with a comma.
plus Added a comma.
  • Lederer, a former Czechoslovak Army officer and member of the Czech resistance, unsuccessfully
, a former Czechoslovak Army officer and member of the Czech resistance, - Again, this phrase is essential to the sentence.
  • After the war he remained in Czechoslovakia and remarried, but he faced antisemitic persecution from the Soviets.
After the war is a introductory pharse and is usually followed by a comma.
 Not done I think it reads fine as it is.
A few years ago I asked my English teacher about commas and introductory phrases and he said that they weren't required, although he felt longer ones needed commas. So a style thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Pestek

[edit]
  • Pestek, whose father was a blacksmith and a small farmer, learned these trades as a young man but joined the Waffen-SS because of his innate sense of adventure.
, whose father was a blacksmith and a small farmer,
(a) Again, this phrase is essential to the sentence.
(b) Consider a comma after man
 Done

In progress - Pendright (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • Who is Siegfried Lederer? You should introduce him to the reader in two or three words on first mention, especially since he doesn't have an article in English
Fixed this issue by putting the Lederer section first
  • You use quite a few explanatory footnotes; consider whether all of them are really necessary—could some be removed or incorporated into the prose?
I've cut it down to nine notes.
  • Consider grouping references at the ends of paragraphs
I try to keep references close to the text that they support to increase verifiability
  • The Nazis, however, were planning to kill each group six months after their arrival It's not strictly necessary, but why the six-month delay?
That's not simple to explain, see the longer explanation on Theresienstadt family camp
  • What does "organizing" mean in this context?
Added a short explanation
  • "I hate myself for having to watch women and children be killed... You need a ref directly a quote, especially a long one.
It does have a reference. The quote was in a German-language source. The German original is in the footnote, with a direct citation, which is recommended for user translated quotes per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE.
The kapo article is already linked earlier in the paragraph, for "block elder" (redirects to the same article). Another editor asked me to also link "kapo". I think having three links to the same article is probably too much.
What do you think of this edit? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, "kapo" is not synonymous with "prisoner functionary"; the former refers only to prisoners who supervised other prisoners and work details, while prisoner functionary includes clerks, and various others who had administrative roles. I ended up restoring the article prisoner functionary for the moment (it had been redirected to "kapo") and changed it so there is no link to "block elder" but linked "prisoner functionary" and "kapo". Catrìona (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—more to come in the morning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pestek's actions should be evaluated more favorably than those of the guards who helped inmates escape during the evacuation of the camp in January 1945 in hopes of avoiding punishment for their crimes That sounds like an opinion but it appears to be written in Wikipedia's voice.
Changed to "Langbein evaluates Pestek's actions..."
  • I'd recommend putting the explanatory notes and translations under a separate level 2 header rather than under "references"
Done

Other than some minor nit-picking, the article appears to be in very good shape. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just noting for the record that I consider all my comments to be resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Disclosure: I assessed this article for GAN.

  • Suggestion only: "His unit was ordered to attack a village suspected to contain partisans" -> 'suspected of containing partisans'?
Done
  • "Pestek later said of this incident; "I was a murderer, and a Soviet partisan …" That should be a colon, not a semi colon.
Fixed
  • "He was dismissed from the fire brigade because he was caught smoking; he lost his protection from transports" This seems to me a little clumsy in two ways. "transports" seems to need a definite article, but would it be better to write 'transportation'? Possibly breaking the sentence there? And the semi colon doesn't really work for me; perhaps '... smoking and so lost...'?
Changed this sentence to be more readable
  • Suggestion only: "exactly six months from their arrival, the Jews from the family camp" Two "from's". Perhaps 'after' for the first one?* "he stole an SS uniform, pistol, and paybook for Lederer, who hid the supplies in a double wall" None of the items mentioned constitute "supplies". Suggest either adding supplies to the list or replacing "the supplies" with 'them'.
Changed to "them"
  • "On 20 April, before the return to Auschwitz, Lederer made the first of four or five visits to the Theresienstadt ghetto." "before the return to Auschwitz" seems unnecessary her. Can I suggest deleting it?
Removed
  • I have boldly made a couple of minor copy edits. Hopefully you are happy with them, but if not could you flag them up here?
Thanks!

Notwithstanding these minor points this is a fine article. It is noticeably improved since I assessed it for GA. Bravo. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solid stuff. Happy to support for A class. While here, can I make a couple of comments regarding your generally admirable writing style? A rhetorical question of course.

  1. You seem unduly fond of semi colons. They have their place, but to my mind this article would read better if about half of them were replaced by full stops, with associated minor rewording. Not, for me, an issue at A class; it may be at FAC.
  2. You also seem unduly fond of notes - a tendency I share. Many in this article could be incorporated into the text, possibly within parentheses; or while interesting are a little out of focus and could be dispensed with.

To be clear: this is a fine article; I wish that I could write as well as you; and my thoughts on ;;'s and notes may reflect my predilections more than anything you actually need to change.

Gog the Mild (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Gog the Mild - Pass

[edit]

Placeholder. It's a'coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all solidly reliable, being from reputable publishers or scholarly journals, with the exception of a couple of the web sites referenced where the context for this is clearly identified in the text. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

  • Cites 25 and 32 should be "pp.", not "p.".
  • Cilek. The English title should be in title case.
  • Czech. As above.
  • Tsur. As above.
  • Zdražilová. As above.
  • Zdražilová. The level of the thesis should be stated in the source. Eg "(PhD thesis)". (And was it accepted?)
  • Theresienstädter Studien und Dokumente (Kárný) should have an OCLC number. (Hint - 640335157)

Gog the Mild (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all of this except Zdražilová. I was unable to find whether it was a master's or PhD thesis, so I asked Chetsford—hopefully they will be able to figure it out. As an aside, I have a pdf of Karny and a word document from a scan of Tsur, so I would be happy to share those with you if you'd like to do more source checks. Catrìona (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, but I am happy with the checks I have done. When you submit it for FA ping me and remind me.
I am happy with everything except Zdražilová. If Chetsford reads Czech, then this may be the key document. (I can't persuade it to auto-translate and my Czech isn't up to academic terminology. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I ran the pdf through OCR and Google translate. It appears that it is a Diplomová práce (master's thesis). I could not tell if it was accepted, but the reviewers complained about spelling/grammar errors but praised the content and research. I'll wait to see what Chetsford says. Catrìona (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it might be. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Gog the Mild (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I've removed all references to Zdr. A bit of a shame, she had some interesting information on his family background. Catrìona (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you might have to. As you say, a great shame. I wish that there were some way around it, but I don't think there is. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

Thank you all for all your helpful comments, I've listed this for closure since we have three supports. Hoping to take this to FAC soon. Catrìona (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Lothringen

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Lothringen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


Who'd have thought that I'd get the last battleship of the German Imperial Navy to a MILHIST A-class review? Lothringen was under repair during the Battle of Jutland and wasn't available when the rest of her squadron sortied with the German fleet for the battle. The ship was one of the few battleships retained by Germany after the war, though she was only used as a parent ship for minesweepers while Germany fulfilled the requirement to clear the North Sea of mines. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

I think this is just wonderful. I'm not all that fond of ship articles as a general rule, but I had a very enjoyable time reading this very thorough article which is superbly illustrated and composed in a compelling prose. I have a few very minor comments you can consider or discard, at your leisure.

  • The article is 14,819 characters; the manual of style (MOS:LEADLENGTH) advises a lead of "One or two paragraphs" for articles of this length. However, it's so close I think you should just keep the lead as it is.
  • I feel like at some point the Baltic Sea could be wikilinked.
    • Good point.
  • I feel like adding the literal translation (President of the Realm) after Reichspräsident is a bit clunky.

Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Parsec, nice work. I have a few minor suggestions, but otherwise it looks good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, was the fifth of five --> "last of five"?
    • Agree that that's better
  • in the lead, She was laid down in 1902, was launched in May 1904, and was commissioned in May 1906 --> "She was laid down in December 1902, was launched in May 1904, and was commissioned in May 1906"?
    • Added
  • in the lead, Hessen's peacetime career centered --> Lothringen's?
    • Fixed
  • in the infobox, "December 1902" (as the laid down date) does not appear in the body
    • Added the full date to both
  • in the infobox, "16,000 ihp (12,000 kW)" compared with "15,781 ihp; 11,768 kW" in the body
    • Fixed
  • the launching speed --> "speech"?
    • Funny what the fingers type sometimes, eh?
  • Prince Heinrich had --> wikilink name on first mention
    • Done
  • same as above for "Wilhelm II"
    • Done
  • island of Helgoland --> move link to the first mention of Helgoland
    • Done
  • KAdm: has this abbreviation been formally introduced?
    • Fixed
  • same as above for "VAdm"

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • In the infobox, how many torpedo tubes?
    • Good catch
  • And what kind of length and displacement?
    • Added
  • conversions for metric horsepower differ between the infobox and main body
    • Fixed
  • Give a translation of Vizeadmiral on first use
    • Good catch
  • What kind of machinery spaces?
    • Clarified
  • Link minefield, reserve, capital ship, Kiel, Kiel Canal in the infobox photo, battlecruiser,
    • Done all but "reserve" - what would you link that to? Military reserve force seems to be the closest option, but it doesn't really apply either.
  • Multiple conversions of 28 cm
    • Removed one
  • The fleet conducted training exercises in the Baltic in February 1908. Prince Heinrich had pressed for such a cruise the previous year, arguing that it would prepare the fleet for overseas operations and would break up the monotony of training in German waters, though tensions with Britain over the developing Anglo-German naval arms race were high. The fleet departed Kiel on 17 July, passed through the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal to the North Sea, and continued to the Atlantic. The fleet returned to Germany on 13 August. How do the first and second sentences connect?
    • There was a missing line that introduced the cruise - not sure how I left that out
  • the German navy could then Capitalize navy
    • Done
  • Why was her armor not sold?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

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

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Elands River (1900)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) and AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of Elands River (1900) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about an action during the Second Boer War that become known as a moment of Australian resistance against overwhelming odds. The article was expanded by AustralianRupert back in 2012, and passed a GAN several months ago. Kges1901 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • The "For other uses" disambiguation at the top of the page is too broad, as there is only a single alternative use. A different template should be used.
  • attacked a garrison of 500 Australian, Rhodesian, Canadian and British soldiers, who were stationed at Brakfontein Drift near the Elands River to act as a garrison for a British supply dump. Over the course of 13 days, the garrison was heavily shelled and attacked with small arms. "Attacked" is in two adjacent sentences. Perhaps changing one or the other would help.
  • The lead needs expansion. A little on the background would be nice, as would something about its implications.
  • a quantity of ammunition, food and other equipment worth over 100,000 pounds. Clarify that pounds is being used as a monetary value, not a measurement of weight.
  • Desperate for supplies, Boer forces decided to attack the garrison with the view to securing the supplies located there. "Supplies" X2. Perhaps "provisions" or "materiel", etc.
  • about 30 loyalist European settlers who, because of their support for the British, were being evacuated from the area. I presume this means that the settlers had withdrawn to the farm but had yet to actually evacuate? A minor clarification would help.
  • Wikilink pom-pom to QF 1-pounder pom-pom, if applicable.
    • Done.
  • Hore, who had been suffering from malaria, had become ill by this time. If we was suffering from malaria, he was already ill. Perhaps there's a better way to phrase how it worsened to a point where he could no longer effectively command.
  • This article says the garrison had only one machine, but the Australian War Memorial says it had two. The source also gives information that needs to be included, such as an estimate on the Boer's artillery output, the fact that the hospital was struck in the bombardment, and details on the burial and re-internment of those killed.
  • This source (p. 196) says that the original garrison at Elands river was one of three positions established to guard the Mafeking-Pretoria supply line. Might be worth a clarification in the background.
  • The Rhodesiana article appears to have more info about this battle, such as the building which was used as a hospital and the implications of Carrington's bumbling relief efforts. Unless there are concerns about POV pushing (the journal was published in apartheid Rhoedesia), this info should be incorporated into the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor point, really, but Ransford & Kinsey say "An Australian in the relief force later commented that 'Carrington had earned an unenviable reputation among the men under his command'. The hurried retreat to Mafeking, he said, was 'something no Australian who took part will ever forget'.* When Lord Roberts heard of it he immediately ordered Carrington back to Elands River, but the cautious general moved so slowly that his troops only reached the camp after its relief". These details about Carrington being ordered back should be included in the article. A think a final glance over this journal article to make sure all points are covered should be made. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: Thanks, Indy, I think I have gotten the important points now, hopefully. Added a couple of minor points from Wilcox now I have access to a scan of the relevant pages. These are the changes: [5]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to support. Well done. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:AWM_A05317_3rd_New_South_Wales_Bushmen_Elands_River_1901.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:AWM_A05318_Sangars_at_Elands_River.jpg, File:AWM_A05312_Graves_of_Australians_killed_at_Elands_River_1900.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, Nikki, thanks for taking a look at this. I have adjusted the licences and descriptions as they are owned by the Australian government and are more than 50 years old. The AWM entries indicate they are PD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thank you for taking a look at this. I think I've gotten everything. Please let me know if there is anything more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Gog the Mild - Support

[edit]
  • ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated.
  • Would it be possible to alternatively cite the single reference to Wisser? There is nothing wrong with it per se, but I do not think it appropriate to use sources published while the conflict was still ongoing.
  • Have replaced it as Ransford and Kinsey essentially says the same thing.
  • The source, Rainsford and Kinsey, does not seem to support the article's contention that Carrington's new command was "nominal", nor that it was the Rhodesian Field Force.
  • The 'nominal' is from Beckett and so is the fact that Carrington remained in Rhodesia. The British troops in Rhodesia at the time were called the Rhodesian Field Force, which is why I included that. Kges1901 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But in that case, just what is Rainsford and Kinsey [18], which comes immediately after "Carrington continued nominal command of the Rhodesian Field Force", citing?
  • Removed as it isn't really necessary.

All of the sources seem appropriately reliable. I had my doubts regarding Rhodesiana, but digging into it it is up to scratch. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. With the minor exception above the sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked it. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the information in them to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

@Kges1901 and AustralianRupert: Three comments above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for taking a look at this Gog. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Disclosure: I assessed this article at GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion over putting "support" against the source review. What is the correct procedure for indicating that a source review is satisfactory?

No worries, the confusion was mostly mine, I'm sure. Not sure there is a set way, but I would probably just write some variation of "source review - passed" or something like that? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds sensible, will do.
  • " The Boer force, which consisted of several commandos under Koos de la Rey" Maybe 'under the overall command of'? I assume that each commando had its own commander?
  • Done, good catch.
Not done.
  • "and others who had melted away into civilian life to avoid capture upon surrender" This doesn't really make sense to me: "avoid capture upon surrender"?
  • Done, removed as redundant
  • "about 1 kilometre (0.62 mi)" Spurious accuracy in the conversion.
  • I don't see how this is an issue
It's not a deal breaker, but it seems silly to convert about 1 km to the nearest 20 m/yd.
It does. Thank you.
  • "the ground to the north, south and west of the supply dump dropped to the river where the Reit Valley opened towards Zeerust 50 kilometres (31 mi) away" I know what you are trying to say here, but it reads as if the ground dropped for 50 km.
  • Added a comma before the 50 km statement.
  • Optional: "Little attempt had been made, however, to dig-in as the ground … " Personally I would delete "however" and insert a comma after "dig-in".
  • Done
  • "with 105 being from A Squadron of the New South Wales Citizen Bushmen and 141 from the Queensland Citizen Bushmen along with 42 Victorians and nine Western Australians from the 3rd Bushmen Regiment as well as two from Tasmania." This is a heck of a partial sentence, and not a single comma. Consider rewording? Or at least adding some punctuation.
  • Have added commas.
  • "along with three Canadians and three British" Should that not be 'Britons'?
  • Done
  • Optional: "were being evacuated from the area, and had moved to the farm prior to being withdrawn from the area" Two "the area"s.
  • Combined both clauses because this can be said with only one clause.
  • "although their casualties were light, consisting of only 17 wounded, they were forced to withdraw." Just checking that "forced" accurately reflects the source cited and the consensus of other sources. As opposed, for example, to 'Carrington chose'.
  • Carrington took a lot of heat for the retreat as it was seen as an overreaction, so the latter option that you suggest is more accurate
  • Optional: "When it became apparent that their relief had been turned back, the Boer commander, de la Rey, seeking a way to end the siege before another relief force could be sent, ordered his men to cease fire and sent a messenger to the garrison calling upon them to surrender; the garrison, however, rejected the offer and as a result the attack resumed and was subsequently continued throughout the night." A bit of a long sentence. Maybe replace the semi-colon with a full stop?
  • Done
  • "After the siege had been in place for a week, de la Rey again called upon the garrison to surrender,[6] as he became concerned about being caught there by the relief forces. The message was received by Hore around 9:00 am on the fifth day of the siege" Which?
  • "As a result, the weight of fire that the Boers brought down on the outpost also decreased before finally it ceased altogether." Possibly insert 'artillery' before "fire"?
  • No, because the Boers also fired small arms at them, so we can't specifically say artillery.
Fair enough. But in that case, could you have a look at "he decided that it was necessary to withdraw his artillery before superior numbers of British troops arrived in the area. As a result, the weight of fire that the Boers brought down on the outpost also decreased before finally it ceased altogether." The "as a result" caused me to think that the rest of the sentence only related to artillery fire, and I suspect that it would do the same for many readers.
In the original source for this statement the sentence about decreasing fire comes after the statement about the 200 man commando being left, so in the original source fire refers to in general and not specific artillery. I've reordered the paragraph as a result. Kges1901 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The loss of animals was also heavy, with only 210 left alive out of 1,750." Earlier you refer to "1,500 horses, mules or cattle" What type of animals made up the balance?
  • "the graves were improved with several slate headstones and white rocks from nearby to mark the outlines" I am not sure that "from nearby" adds any useful information.
  • Indeed, removed as redundant.
  • Link Australian War Memorial.
  • Done
  • ""...Colonials could have held out in such impossible circumstances"." Pedants' corner, there should be a space between the ellipsis and the start of the quote.
  • Done
  • ""...heroes who in the hour of trial...[had risen]...nobly to the occasion"" Similar, see MOS:ELLIPSIS. And in the following sentence.
  • Done
  • Optional: "who subsequently managed to escape through the Magaliesberg" Consider adding 'mountains to the end.
  • Done
  • "This ultimately prolonged the war which would continue for almost another two years." A comma after "war"?
  • Done
  • "Over a year after the siege at Brakfontein Drift … " I find this very confusing. I assume this is synonymous with the siege at Elands River? If so, why have you changed the usage?
  • Removed as redundant, it is pretty clear what siege is being talked about.
That's it from me. A pleasure to go through this article again. Just as solid as I remember it.
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: thanks for taking a look at this again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert and Kges1901: Thanks for the adjustments. Two points above I would be grateful if you could look at: de la Rey's leadership in the lead; and me being picky over the decreasing [artillery] fire. Plus a comment below just for consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional: "While the ground to the north, south and west of the supply dump dropped to the river where the Reit Valley opened towards Zeerust, 50 kilometres (31 mi) away, the ground to the east of the farm rose towards a high point which came to be known as Cossack Post Hill and which was used by the garrison defending the post to send messages to Rustenburg – 70 kilometres (43 mi) away – using a heliograph" Long sentence alert.

A magnificent article. More than happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time with this, Gog. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi, just a few comments and suggestions...

  • Australian colonies - refine link to #Establishment of British colonies
  • Done
  • dishonoured their parole after having surrendered - refine wlink to #Prisoners of war
  • Done
  • way point - wlink
  • Done
  • irregulars - wlink
  • Done
  • were being evacuated from the area, and had moved to the farm prior to being withdrawn from the area - 2 x "from the area", one can go
  • Done
  • After surrounding the garrison during the night while they were occupied entertaining themselves singing around their campfires,[4] the Boers' attack began early on 4 August after the garrison had been stood down for breakfast. - will be confusing to some readers ie who is doing what? ie "they were occupied" maybe 'the defenders were occupied' or start sentence 'The Boers surrounded...' then 'and began their attck early on 4 August...'
  • Done
  • conversions is it okay to have mixed orders of? eg 70 kilometres (43 mi) / 8 miles (13 km) and 3,000 yards (2,700 m) / 800 metres (870 yd)
  • Done
  • If (I'm only guessing, can't find it in MOS) they should be consistent metric > imp, then these 4 need flipping "He halted just 8 miles (13 km)" / "about 2,000 yards (1,800 m) away" / "about 4,300 yards (3,900 m) away" / "sallied over 200 yards (180 m) to".
  • "1,500 horses, mules or cattle" v "1,500 horses, mules and cattle" - suggest 'and' for consistency
  • Done
  • at which point Turnbridge - Tunbridge
  • Done
  • told him him that the Australians - 2 x him
  • Done
  • never surrender!"[23][21] - ref order
  • Problem appears to have been fixed.
  • citing previous instructions and warnings from Roberts - Roberts has not been introduced, his wlink is further down
  • Done
  • should mention his role, eg Commander-in-Chief of British Forces?
  • The loss of animals was also heavy, with only 210 left alive out of 1,750. - 1,500 mentioned twice before
  • This is a result of using two different sources with differing loss figures.
  • Bloemfontein - wlink?
  • Done
  • Done, also linked within the quote box.
  • Horner, David - authorlink
  • Done
  • Jeal, Tim - authorlink
  • Done
  • Pakenham, Thomas (historian) - authorlink
  • Done
  • Wilcox book title 1899–1901 - is that year span correct? not 1902?

That's it from me. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz: thanks for taking a look at this, Jenny. You have a fantastic eye for detail. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Kges1901 and AustralianRupert:, tweaks are spot on. I've added 2 follow up questions above (Roberts and conversions}, JennyOz (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz: thanks, Jenny, I believe Kges has addressed these now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both @AustralianRupert and Kges1901: for this fine article which I am happy to support. (I have only recently come to know that a relative was KIA in the Second Boer War. His date of death doesn't match any of the battle articles though. I am keen to read any future articles so would be happy for you to ping me, if you remember, if I miss any nominations.) Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Jenny, will do. I hope you can discover more about your relative. If you haven't done so already, you might be able to find their service record through the National Archives, which might help a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Auberoche

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has just passed a GAN and the assessor pressed me to enter it for FA. It seems to me to meet the standards, so have at it. One of the most important battles of the Hundred Years' War, the capstone of one of the most successful campaigns, the point at which the tide turned against the French, and virtually unknown, so read all about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from CPA-5

[edit]

A nice page I would say let's start if you don't mind?

  • I'm not sure but shouln't the "English crown" be fully capitalised and become "English Crown"? Because it looks like an organisation like the Great Council which is an organisation right?
That is a very good question. It reads oddly to me when capitalised and I am not fully convinced, but I can't think of a logical reason to refute you, so changed.
  • "stages of the Hundred Years War" --> "stages of the Hundred Years' War"
Done.
  • "The status of the English king's" should it not be "The status of the English King's"?
No, IMO. It could be, and is, referring to any of a number of English kings, rather than being used as a short form for a specific king.
  • "the Gascons had had" two hads?
It's allowable grammar; but you are correct that it both reads oddly and is inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph, so changed.
  • Thanks, I didn't know it was allowable. I was just reading and I found it out and because I'm not a native English speaker was this new or a wrong sentence. In my native language its allowable too and I though in English it wasn't allowed to use it but I learn everyday something new. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only25 miles" --> "only 25 miles"
D'oh! Done.
  • "hill about a mile" in kilometers please?
You are good at picking these up. Embarrassing that I keep missing them.
  • "200–300 yards (200–300 m)" yards and metres are not the same.
To this level of accuracy they are. It would read oddly for me to write 182.88-274.32 m, or even, IMO, 180-270 m when we are talking about an extremely rough guide to how far the horses had to charge.

That's it, goodluck. CPA-5 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, thanks for that. As ever, I am open to discussion where I haven't implemented your suggestions, if you are not convinced by my thoughts.
If you have time to cast your eagle eyes over Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Berwick (1333), it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, you're welcome, I'm happy to help you. Secondly I'd like to have a new review normally it'd take until Thursday ('cause of my busy days in the last weeks) but because I have my break right now, I will have a look into it, tomorrow. So be prepared. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up the map
A further map has been added which may obviate the need for this. What do you think?
  • File:Combat_d'Auberoche,_October_1345.jpg: source link is dead, and can an approximate date be provided?
Source tracked down (quite a job) and added. Approximate date added. I would appreciate a check - I am still a tyro at this.
  • Arms should include a tag for the copyright status of the design
Umm. All are labelled up as free use on Commons. Beyond that I start to get lost. Is there a list of appropriate tags somewhere which I could consult? In which case I will see what I can do.
All are labeled as free use by the creator of the specific iteration presented here, but these iterations are derived from the original design, as used contemporaneously, right? Those will be out of copyright due to age, but we should still include tags saying so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Understood. (I think.) Done.
The source seems to be tagged to me. Which obviously means that I am missing something. Would it be possible to spell out the problem in terms suitable for an idiot - ie me?
The image description page on Commons has a CC0 tag. However, when I click through to the provided source (the British Library), I'm not seeing that particular designation anywhere. I'm wondering whether I'm just missing it, or whether it isn't there, in which case I wonder where we're getting the CC0 tag from. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little stumbling round in the dark here, but when I go to the image and click on copyright - bottom right - then on copyright again I get this, which includes a "Creative Commons content" statement. I assume that this is where the tag in Commons comes from, but I don't know enough to tell if this is sufficient justification. Obviously the work is out of copyright, so I assume the issue is whether the photograph of the PD image is itself free use? 3.2.14 of this may be relevant here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of that ToU doc is that content that is either public domain or under a Creative Commons license, will say so on the specific image description; this one doesn't. I don't doubt that the original is out of copyright, but the tagging doesn't seem to make sense as it stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria That actually makes sense to be - I am teachable! I have, with some trepidation, retagged. Does it make more sense now? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes that is perfect. (Regarding the photograph issue, you might find this useful). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria Thanks for the review. You seem to be tireless with these, and I appreciate it. Apologies for the delayed response, I missed your queries among those from the other assessors, and then the Combat d'Auberoche took a fair bit of tracking down. This is only my fourth ACR and the image use issue is still a bit of a black box to me. I think that once I have grasped something I am then implementing it correctly, but there seems to be quite a bit for me to pick up. If you could be patient with me I would be grateful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hi there. You are usually remarkably prompt with your responses, so I hope that you won't think that I am hassling you if I give you a reminder. If you are aware of the position and I am in a queue, apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. The two points above have been addressed, although I suspect that in the case of the second not satisfactorily. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Photograph issue: very useful; thank you. Cut and pasted into my resources folder. For clarity, is the image review now satisfactory? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Constantine

[edit]

As usual, a finely written and well-referenced article. Not knowing much about the conflict, I had no trouble following it, and made only some minor copyedits and tweaks (addition of regnal dates). My only comments before supporting are the following:

  • "on the grounds that Edward was in breach of his obligations as a vassal" if some detail can be briefly given as to what this "breach" was, I'd recommend simply stating it. For that matter, was Edward in breach?
I could write a much longer article on that. Political will meets legal theory. Think Brexit, only worse. One source, Sumption, devotes 46 pages to this without coming to a conclusion. And he is a member of the Supreme Court of the UK. (Really.) Basically, Philip wanted the English to be in breach. (And his judges damn well better bear that in mind!) I have added a little, but really, it is a bottomless pit, and each piece of explanation literally asks more questions than it answers. No, I have taken it out again. Philip was looking for a casus belli, any casus belli. The actual cited reason was inconsequential. Can we stay with the deep historic reasoning and the politic implications suggested by "Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that..."? (I have just found a 3 volume history on The Origins of the Hundred Yeara' War!)
Yeah, I anticipated that this would not be easy to cover. However, if Philip was indeed seeking a casus belli, and if the sources say that, I would simply add this in a brief note, e.g. "and determined to go to war with England" or something like this, before "on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris", to satisfy the curiosity of the average reader. If the motivation of Philip is made clear, then the details are irrelevant, and can be read up in the Hundred Years' War article. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "duty levied by the English Crown on wine from Bordeaux was more than all other customs duties combined" is a figure available for the sum levied? Ditto for "Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was larger than London", "a reportedly vast army", "a very large detachment". It is always best to give an indication of what "large" or "vast" translates to in the given context.
Ah, you like the tricky questions today. Sadly, no data on specifics. It probably varied wildly anyway. The source is impeccable, but imprecise. See here, the second link, p xxxix, from "embarrassment" down for about a page. I wanted to stress the enormous importance of Gascony to Edward, and reckon that I have milked the sources about as far as they will go. (Most are vaguer that Rodger.) That said, any suggestions for different wording are welcome.
"a reportedly vast army": nobody knows, nobody counted. The chronicles note these things in self serving hyperbole and I rely on the professional historians to interpret. Occasionally they make an informed calculation and I can seize on it, but usually they stay well away. (Quite a few English muster and pay records survive, so figures there are better.) French detachments would drift in and out. I seriously doubt that a French commander knew at any given time how many men he had to +/- 20%. The main reason that the French total in the battle is consistently given as 7,000 seems to be because there was a recorded body and prisoner count afterwards.
The following year the main French army in Gascony was estimated at 15,000-20,000, so I would guess "a reportedly vast army" at the upper end of that. Given that everyone seems to agree that 7,000 French fought at Auberoche I would guess that "a very large detachment" at about the same size. I have boldly inserted a figure for the army, but wimped out re the detachment. If you think that the forgoing is solid enough to justify actual numbers in the article then I shall insert them.
Population. I have found an author stupid/brave enough to estimate the population of London, but not Bordeaux, so that has gone in.
No problem if you don't have the figures, that's to be expected, I was simply double-checking. It's simply that when there are numbers, they should be mentioned; a "large army" is a different thing at different times and for different nations, and the average modern, non-expert reader won't have a point of reference either way. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France." this is probably meant to describe events hitherto, so I'd suggest "whenever an English army had previously campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France"
Oops. Completely correct. Done - albeit slightly differently to your suggestion.
  • "whichever country was stronger", "country" is a bit anachronistic here, I'd suggest "monarch" instead; this occurs twice, perhaps rephrase entirely the second time around?
Done, and done.

Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine. Thanks for that. You really got into the article and asked the difficult questions. As a good reviewer should. French record keeping of the period was not so much poor as self seekingly non-existent, so few sources go near a solid, non-English number. See what you think. (You are lucky mostly dealing with Byzantines, who ran a bureaucracy, and Venetians, who were accountants!) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look good. If you think you can put in Philip gunning for war, then I'd be happy, but this is nothing to stop me from supporting. Constantine ✍ 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Constantine: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Well done, once again! Constantine ✍ 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Comments:

[edit]

It seems clear why the British won this battle; according to the image at the top, they had airborne troops.

Sadly parachutes had not been invented at the time.

I'm concerned primarily with readability, so here are the things I found:

  • the first two paragraphs of the Background are jumbled together. I think this would be improved by splitting off a new para at "Towards the end of 1336", and moving "The status of" and "French monarchs systematically" to the start of the new para.
Done.
  • the new para should be grouped with the other statements about the start of the war, so it would make sense to move it above "Although Gascony was the cause of the war", and splitting off "During the first half of the 14th century" as its own para directly under "A large proportion" and then putting it with " 1339 the French besieged Bordeaux" at the bottom. I realize this may be confusing, would you like me to implement this and then revert?
Done. If I have it wrong, feel free to correct.
  • "was extremely unclear" - remove "extremely", "anachronistic" - I get the idea, but I'm not sure this is clear to most readers. I had to look it up, and I love jargon.
Really?[!] You need to stay in more. Done. (A quick search shows it turning up a lot in articles American Civil War, Buddhism, Supreme Court of the United States, Martin Luther, Catholic Church etc, etc. And that's not considering variations such as anachronism etc.)
  • "Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, was larger than London, which had a population of 50,000" I think you're saying London was 50k? It's not entirely clear in the context.
How's that?
  • The map of the regions is in french, so I suggest adding french terms for the areas where they are mentioned, mostly in the "plans" section.
Done. Bracketed at first mention under "plans".
  • "The French, hearing of Derby's arrival" - para break.
Done.
  • "sallied with all the mounted men he could muster. Taken in the rear" - by Hallam? Or by the "small number of Anglo-Gascon infantry"? It is not clear which of these caused the collapse.
Reworded. Clearer?
  • "Despite outnumbering the Anglo-Gascon force eight to one he retreated to Angoulême and disbanded his army" - damb. Maybe para break here?
I have broken it, but a sentence earlier that you suggested. Does it read ok? ("damb"?)

That's about it! I also made two very minor edits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury Markowitz. Thanks for going through the article and for your copy edits. Appreciated. Your points all addressed and some comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My only remaining issue is with this section:

Derby made a cavalry charge ... A small number of Anglo-Gascon infantry had followed a path in the woods to emerge in the French rear ... Hallen ... sallied with all the mounted men he could muster and took the French in the rear. The French defence collapsed and they routed, pursued by the English cavalry.

So... 1) there are two sets of troops attacking from the rear, and 2) there are two groups of cavalry. So is it all of the cavalry pursuing? And was it the infantry's attack, or Hallam's, or both, that caused the collapse? I know there may be no answers to these questions in the available sources, but if its there I think this could be clarified. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also re-worded the border issue, which I think now better explains it, feel free to RV. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury Markowitz.
  • Border. IMO it now understates the extent to which there was nothing even remotely resembling what we would call a border. But I will think on how I can express that both clearly and succinctly, rather than banging in the first thing that comes to mind.
  • Pursuit. Who knows; not recorded. Probably some of each.
  • Attack in rear. Hallen's charge was the final straw, a couple of hours or so into the fight.

    A small number of Anglo-Gascon infantry had followed a path in the woods to emerge in the French rear and now attacked from the north west. The fighting continued in the area of the camp for some time. Hallen realised that the French troops guarding his exit from the castle were either distracted or had been drawn off to join the fighting; he sallied with all the mounted men he could muster and took the French in the rear. The French defence collapsed and they routed, pursued by the English cavalry.

    To me the sentence "The fighting continued in the area of the camp for some time." after "... to emerge in the French rear and now attacked from the north west." makes it clear that it wasn't the "small" force that broke the French. I have given it a go at making this even clearer, but I am probably too close to it. See what you think.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz:
  • Your border explanation does make it clearer. I have added an additional sentence and that is probably about as good as we are going to get.
  • Pursuit. No, no record. I imagine that it was an undifferentiated mob of cavalry.
  • Tweaked the wording a bit to try to clarify just what the final straw was, as this is - more or less - in the record.
Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Thanks again for your input. I was wondering if you felt that the changes made have got this article up to a level at which you felt able to support it for A class. If not, would you be able to identify what further improvements might be able to bring it up to that level? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes sorry, forgot to end it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Australian Rupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Gog, nice work. I looked mainly at sources. I have a few minor points, otherwise it looks good to go to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bordeaux and Bergerac, Dordogne are overlinked
Done.
  • for citation # 19 (Ormrod 2004) is there a page number that could be added?
I don't remember that the on line version has page numbers. However, I am having trouble with my library card and can't get in to check. So I have lost Ormrod and replaced it with another source. It is not as if where I used Ormrod was a matter of any scholarly debate.
No worries, I would be fine with you keeping Ormrod without pages if it is the online version you cited... I understand that sometimes that is necessary. But your solution works fine, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources section, the title of the DeVries work should use title case capitalisation for consistency
Done.
  • same as above for Lacey
Done.
  • in the Sources, remove the second authorlink for Rogers
Done.
  • in the Sources, the date for Prestwich doesn't need to be so precise: 2007 is fine
Done.
  • in the Sources, the hyphenation of ISBNs has some variation. For instance compare Rodger (which has no hyphenation) with Prestwich (which has four hyphens) with Gribit which has one.
Apologies. Standardised.
  • in the Sources, move the link for Boydell Press to the first mention
Done.
  • for the Fowler thesis, can it be made clearer it was a PhD? I think this can be done by adding "|type=PhD"
Done. It now shows that it is a PhD, but not that it is a thesis. I assume that can be taken as implied?
I didn't realise it would display like that, sorry. I have tweaked it slightly so the word "thesis" shows also. I'm not sure if that is necessary, but it seems like it is clearer that way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was Fowler's thesis accepted?
Oh yes. He used it as the spine of The King's Lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster, 1310–1361, the first detailed account of a single, pre-Poitiers, Gascon campaign since the 15th century. I prefer the thesis - the prose is mostly identical, but he cut the thesis down to size for the book and I find a lot of the tables and detail he removed useful. Let me know if you would like more information - several of the leading experts in the field explicitly praise his work, even though one would normally have thought that it was a little dated. A sample of his subsequent books and papers. He went on to become the Professor of Medieval History at Edinburgh University.
That's fine: great work digging that up! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • except for the above question, the sources appear to be reliable to me as a lay person
Hi AustralianRupert many thanks for bringing your forensic gaze to bear on this. I think that I have corrected the sloppiness which you identified above. Sourcing was a bit tricky - down to personally emailing professors to request copies of out of print papers - but I think that I got there. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Gog. I think you have done a fantastic job, and I don't think you are sloppy at all. These are just minor nitpicks to hopefully just polish it a little. We all make mistakes in our articles, and need a reviewer's eyes to spot them. That's really the strength of Wikipedia, IMO. If we were writing offline, we wouldn't have others to help pick up these things. Anyway, mate, keep up the great work! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AustralianRupert. I find it frustrating that I can't spot things in my own articles that I can in others, even though I know that this is normal. And that I seem to keep making the same "errors" *rolly eyes". I guess that being very new to this level, and new enough to Wikipedia at all, I am not sure what level of completeness it is normal/acceptable to present an article at. You reassure me that I am getting my nominations near enough to acceptable, but I shall still try to do better. You are, of course, correct, that this probably the greatest strength of Wikipedia; by the time an article gets through this stage it has had a lot of eyes on it. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Page number ranges in the refs need to be complete, so 330–331 vice 300–31
Well, well. I didn't know that. Quite a few aren't, including those in my solitary FAC. Done.
It's a fairly new change. One that I would have opposed if I'd noticed it, but I'm all about the least amount of typing possible for cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "|lastauthoramp=y" to the cite book template with multiple authors to match the ampersand used in the cites
Done.
  • Curious that you've chosen to use only one hyphen in your ISBNs. People usually use all or none, but so long as you're consistent, it's all good.
When I have skipped hyphens altogether I have been pick up, by experienced editors and told to consistently use all hyphens or just one after the 978. I long since decided to, where I reasonably could, take the line of least resistance during assessments.
  • Why are you only using initials for Prestwich? You also need to add the series title for that book
I thought that was what was on the title page, but its not. Possibly I inherited it and just glossed over it when I thought that I was checking. Done
  • Why is the article title in Rogers, etc. italicized?
Because a b!@@#y bot keeps coming along and changing "cite journal" to 'cite book'. I thought that I had bot-proofed it, but clearly not. Done. (Although it may not stick.)
Yeah, we probably need a cite template just for annuals like the JMMH.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Many thanks for the source review. A usually thankless task, so can I express how much I appreciate it. I learnt three new things from your five points, so thank you. Now I just need to retain them in my sieve of a head. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to implement them. I know that I have!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. They had hung on a spurious "edit clash". Now showing. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Very nice article, BTW.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Apollo 11

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Apollo 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Apollo 11 was the first manned landing on the Moon. We're trying to get the article up to Featured in time for the 50th anniversary, which is in July next year. Article has been overhauled, and is already rated Good, so bringing it here for review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment The statement that "In 2015, the quarantine trailer, the flotation collar, and the righting spheres were moved" isn't supported by the source. From checking my photos, the Apollo 11 flotation collar and quarantine trailer were at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center when I visited it in 2009. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Consider uploading some of the photos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just uploaded a couple of photos of the quarantine trailer - [7], [8], though the quality isn't great. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Hawkeye, following are some comments, primarily on prose and very much from a lay person's reading. I also took notes on some refs and inconsistencies. Will add them separately soon.

lede
Background
Crew
  • table has Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin but opening line "The crew assignment of Neil Armstrong as Commander, Jim Lovell as Command Module Pilot (CMP) and Buzz Aldrin .." It 'looks like' an error - suggest adding 'initial' or 'original' between 'the' and 'crew'
    checkY Re-organised this paragraph. What I find fascinating is that five people had to die before Neil and Buzz got this mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Backup crew
  • Anders... In early 1969, he accepted a job with the National Space Council effective August 1969 - was named National Aeronautics and Space Council (1958–1973), use pipe? (Anders' article uses proper name of the period. Others this page use the 'then' name eg Manned Spacecraft Center ie not Johnson Space Center, Sabine D crater not Collins.)
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • would retire as an astronaut on that date - no specific date is given so change to 'at that time'?
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At that point Ken Mattingly... at which point Anders would be unavailable - swap second 'point' to 'time'
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lovell, Haise, and Mattingly would ultimately be assigned as the prime crew of Apollo 13 - not really 'ultimately' because Mattingly was grounded and replaced by Jack Swigert
    checkY Good point. Changed to "later assigned". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support crew
Flight directors
  • Director/s or director/s
    • Only capital if used as a title (e.g. Flight Director Kranz) Kees08 (Talk)
  • Extravehicular activity (EVA) - is cap E correct?
Call signs
  • director George M. Low - pipe?
    No need. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Julian Scheer wrote to Manned Spacecraft Center director George M. Low to suggest the Apollo 11 crew be less flippant - ref?
    • @Kees08: Need you for this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I like to write all my notes down when I find a more complicated answer, so the information is not lost. Page 392 and 393 of Hansen discusses the choice of Eagle and Columbia as them names, but has no information on Julian Scheer (related to this, at least). Since the book says Michael Collins was the main driver, I found in Carrying the Fire, pages 332-335. It discusses how Julian Scheer suggested Columbia, and how Collins thought it sounded more pompous than the previous Gumdrop and Charlie Brown names, but says nothing about a memo from Scheer. Page 635 of Chaikin summarizes what is in Collins' book. The current citation does not appear to even mention the names. I should have started with online searches, because Chariots for Apollo has the text. I will let you incorporate it, unless you want me to. I would suggest incorporating more background information from Collins' book into the section, there happens to be a lot of detail about naming the spacecraft. We could even include when it was announced to the public. Sorry for the long paragraph, figured it is useful to know where the information is in each book. Kees08 (Talk) 22:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I've created a new article on Julian Scheer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • During early mission planning, the names Snowcone and Haystack were used - explain Snowcone for the Command Module and Haystack for the Lunar Module (per the pdf)
  • put in the news release. - is that Technical information Summary pdf 'the' news release? Otherwise replace with 'in the Technical information Summary '.
    No, wrong document. It wants the Press Kit. I have a copy and will replace the reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Ah. It's in the technical summary as well, on p. 8
  • a personification of the United States - does Collins' book specifically say the 'personification' otherwise just 'historical name'
    checkY No, he doesn't so sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Eagle for the national bird of the United States, the bald eagle - per bald eagle article, is both the national bird and national animal of the United States of America
Insignia
The crewmen of the Apollo 11 lunar landing mission leave the Kennedy Space Center's (KSC) Manned Spacecraft Operations Building (MSOB) to ride the special transport van over to Launch Complex 39A where their spacecraft awaited them.
  • The Apollo 11 mission insignia - was the design used only for cloth patches (ie not as a logo on letterhead etc)? If so, call it 'mission patch insignia'?
    No, it was used as a logo. Collins calls it the "mission emblem", as does the press kit - went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Momentos
  • personal preference kit - explain what it is? i remembered from his article he also had a World Scout Badge. This kit is different to the 'bag of memorial items'?
    Yes. Added a bit about the PPK. The link takes you to Collins' PPK, which is in the NASM. The memorial bag was of official items. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Site selection
  • result of two years of studies - apostrophe on years
  • Site 1: 34° East, 2°40' North, in the Sea of Tranquility (hmmm degrees minutes seconds?) The ref has Site One: 34° East, 2°40" North - so is the 40 minutes or seconds? (ditto all 5 site coordinates)
    Nota bene* Remember what happened in This is Spinal Tap? I don't think the ref is correct. @Kees08: Need you for this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We could detail the zone they were interested in, instead of the exact locations. We could mention that three locations are selected per launch, to allow for launch delays. The paragraph should detail where they were looking to land (the zone), the down selection process, the requirement to have three landing sites, and perhaps the location of the final landing site. So I would remove the specific locations and do that, but I will leave it to you. Kees08 (Talk) 00:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site needed to be smoothness, with relatively few craters - either 'to have smoothness' or 'to be smooth'
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations
Mission
Launch and flight to lunar orbit
Lunar descent
Landing
  • ACA - explain?
  • "Out of detent. Auto"- fullstop?
  • 413 - explain?
    checkY Added: "ACA was the Attitude Control Assembly, the LM's control stick. Output went to the LM Guidance Computer (LGC) to command the RCS jets to fire. "Out of Detent" meant that the stick was moved away from its centered position. It was spring-centered like the turn signal control in a car. LGC address 413 contains the variable that indicated that the LM had landed." Kees08 is probably saying, "well, duh". I think this was added to give the reader a feel for what it sounded like. In addition, one notes that the CDR, not the LMP pilots the LM. The LM could be piloted automatically or the CDR could take manual control. Every CDR did. But it was just pointing the stick at where you want to go; the computer did all the rest. So it was more like the joystick in a computer game. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • about 25 seconds of fuel left - apostrophe on seconds?
    I don't think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • with "Engine arm is off", before - fullstop after 'off'
    No, because we are continuing the sentence after the quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and his communion kit was prepared by the pastor of the church, the Rev. Dean Woodruff - this can go? non notable church and reverend. Is in Aldrin's article.
    Keeping it in, but removed the sentence starting with "Aldrin described". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • had been awake since early morning - add how many hours
    checkY Deleted this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lunar surface operations
Lunar ascent and return
Splashdown and quarantine
Celebration
Legacy
Spacecraft
Moon rocks
40th anniversary events
  • Life.com released a photo gallery - digital only on their website, not in print?
    They don't publish in print any more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, it is in the process of restoring - update?
  • set up an Adobe Flash website that rebroadcasts the transmissions - does it still?
  • Re 40th anniversary too much info? - presumably 1st, 5th, 10th, 20th, 25th etc were also commemorated. Maybe a sentence. Will need a section for plans for 50th which must be underway by now?
    Nota bene*@Kees08: I'm tempted to remove the entire first paragraph. How do you feel about that? Do were have anything on the 50th? I know NASA will want to celebrate, but it will not be a good time politically in the US, so it may not be as big as the 40th. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NASA has settled on a logo for the 50th [9], so that's the hard part done. NASM is celebrating [10] and the US mint has issued a commemorative coin [11] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine with changing the section title to Anniversary events and creating a main article List of Apollo 11 anniversary events. I recall events for both the 40th and 45th anniversaries, I am sure there was something on the 25th, and there will certainly be events for the 50th. We could then summarize the major events that occur during the anniversaries here. Thoughts on that? Kees08 (Talk) 23:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know any clarification needed of my comments. I saw a list somewhere of articles being considered for 50th, can you remind me where it is pls? Regards, JennyOz (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:S2019 is the shortcut. The DYK page has the most articles. A co-run of Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, and Apollo 11 would be fantastic on the anniversary, but that is a conversation for another page. Kees08 (Talk) 02:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: hope I did not step on your toes Hawkeye, saw there were a lot of comments so started hitting some of the easy ones. Kees08 (Talk) 02:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some clarification requests. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I made some recommendations, left the edits to you unless you want me to perform them. Let me know if you disagree with my suggestions. Kees08 (Talk) 00:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Hawkeye7 and Kees08, I'll try to explain myself. When I asked about emphasising splashdown by adding 'Earth', and suggested adding a bit more about re-entry, and my comment about 'priceless' etc, what I'm suggesting is a little more weight to be given to what was the stated original goal of the mission... to get a man there and safely back.
Kennedy said to Congress "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."... "one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight." He said at Rice, "...then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25 thousand miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun—almost as hot as it is here today—and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out—then we must be bold"
NASA says in summary top of this "The purpose of the Apollo 11 mission was to land men on the lunar surface and to return them safely to earth ." Somewhere else (I've temporarily lost which ref) says "This stride in the Space Race was at least as much to get a man there and home alive as it was to collect samples." Our Space Race article says "When the spacecraft splashed down, 2,982 days had passed since Kennedy's commitment to landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth before the end of the decade; the mission was completed with 161 days to spare.[139] With the safe completion of the Apollo 11 mission, the Americans won the race to the Moon"
(If the rocks/samples hadn't made it back but the 3 astronauts did (and were alive), there'd have been just as much rejoicing of success?)
The splashdown was the actual minute that the success was realised. "Safely to Earth". JFK emphasised it and I bet everyone at mission control held their breath at that moment more than at any time in the whole mission. Start from Earth --- finish on Earth.
PS and Hawkeye, if EEng adds that comment to Astonishment or to his wonderful museums (I've been terrified to check), I will have some trouble finding my forgiveness button for you pinging him. JennyOz (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The deed is done, I fear! [12] If you can forgive me nonetheless, let me suggest On July 23, the last night before their return to Earth... BTW, I can't agree that The splashdown was the actual minute that the success was realised: there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. EEng 05:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 and JennyOz: Is there more to do here? I do have a couple of suggestions that I was going to have Hawkeye implement (like the list of apollo anniversaries), or otherwise tell me they are a bad idea. Not sure if there is anything else? Kees08 (Talk) 00:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08 and Hawkeye7: Thanks Kees08 for the reminder. Will look over. JennyOz (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Kees08 and Hawkeye7: for your patience! I have added my support. Pls though check this... back on Oct 18 an edit was made to Insignia "put an olive branch in its beak, and drew a lunar background", changing 'beak' to 'talons'. Was good faith but editor missed reading its following sentences? Should it be changed back? Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Changed it back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Tom Wilson, a simulator instructor, was actually who suggested the olive branch. Right now it implies Lovell came up with that too. Not sure if we should modify that to make it more clear. Kees08 (Talk) 21:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed that. And corrected an error I found in the process. I moved the insignia section above the call signs one, which is more logical. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

[edit]

Proper review this time. The article is excellent, and my comments are pretty minor:

Support My comments are now addressed - great work with this article. All the best for FAC, and it will be good to see it on the front page next year. Nick-D (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

Going to make some comments here. Reviewing just the sources for now.

Okay the sports game I am watching is ramping up, I am taking a break. Will have more comments. Kees08 (Talk) 00:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm off to the Canberra Capitals game. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
77-65. Knew you would want to know that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! My team lost in triple overtime, which really sucked the wind out of my day. Kees08 (Talk) 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, for whichever coordinator closes this, I am involved with astronaut biographies and a bit with this one, in case you want to factor that into my eventual vote. Kees08 (Talk) 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Why is the Apollo II mission in there twice? Suggest pulling it from the infobox unless that's a common theme among all the Apollo missions.

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

I'm about a month late to this party so there's not much I can say here since most possible criticism has been addressed. I wrote the articles on John Hirasaki and William Carpentier so I have an inkling of knowledge about Apollo 11 via them, but not to the level of others here; ergo, I restricted my review to technical matters primarily instead of content and in that respect could find nothing lacking. The only possible comment, if I really stretch, is that maybe in the Mementos section there would be room to mention the two Purdue University centennial flags that Armstrong took with him [13], [14]? That said, this section could quickly balloon up to be half the article if we start cramming stuff in there so I'm sure it would be fine to omit, as well; there's so many asterisks associated with Apollo 11 that a risk is run of turning this into a collection of trivia if some standards of brevity aren't applied. In any case, what a really fantastic job on this! Chetsford (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

GL Mk. I radar

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

GL Mk. I radar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The GL series are not well known but are important stepping stones in the development of radar. That this particular model also caused the entire UK to run out of chicken wire is also somewhat amusing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury Markowitz, this appears to have not been listed here correctly, have done so now. Coords should take this late listing into account when looking at older noms. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No DABs, external links OK
  • No conversion for 50 metre wavelength
These are not measurements, they are always in meters.
  • Use a hyphen for compound adjectives like 3-inch CRT. Add "|adj=on" to the conversion template to have it handled automatically. I've done one for you already.
  • wavelengths between 3.4 and 5.5 m Needs a conversion
  • Redundant conversion of 14,000 yds. Convert on first use only.
Fixed.
  • display, who's operator fix this
Fixed.
  • Link dipole, wavelength
Fixed.

Image review

[edit]
  • Source link to GL Mk. II radar transmitter.jpg is broken, or, more exactly, leads to a blank page in my browser. And why is it used twice in the article?
I wanted an image at the top, and one in the description for people to refer to. I'd love to have different ones but finding images of this kit is surprisingly difficult.
Fair enough, but I'm more concerned about the sourcing as it's quite plausibly a photo snapped by one of the guys in the unit. I certainly couldn't find it on the Imperial War Museum website. Pinging Nikkimaria for a second opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we'd need a source to confirm that licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing holding this from being promoted is this image with dubious sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that "a photo snapped by one of the guys in the unit" was, by definition, ultimately part of the Crown Copyright. This photo was taken during WWII and was published at least as early as 1953 as it is appears to be scan of the same image found in the book "Army Radar" (the original, not the more recent one). That appears to meet both of the either/or requirements to be PD under UK law. So can someone be very specific what the issue is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, a picture taken by a service member for himself doesn't fall under Crown Copyright, AFAIK. But all that's irrelevant if the picture appeared in Army Radar which was published by the Crown. You need to update the summary and sourcing saying as much. And give the page number on which it appeared in the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good here. The UK National Archives states that any Crown image enters PD 50 years after creation. This image was taken circa 1942 and thus fell into that category long ago. The MoD states that images taken by service members are Crown, as I had been led to believe. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get what they mean by "staff" clarified at some point, but it's irrelevant to this image. Update the sourcing and we'll be done here. By which, I mean the publishing info, not the link of the scanned image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Maury Markowitz just this tweak to the image page needed and this will be good to promote. Can you add the issue and year of Army Radar and page that it was published on to the image description page? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot add this information; the copy of the book I read is 350 miles from me in the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. Should I withdraw the nom? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then just cite it to the proper edition of Army Radar.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • fn 4,5: Is the ARRL Antenna Book a book? If so, could publication information be added (and the external links removed)?
Fixed
  • fn 16: Add journal name
Fixed
  • fn 17: Add ISBN
Added something actually useful instead.
  • fn 19, 23: Add access date

All sources are of high quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • "center" should be "centre", "defense" should be "defence"
Fixed
  • "The first GL set was a elementary design" an elementary design
Fixed
  • "This was sent to a second display, who's operator attempted to keep the antennas pointed at the target." whose operator
Fixed
Fixed
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I see this has been open for quite sometime, with a few reviews, but no responses, so I am uncertain if further reviews are desired. Nevertheless, I took a quick look. Overall, it looks pretty good to me, and should be able to be promoted if the above comments are dealt with. The main issue I see is that there are a few uncited sentences/paragraphs: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Larger CRTs would improve the accuracy, but in this case a 12-inch (0.30 m) CRT would be required, beyond the state of the art for the mid-1930s.
  • 1,679 GL Mark II sets were produced between June 1940 and August 1943. Additionally, I seem to recall somewhere in the MOS it says we shouldn't start sentences with numerals
  • the entire paragraph ending: In the immediate post-war era, these were in turn replaced by the smaller and lighter AA No. 3 Mk. 7 radar, which remained in use until AA guns were removed from service in the late 1950s.

Additionally, I have a couple of other minor comments/suggestions, which are largely peripherial and not necessarily impediments to successful promotion: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • is there a page number or page range that could be added for the Butement citation?
  • is there an ISSN for the Lorber article?
  • the Lorber source is missing the name of the journal that it appears in (i.e Royal Canadian Air Force Journal)
No ISSN, not that I would bother, but the journal has been added.
"1927-7601" per [15]. I will leave it up to you to decide if you want to add it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is some inconsistency in the citation formats, for instance the refs to the Butement (citation # 1), ARRL Antenna Book (citation # 4), Galati (citation # 17) & Assad (citation # 31) use a format that is differnt to the majority of other citations (e.g. Austin (#32), Burns (# 33) for instance)
This is deliberate. Citations used only once or in close prox I put inline.
Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an OCLC number for the Sayer work?
They didn't exist in the 1950s AFAIK.
Added it for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army Radar - historical monograph --> "Army Radar – Historical Monograph" (title case capitalisation)?

Sorry for the tardy replies everything above should be done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Soviet cruiser Admiral Oktyabrsky

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Soviet cruiser Admiral Oktyabrsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article continues my series on Kresta II-class cruisers. Admiral Oktyabrsky served with the Pacific Fleet for a fairly undistinguished twenty years. The article passed a GAN several months ago, and I have updated with the suggestions from the review on Admiral Isakov. Kges1901 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • underwent a lengthy refit between 1982 and 1986, being sent to the Persian Gulf in 1990 Needs a transitional word after 1986, instead of "being". Something like "and was then"
  • Added 'before'.
  • before the ships began to be built, commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy Admiral Sergey Gorshkov changed Might be better phrased as "before the ships began to be built, Admiral Sergey Gorshkov, commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy, changed" with links to commander in chief and Admiral
  • Done
  • As a Kresta II-class cruiser, Admiral Oktyabrsky Reads oddly to me. Either rework it as a class description "The Kresta II-class cruisers were..." or particularize it to the ship as "Admiral Oktyabrsky was..." I generally do the description as a class thing as it's easier when you intend to do all the ships in the class, and then just mention any specific info related to the individual ship, which might be speed during sea trials or whatever. But that's just me and definitely not a requirement.
  • Done the first option.
  • 1,754.86 nmi (3,250.00 km; 2,019.46 mi) Round to the nearest whole number.
  • Done
  • two RBU-6000 12-barrel and two RBU-1000 6-barrel Having all the digits in close conjunction might be confusing. Suggest moving the barrel count in front of the designation.
  • Done
  • early warning air search radar hyphenate early warning. Air search is kinda redundant because all early-warning radars are air search by their nature.
  • Done
  • For anti-submarine warfare she had improved "an" improved
  • Done
  • hyphenate hull-mounted
  • Done
  • named for Soviet World War II "the" Soviet
  • Done
  • Add a link for Captain 2nd Rank, General Secretary, etc., Defense Minister
  • Done.
  • You need to watch more carefully for missing articles like "the" and "a". I added a couple to the 1970s paragraph. But some are still needed here: destroyer Sposobny, frigate Razyashchiy
  • Done
  • Move the link for sister ship to the first use and you needn't use the full term after the first use. And add "her" to sister or sister ship when using either term.
  • Done
  • I'd recommend adding the country and linking to it when referring to obscure cities like Berbera and Aden
  • Done, partially, but I'd rather not link country per WP:OVERLINK as the existence of Somalia and Yemen is now well known due to recent events.
  • Done.

Support Comments: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • as the Construction section is very small, I suggest combining it with the career section, in a manner similar to how it is presented in French battleship Courbet (1911)
  • Done
  • Brigade of the fleet's -- "Brigade of the Pacific Fleet's" (and move link to here)
  • Done
  • she discovered seven United States --> "she detected seven United States"?
  • Done
  • Between August 1990 and February 1991 she operated in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War: is it possible to expand upon what the ship did during its deployment?
  • Regrettably, there is no information on this in my sources.
  • Is there anything about the generic position of the Soviet Union WRT the conflict? I guess, my concern here is that this is the closest the ship came to war service so it seems pretty important to provide some context. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image caption claims that it was part of the routine Soviet naval presence in the Gulf after the end of the Iran-Iraq War, but I can't find anything to back that up. Kges1901 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pages 39–40 of this document provide some context: Muraviev, Alexey (2007). The Russian Pacific Fleet: From the Crimean War to Perestroika (PDF). Papers in Australian Maritime Affairs, No. 20. Canberra: Sea Power Centre – Australia, Department of Defence. ISBN 978-0-642-29667-2. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Rupert. Unfortunately I cannot expand on this further as Muraviev's sources are offline, and I do not think I can obtain them in America. What I have found on the runet about Admiral Oktyabrsky's service in the Gulf sheds no light on why she was there. I have added context and the citation. Kges1901 (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, that looks fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • to the Russian Navy, though her career...: suggest splitting this sentence after "Navy"
  • Done
  • in the Bibliography, the title of the Gardiner work should have an endash
  • Done

CommentsSupport by PM

  • link Soviet Navy at first mention in the body
  • Done
  • link beam and draught
  • Done
  • the length and beam conversions don't match between the body and infobox
  • Fixed
  • suggest amending the infobox to read 2 × shafts and 2 × steam turbines on separate lines if you prefer, as 2 × shaft steam turbines doesn't gel
  • Done
  • in general provide measurements in full first in the body, shaft horsepower instead of shp and nautical miles instead of nmi, as you have done with knots and kn
  • Done
  • worth mentioning that the RBUs were anti-submarine rocket launchers
  • Done
  • suggest "search for and destruction of"
  • Done
  • the twin AK-725s were dual purpose, so were for surface and aerial threats
  • Done
  • vary "She also mounted two quintuple mountings" had?
  • Done
  • I think in each para you can state "NATO code name" for the first item, but drop it after that and just use the code name.
  • I'd rather preserve the original designation in these cases.
  • suggest "She mounted two Grom fire-control systems for the SA-N-1 and two MR-103 Bars systems for the AK-725s."
  • Corrected. SA-N-1 was a typo.
  • link ship commissioning
  • Done
  • what are state tests? Are they like sea trials? link?
  • Indeed, same thing. Have rephrased to be more familiar.
  • is there any independent verification that she detected seven US subs during Piton? If not, perhaps it should be mentioned as a claim rather than in Wikipedia's voice?
  • No, have rephrased.
  • is there an isbn or similar identifier for Berezhnoy?
  • Added OCLC. This is an appendix to a modelling magazine so there does not appear to be an ISSN or anything.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

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

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Courbet (1911)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

French battleship Courbet (1911) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Courbet had a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet, aside from helping to sink a small Austro-Hungarian cruiser. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but not enough that the French didn't use her as a training ship during the 1930s. After bombarding Rommel's 7th Panzer as it approached Cherbourg, France, she sailed to Britain where she was seized by Perfidious Albion a few weeks later. They used her as a target ship before she was sunk as a breakwater off the Normandy beaches in 1944. I've extensively reworked the article recently and I believe that it meets the A-class standards. I'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng and unexplained jargon in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suppport Comments

  • Why is the prefix given for Ulan and not Zenta? If anything, the first ship mentioned should get the prefix.
  • "The declaration of war on Austria-Hungary by Italy on 23 May and their decision to defend the Adriatic" - this is not clear to me. Whose decision to defend the Adriatic? It would probably be simpler to just say that "Italy declared war on 23 May and the Italian fleet took over responsibility for naval operations in the Adriatic" or something along those lines.
  • Where was the 2nd Maritime Region?
  • I wonder if the Dumas book ought to be consulted before we consider the article to be comprehensive. On one hand, the book isn't readily available in the US and it's a bit pricey (I'm seeing about 60 Euros online), but it's probably got a lot more detail than we currently have. I wonder if any French editors could help us out here? It looks like @Paul-Pierre Valli: is still around on occasion, and @Rama: looks to still be active. Could either of you lend a hand? Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copied the Dumas book years ago and looked at it for this, but I thought that Jordan & Caresse was better because Dumas made errors like giving the Courbets geared steam turbines, etc., IIRC. And since there appears to be a lot of information released from the archives since 1980, I figured that the later book was generally a more reliable one. That said, I can send the relevant pages to anyone who's interested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from CPA-5

[edit]

Greetings Sturm, happy to see you working on this ship.

  • See some American English and British English
  • calibre
  • meter(s)/metre(s)
  • license
  • millimetre
  • armour
  • armored/armoured
  • reorganized
  • modernisation(s)
  • defence
  • mobilised
  • advancing
  • manoeuvres
  • motorised
  • harbour (in the File:The_French_Navy_in_the_Mediterranean,_1914-1918_Q69439.jpg file)
  • "A Barr & Stroud 4.57-metre (15 ft 0 in) rangefinder" is the "0 in" important if not then it can become "(15 ft)"?
  • "The DCT was fitted with a 4.57-metre (15 ft 0 in) coincidence rangefinder" delete the (15 ft 0 in) there is already one above the sentence.
  • "manoeuvres in the Bay of Biscay with the Atlantic-based ships that began on the 26th." --> "manoeuvres in the Bay of Biscay with the Atlantic-based ships that began on 26 June."
    • Trying to mix things up.
  • "24,748 tonnes (24,357 long tons)" no short tons?
    • Nah, I don't believe in them.

Hopefully is this usefull. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • First spot "on the top of the tripod mast and all of her original rangefinders were replaced with the exception of the 2-meter (6 ft 7 in) rangefinders in each turret." the metre is still in American English.
  • Second spot I just realised there are two "Vice Admirals" first one in "Courbet became the flagship of Vice Admiral (Vice-amiral) Augustin Boué de Lapeyrère," and second one in "Courbet was briefly placed in reserve before she became Vice-Admiral Charlier's flagship between 6 June 1919 and 20 October 1920." which one should the page use?

Comments Support from Kges1901

[edit]

Source review

All sources appear to be RS. Explanation 'accepted' as to why Dumas is not necessary. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • You mention Operation Neptune in the fate, but don't refer to the Normandy landings as that in the lead and in the body you call them the Battle of Normandy.

Description

  • Last paragraph has five consecutive sentences beginning with 'the'
    • Mixed up a little

Construction and service

  • the ship laid down Appears to be a missing word here
  • Is the cost in contemporary francs?
    • Yes, not adjusted for inflation.
  • Courbet was commissioned into the fleet on 19 November 1913. Shortly after finishing her machinery trials, she ferried the President of France, Raymond Poincaré, to Britain for a short visit on 24–26 June. If the visit occurred before she was commissioned the sentences should be reordered to keep chronological order?.
  • If Courbet was not part of the 1st Division by August 1914, what unit was she assigned to?
    • Clarified
  • That still appears unclear, unless I am not seeing something.
  • Because the whereabouts of the Perhaps say 'since' because 'because' was stated in the previous sentence
    • Good idea.
  • On 11 January 1915, the French were alerted Seems too vague, presumably their naval command or similar?
    • Probably, but not specified.
  • that the Austro-Hungarian fleet was going to sortie from their base at Pola Perhaps use 'its' base as it could be read to imply that the French had a base at Pola. This sentence could also be rephrased to focus more on Courbet instead of the French battle fleet since this is a ship article.
    • Fixed.
  • The declaration of war on Austria-Hungary by Italy on 23 May and the Italian decision to assume responsibility for naval operations in the Adriatic, allowed the French Navy to withdraw to either Malta or Bizerte, French Tunisia, to cover the Otranto Barrage. What was Courbet's role in this?
    • Unknown.
  • Courbet's 47 mm gun use plural guns
    • Good catch.
  • On 27 April 1916, the French began using the port of Argostoli on the Greek island of Cephalonia as a base. Around this time many men from the battleships' crews were transferred to anti-submarine ships. At the beginning of 1917, the French began to use the Greek island of Corfu as well, but growing shortages of coal severely limited the battleships' ability to go to sea. In 1918 they were almost immobile, leaving Corfu only for maintenance and repairs. These sentences should be reworded to focus on Courbet and not the French fleet in general
    • I wish my sources supported that idea.

Interwar period

  • Vice-Admiral Charlier Is his full name known?
    • I wish.
  • Suggest splitting the first paragraph in half as it seems longer than the others
  • The following year she became a gunnery training ship at Toulon, but she suffered a serious boiler fire on 6 June 1923 that required repairs, so she was given the first of her modernisations between 9 July 1923 and 16 April 1924, at La Seyne-sur-Mer. Suggest splitting the sentence as it combines three different events
  • was positioned on its roof Is this the roof of the fire control position on the foremast? It does not seem clear from the text.
    • See how it reads now.
  • In 1933 and 1934, Courbet and her sister Paris, both assigned to the Training Division, rarely left port. Was this also true in 1935 and 1936?
    • Probably, but not specified.

World War II

  • link evacuation (of Cherbourg) to Operation Aerial
  • Briefly explain why Operation Catapault happened to provide context, i.e. mention that France left the war
    • See if my wording is OK
  • Explain that Highball and Upkeep were bouncing bombs
  • Four consecutive sentences beginning with 'she' in the last paragraph
  • Note that the Neger manned torpedoes were German
    • Who else would they be manned by?
  • That isn't clear unless one clicks on the link though.

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Sturm, nice work as always. I have a few minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • no dab links, no dup links, all ext links work
  • referencing looks fine to me
  • I suggest adding alt text for the images: [16]
  • in the lead there is a little repetition of "August 1914" -- I wonder if there is a way to reduce that?
    • Indeed there is
  • in the lead, was later used as a target ship in mid-1943 -- "later" is probably not required given the date that is provided
  • the Description section seems a bit abrupt, like it is missing a sentence between the first sentence and the sentence that starts "The ships were..."
    • I see what you mean, see how the new sentence reads.
  • the infobox mentions that the ship was ordered on 11 August 1910, but I couldn't find this date in the body of the article
    • Good catch
  • the installed power figures that are in the infobox do not appear to be in the body of the article
    • Ooops.
  • hit by Neger manned torpedoes during the nights of 15–16 and 16–17 August: was this a deliberate attack by the Germans, or were they aiming for something else? Was there any damage?
    • They were lucky to hit anything at all from the accounts that I've read. No details on the damage, though it was probably pretty irrelevant given that she'd already been scuttled.
  • Jordan & Caresse, pp. 320: single "p" instead of double here
  • in the Bibliography, the title of the Rohwer work probably needs an endash for the date
  • in the Further reading section, I suggest adding a translation for the title by Dumas & Guiglini
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SM U-2 (Austria-Hungary)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

SM U-2 (Austria-Hungary) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Continuing with submarines. As with the class article which is currently over at FAC, and her sister ship which just passed an ACR, I've taken an old gem that @Bellhalla: wrote several years ago, brought it up to the standards of 2018 in terms of article quality, added every exhaustible source I own and could possibly have come across, and more than tripled the size of the article in the process. The process of getting this article up to speed with ACR standards was helped immeasurably by the recent ACR I worked on for her sister ship, U-1. You'll notice this article is very similar to that, as the two ships shared nearly their entire careers serving alongside one another.

As for the submarine herself, U-2 was very much like her sister ship, U-1. In fact, she was identical to her sister hip. As Austria-Hungary's second submarine, she was built by Simon Lake, an American naval architect, and had several interesting design mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater. Perhaps most bizarrely, she was also equipped with wheels to "travel" along the seafloor. As an experimental design, U-2 had several flaws (the wheels proved to be entirely useless and the engines routinely poisoned the submarine), but she was commissioned into the navy nonetheless as part of a design competition with two other foreign firms.

U-2 was used mostly for training purposes, though she was briefly mobilized alongside her sister ship during the First Balkan War, and she was assigned recon missions out of Trieste during World War I, but never sank or damaged any enemy vessels during the conflict. She was declared obsolete in January 1918, and again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola right before the end of the war. After a brief period of chaos regarding who owned the submarine following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (as was the case with literally every single ship in the Austro-Hungarian fleet at the end of the war), U-2 was seized by, and later granted to, Italy in 1920. The Italians decided to immediately scrap the submarine in Pola that same year. Her career was largely unremarkable, but she holds the distinction of being a member of the first ever class of submarines built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901

[edit]

Image review

  • Adequate fair use rationales and satisfactory licensing on all images.

Source review

  • All sources are of appropriate quality for the topic. No missing ISBNs or OCLCs.

Lead

  • The second paragraph contains three consecutive sentences that begin with "she", perhaps vary the structure of the sentences?
  • Repetitive uses of the same word in a short span of reading is one of my pet peeves. Fixed.

Background

  • Constructor General (German: Generalschiffbauingenieur) of the Austro-Hungarian Navy Siegfried Popper, omit unnecessary comma at end of sentence

Construction and Commissioning

  • navy yard (German: Seearsenal) at Pola This is partially related to the presence of the redlink for Pola Navy Yard in the lead, either create a referenced stub or unlink. (former is preferable).
  • Removed.
  • I will unlink the redlink. Creating an article for the Pola Navy Yard is on my to-do list, but I'm not comfortable creating a largely junk 2-3 sentence stub at the moment which won't serve readers well.
  • A general comment I have is that substantial portions of the article are copied nearly verbatim from SM U-1, suggest you carefully read over your text to make sure everything that you've written about U-2 actually applies to her.
  • This was done simply because the two ships had almost identical careers. If you read closely however, you'll see there are a few differences. U-2 had a new conning tower installed, and she was stationed out of Trieste for much of the war rather than alternating back and forth between Trieste and Pola. All-in-all however, the two ships probably spent a good 80-90% of their careers doing identical work alongside one another. The two ships were built as twins for experimental purposes and both had almost identical service careers...even to the point that they both were in drydock together at the start of the war to correct the exact same mechanical issue. As a result, I would assume it's only natural that their articles would be very (but not exactly) similar.

Service history

  • While conducting one of these training cruises on 13 January 1914 near Fasana, she was rammed by the Austro-Hungarian cruiser Sankt Georg. The damage caused by this collision destroyed the submarine's periscope. Did Sankt Georg ram both U-1 and U-2 on the same day and shear off both boats' periscopes or is this only one of them? Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Support as all of my comments have been addressed. Kges1901 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Both ships would prove to be a disappointment, however. Generally "however" is placed at the beginning of sentences and not the end.
  • Fixed
  • Done
  • This diving chamber ultimately proved its usefulness during the sea trials of U-2 and her sister ship when the crew of one submarine forgot to bring their lunches on-board before conducting an underwater endurance test. Is it known which submarine that was?
  • Unfortunately it's not known which one it was, likely because the two ships were identical in design and their only distinguishing features were the numbers painted on each submarine's conning tower. I've included the story in this article because there's a 50% chance it was U-2, and it also illustrates that there were some aspects of the vessel which were not so negatively received.
  • The citations from Dickson, O'Hara & Worth are all used appropriately.
  • Thank you!
  • I have some problems how Lake is cited in this text:
  • Our company had built the first two boats for the Austrian Government, U-1 and U-2...One day, when this submarine was running along with her periscope above the surface, which gave her commander no vision back of him, some officers approached in a speedy little launch and left their cards tied to the periscope without the knowledge of the commander of the submerged vessel. This demonstrated perfectly that it is essential, both in war and peace times, for the commander of the submarine to know what is going on in his vicinity on the surface. This is the quote in the article. The ellipses stands in place of this sentence: Another type of boat had been built later which had only a fixed periscope of the type described. As the quote in the article stands I think it misrepresents the source. Lake is obviously not talking about U-2 or even U-1. I think it would be better to just remove it.
  • I think there's definitely value in keeping the quote in the article, if anything because it's the only direct quote about the submarines from their designer I could find in all of my research on this article. Perhaps it's possible to word the coverage of this quote to make it clear he's referring to a submarine different from U-1 and U-2?
  • But then what's the point of the quote anyway? I believe that Lake says so little of substance concerning the U-1 class that we should just forgo the quote. It doesn't add to the understanding of the reader. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that he's hardly a neutral observer, but I think the reader can understand that quite well. The point of including the quote was to demonstrate that there were at least a few details of the submarine's design which were actually good things that could easily be overlooked when constructing such a vessel. I'd like to keep it in place personally, but if you insist, I can remove it.
  • I wasn't getting at Lake's neutrality on the issue, I'm arguing that the quote is simply unenlightening. I'm afraid I must insist on its removal. The only relevant statement in my opinion that Lake makes is "Our company had built the first two boats for the Austrian Government, U-1 and U-2" which very plain and tells the reader nothing new. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the quotation at your suggestion.
  • Lake himself praised both ships, particularly their periscopes. This is something of an assumption. Lake only says that the single-fixed periscope models of other subs was a disadvantage, and juxtaposes that with the solitary mention of the U-1 class (in the extract above), but it's not obvious praise.
  • Rephrased this to say "Lake himself praised the periscopes of both submarines"
  • Lake does actually talk about the periscopes in his book I believe. I didn't include that bit in there because of length constraints related to the quote itself. U-2 was equipped with a rotating periscope which is one of the things that today, we take for granted on a submarine, but back in the early 1900s, it was something that wasn't guaranteed to be placed on every submarine constructed.
  • I read the para where he gives examples on all the mishaps due to subs only having single and/or fixed periscopes, like A-1 getting rammed. It's just very indirect the way he suggests that the U-1s were an improvement. If I hadn't read this Wikipedia article, I wouldn't have known that he meant to convey that he developed a better periscope scheme for the class. I won't push the issue, but I still think the statement "Lake himself praised the periscopes of both submarines" is only weakly supported. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. I've cut the line and moved his book to the "Further reading" section.
All my comments have been addressed, and the article is as comprehensive as it can be, it seems, so I support its promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, White Shadows, I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delayed further --> "further delayed"
  • Fixed!
  • "draught" or "draft"?
  • Draft. Changed.
  • Citation # 1 should have endashes instead of hyphens
  • This sounds like a stupid question, but I've never understood the difference?
  • in the References, move the link for Annapolis to the first mention
  • Done
  • same as above for the link for Naval Institute Press
  • Done
  • in the References, compare "Annapolis, MD" v. "Annapolis, Maryland"
  • I've made things consistent
  • same query as at FAC for SM U-1 about Mushroom Model as a publisher?
  • They were simply translators for this book, which was originally published in Czech in 2001. The author is most certainly a RS. His work routinely cites other well-established authors on the subject, and he even gives credit to Greger for some of the technical drawings the book includes. I can go into more detail about this if you'd like, but the FAC for the class article passed because I was able to give a much more thorough explanation on the question. I'd be happy to reference that to you as well if you'd like!
  • regarding the Marine—Gestern, Heute journal, can you provide any details about this so that it can be evaluated as a reliable source?
  • I can't speak to the journal itself as I don't know what sort of reputation it holds in Europe, but I can most certainly speak to the reliability of the author who wrote the referenced article in said journal. Erwin Sieche is probably the single greatest authority on the subject of Austrian naval history in the world. He is referenced in nearly every single article about Austria-Hungary and Germany's navies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was the author for Austria-Hungary's section of both editions of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, and his article shave routinely been published in major naval journals in the United States, such as Warship International. If I found an article on an Austrian ship at FAC or ACR to be lacking any citations from Sieche, I would probably oppose on that alone per the comprehensiveness criteria of FAC and ACR.
  • flooding to be done by pumps: seems a little awkwardly worded - is there a smoother way of saying this?
  • ...also necessitated pumps to submerge the vessel? I'm not sure what else could work in this situation to be honest.
  • set her maximum dive depth at 40 meters (130 ft): is there a way to avoid repetition of the depth?
  • Made a slight change for this. Let me know if that works!
  • Maschinenfabrik Leobersdorf: why is the first part in italics, but not the last part?
  • This was a typo which has been fixed.
  • Due to the training and reconnaissance missions she engaged in... --> "Due to the training and reconnaissance role the submarine undertook throughout..."
  • Done!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ottoman conquest of Lesbos

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Ottoman conquest of Lesbos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Ottoman conquest of Lesbos was one of the follow-up operations by Mehmed II after the capture of Constantinople in 1453. As an event, it was fairly typical in illustrating the dilemma faced by the many minor rulers in Latin Greece, caught between Ottoman expansion, their own weakness and rivalries, the futility of their protestations of loyal vassalage, and the divergent commercial interests of Genoa and Venice. The article was substantially rewritten in November 2017, and passed GA in January. I think it meets A-class criteria, but, as always, any corrections or suggestions for further improvements are welcome. Constantine ✍ 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Why are the civilians listed under strength? Was it normal at that time for civilians to contribute militarily to the defense of their city?
  • There are many occasions throughout the Middle Ages civilians assisted in the defense of their city, particularly when the consequences of the city's fall were slaughter, pillage, and slavery. That said, I cannot find an indication that this was the case here, so I am removing it.
  • Lesbos itself was spared the same fate, for the time being, partly due to the general impotence of the Christian powers in the Aegean. Why would the weakness of Christian powers prevent a Muslim empire from conquering a Christian island?
  • Because they posed no threat. Clarified.
  • Is there an OCLC for Miller?
  • Curiously enough I cannot find any for the original edition, only for recent reprints.

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle, I've answered the points you raised. Any further comments, even going above and beyond ACR requirements? Constantine ✍ 19:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found the applicable OCLC for Miller on Worldcat and I've added it accordingly. I have no further comments, though I'm admittedly no expert on this subject. I'll save Nikkimaria the trouble and go ahead and affirm that all of the images are appropriately captioned, licensed, and placed. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Hi Constantine. Good to see this article again.

  • I have made some edits which you will want to look at.
  • Your edits look fine. Thanks!
  • "this served as a perfect pretext for Mehmed to capture Lesbos as well." "[A]s well" as what?
  • As well as the other Gattilusi domains he had previously taken. But you are right, it is not necessary. Removed
  • "After the siege began, Cappello with his 29 galleys sailed towards Lesbos..." comes in the paragraph and the section before "On 1 September, the fleet under Mahmud Pasha arrived at the island..." It would, I think, be easier on a reader to mention the events in chronological order. Rather than mention the Venetians and their (lack of) actions under, or only under, Opposing forces.

Otherwise I can find little to pick at in a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, here I disagree, because Cappello's fleet was a potential combatant, and in the wider "zone of operations", to use a modern term. If he is mentioned, it should also be made clear that he would not intervene, for this is part of the siege's context: the besieged hoping that he would come, the Turks hasty to finish the affair for the same reason, but the reader knowing with hindsight that he would not.
  • Well, it's not a deal breaker, quite. I think that it might be for me at FAC. I can see that we are coming at this from different narrative perspectives. I can understand yours, but I don't think that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Would you pick some other random event or non-event and convey it out of sequence so that 'the reader knows with hindsight'? Of course, I could be wrong; other editors views would be welcome. (For me "Opposing forces" should end with "... a fleet under Vettore Cappello was nearby at Chios." and the information in the following sentence should be in its appropriate chronological place.) Irrespective I am supporting. Always enjoyable to read your articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, thanks for taking the time to review, and for your help in improving the article. Any more comments? This won't go to FA soon until I track down a few articles that deal with the events more directly, but any recommendations or suggestions above and beyond ACR requirements are always welcome. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 09:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not from me. Even by your standards a tight, well written article. I expect it to transit through FAC quite rapidly. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I am not in a position to say whether all of the relevant literature has been consulted; indeed, Constantine states above that it hasn't. However, the authors of the sources used are highly respected scholars in this area and their works can IMO be considered to be (very) reliable sources. The publishers have impeccable reputations. I consider the information in them to be current, as these things go; Constantine seems to have used Miller, 1921, with care. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. A limited spot check of two sources indicates that the article accurately reflects them where they are cited. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

In my opinion, all aspects of A1 are met. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • This is in fine shape, but I would address Gog's comment about the Venetian fleet by suggesting that After the siege began, Cappello with his 29 galleys sailed towards Lesbos, and could easily have overwhelmed the Turkish fleet, whose crews had gone ashore to assist in the siege, but in the end, he obeyed his strict instructions not to do anything that might provoke a war with the Ottomans. should be truncated at the last clause and appended to the preceding sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sturmvogel 66, I've tried to rephrase according to your suggestion. Please have a look, or edit it yourself if I didn't get it right. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 10:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my comment. What I meant was to drop "After the siege began, Cappello with his 29 galleys sailed towards Lesbos, and could easily have overwhelmed the Turkish fleet, whose crews had gone ashore to assist in the siege, but refrained from doing so." entirely as it doesn't appear that the garrison had any knowledge of his movements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but we do, and we should explain why the hoped-for help did not arrive. Constantine ✍ 13:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's necessary, but it's your call.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lou Spence

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Lou Spence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Following on from Vance Drummond and Dick Cresswell, another RAAF pilot closely associated with the Korean War. Like Cresswell, Spence was a World War II veteran who commanded Australia's sole air combat unit in Korea, No. 77 Squadron, and won plaudits doing so. Like Drummond, Spence was a wing commander who seemed destined for the top but died too soon, and in uncertain circumstances. In the case of Spence's fatal last dive, it might have been ground fire or simply misjudgement that did it. Personally I think exhaustion played a part, as the load he carried in Korea seems a good deal more than the average squadron commander. To me it's telling that a month after his death the RAAF split off the maintenance, base support, and air transport portions of No. 77 Squadron and put the lot of them under a superior wing organisation, effectively relieving some of the pressure on the fighter unit's CO. But that's all OR, so take with a grain of salt... Anyway, I think this might have the legs for FA as well, so have at it. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Ian, only a few comments...

  • He was employed as a clerk at the Bank of New South Wales in Brisbane - maybe insert wlink Queensland headquarters (or branch) after Wales? (ref 2 Sunday Mail says it was Queen St.)
    • Will do, tks.
  • No. 3 Squadron attacked sixteen Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bombers escorted by six Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters - is ambiguous ie could read as No. 3 was escorted by the Messerchmitts (German/Italian hasn't been mentioned and we can't assume all readers know whose aircraft are whose).
    • Reworded slightly.
      • Even though the Stukas and 109s must've been German, the source doesn't explicitly say so. I've just added "German and Italian" forces to an earlier sentence to at least establish them as the squadron's opposition. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 1 Wing - wlink?
  • Arthur Mailey - change Arthur to Walter? (He was son of cricketer Arthur Mailey). Has a redlink as Walter on List of World War II aces from Australia. He mentions being picked up by Lou Spence(r) in this great read. Garrisson has full name.
    • Ha, Arthur was a typo. Tks for finding that interview, hadn't seen that one.
  • Notes, ref 61 - not working, (not supplement). URL should be this?
    • Tks!
  • Refs, 3 of the airpower URLs not working, seem to have moved?...
    • Garrisson, A.D. (1999). Australian Fighter Aces 1914–1953. - link not working (pdf now via here (though they have typo in Garrisson's initials)
    • Eather, Steve (1996). Odd Jobs: RAAF Operations in Japan, the Berlin Airlift, Korea, Malaya & Malta, 1946–1960 - link not working (pdf now via here (though they have decade span error 1946-1970)
    • Odgers, George (2008) now?
      • Ugh, thought I'd updated all those Air Power Development Centre links, will do...
  • All other online sources are working

That's it from me, regards JennyOz (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks as always Jenny. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All these points should now be actioned, Jenny -- tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian, all tweaks spot on. I'd normally wait for some milhist editors before supporting but I had a good look through online refs and can see images are PD, so I am happy to support up front. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Ian, not a lot stood out to me. I have a couple of minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • pull out of his very steep dive --> "pull out of a very steep dive"?
  • Mrs Spence: I assume this was Spence's widow, Vernon? If so, possibly better to say this, or maybe "his widow", or maybe even by her first name, if you are wanting to vary the language from the previous mention?
    • Done these two.
  • Sources seem reliable to me, coming from reputable publishers, or government sources. Formatting seems consistent also
  • in the World War II section, I wonder about potentially swapping the orientation of the two images, i.e. making the first one right aligned, and the second left aligned (suggestion only)
    • Tend to agree it'd be better to right-orient the first one so Spence 'looks into' the article but on my recommended laptop res of 1366x798, that would put it under the infobox, shoving the other pics down or, if I left-orient the second, making the two parallel and sandwiching a lot of text. Also for the second, I agree the Spit dominates the pic so should perhaps be the element that points into the article, but since the key subject is Spence and he's looking in there could be arguments both ways...
  • Images seem appropriately licenced/sourced, although a couple of minor tweaks are suggested:
    • "File:Lou Spence of 77 Sqn RAAF (AWM JK1019).JPG": suggest replacing the licences with {{PD-AustraliaGov}}
      • Agree, done.
    • "File:F-51Ds 77 Sqn RAAF at Iwakuni c1950.jpg": source link appears to return a 404

Comments Support from Kges1901

[edit]

Excellent article. Reading through it, the prose is excellent, so I do not have much to comment on. In general, there seems to be unnecessary repetition of year dates, for example in the Korean War section 1950 is mentioned more than once.

Fair enough, in general now have tried to keep to mentioning the same year once in a paragraph.

Source review

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Aegidius

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Aegidius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed as a Good Article and I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class, and it is a part of my work on the Gallic Empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • This article is in good shape. I know little about this period, and although this article is brief, it appears to have coverage of all aspects of his life, but needs a few tweaks here and there.
  • you might like to note in the lead that the Kingdom of Soissons was short-lived
  •  Done
  • the lead generally needs to be fleshed out with the main points of the body
  •  Done
  • Gaul is overlinked in the lead
  •  Done
  • the use of unexplained Latin terms isn't helpful for the reader, suggest a translation or explanation after, similar to what you've done with magister militum per Gallias. eg magister militum and Comes (although this is defined later on as "count")
  •  Done
  • The History section needs a bit more detail, like that Gaul was part of the Western Roman Empire etc
  •  Done
  • was Aetius magister militum of the whole Western Roman Empire, or just Gaul?
  •  Done
  • "Aegidius served under Aetius during the latter's time as magister militum, alongside the future emperor Majorian" is unclear. Does this mean that Aegidius served alongside Majorian, or alongside Aetius? Reword.
  •  Done
  • "Majorian secured the throne" what throne? Western Roman Empire?
  •  Done
  • a bit more on the Battle of Arelate is needed. Who were they fighting, the Visigoths? How much of the force did Aegidius command? How did he contribute to Theodoric II's defeat? What were the outcomes of Theodoric II's defeat?
  •  Done Couldn't find a source for number of troops. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "After Ricimer assassinated Emperor Majorian 461 and replaced him with Libius Severus, Aegidius refused to recognize the new emperor."
  •  Done
  • Senior Emperor isn't explained. Would it be better to say something like "Libius Severus was also not recognized by the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, Leo I, who was considered to be senior to the emperor of the Western Roman Empire"?
  •  Done
  • Gallic Legions or Gallic legions?
  •  Done
  • link Vandals
  •  Done
  • "then elected Aegidius to electrule them"?
  •  Done
  • "theory of Soissons" Soissons is undefined here, and needs to be introduced/explained
  •  Done
  • "Lyons"
  •  Done
  • did Aegidius personally kill Frederic, or was he just killed during the battle? It currently reads like the former.
  •  Done
  • Theodoric II has already been introduced, so just Theodoric will do at this point, also overlink
  •  Done
  • are any details of the Battle of Orleans known?
    None in particular unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Burgundian King Gundioc"
  •  Done
  • all isbn's should have hyphens
  •  Done
  • who publishes Byzantion? Location?
  •  Done
  • Frankish is an overlink
  •  Done
  • in the succession box, it says Syagrius was the next magister militum of Gaul, but the article says others were appointed after Aegidius seceded?
    Here it is a matter of legitimacy. According to Soissons, Syagrius was the next magister militum of Gaul, but according to Rome it was one of the two listed in article. Not quite sure how to mention that in the box; but if you have suggestions I'd be more than willing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild
[edit]

Lead:

  • "Aegidius threatened to invade Italy". It might be appropriate to insert 'repeatedly' or 'constantly' before threatened.
  • Could you state Syagrius' relationship to Aegidius.

History:

  • "Aegidius served under Aetius during the latter's time as magister militum (Master of Soldiers)". I don't see why "Master of Soldiers" is capitalised.
  • "Aegidius was granted the title of magister militum per Gallias (Master of the Soldiers for Gaul)". Ditto, and in other places.
  • ""the primary cause for Theodoric II defeat". 's
  • "Aegidius is credited with being the primary cause for Theodoric II defeat; as a result of the defeat Theodoric II was forced to return Visigoth territory in Hispania to the Western Roman Empire, and submit again to the Western Roman Empire as foederatus." A. A rather long and complicated sentence. B. "Western Roman Empire" twice in 11 words; could it be rephrased to avoid this. C. What is a "foederatus"? I know that it is Wikilinked, but a bracketed translation would improve readability. (Personally I would use an English phrase and Wikilink to foederatus, but that's just because I prefer the English Wikipedia to be written in English.)
  • "who was considered the Senior Emperor". I don't think that "Senior" should be capitalised. The MoS would (strongly) suggest that neither should "Emperor".
  • "Aegidius threatened to invade Italy". It might be appropriate to insert 'repeatedly' or 'constantly' before threatened.
  • "Some historians have said that this was due to pressure from the Visigoths, whereas others assert that he was unable or unwilling to march to Italy, leaving Gaul exposed". I cannot find this debate in the single source given. Do you list the correct page numbers? MacGeorge offers different reasons on pages 93-94 without referencing other historians, except, arguably, Pricus. Perhaps change to 'Modern historian Penny MacGeorge has suggested that...'?
  • "According to some primary sources..." Personally I dislike the phrase "Primary sources" given that most of them weren't. But it seems to be generally accepted, so that is just a niggle.
  • "his death led to an invasion by the Visigoths, which historians have tentatively located as having occurred in the Auvergne area". I can't find this in the source given. Page 125 does refer to the Visigoth conquest of Auvergne in 475, 10 years after Aegidius' death.

References:

  • Personally I dislike the phrase "Primary sources" given that most of them weren't. But it seems to be generally accepted, so that is just a niggle.
  • Nice to see recent sources and scholarship used.
  • Leans heavily on MacGeorge, but she is certainly a RS and gives the most detailed and comprehensive modern account that I am aware of, which admittedly isn't very far. (Other sources I have to hand, including one more recent (Mitchell), do not contradict in any way anything the article sources to MacGeorge.)
  • For the ISBN given for Mac George I get a publication date of 2002, not 2003.

Declaration of interest. I added the three references to Mitchell back in March.

Political offices (in the box at the bottom):

  • I though that it was accepted that Agrippinus preceded Aegidius as magister militum per Gallias?

Looks a good, well written, exhaustive and balanced account of what we know about Aegidius to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsReviewing by Eddie891
[edit]

*Syagrius is linked twice in the body, in an article this size it really doesn't need to be. That's about it. I'll look a bit closer in a few minutes/later today, but seems to be pretty good. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: The map used in the article is good to go. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review The used sources seem of high quality and reliable, but A Companion to Late Antiquity, Philip Rousseau (ed.), seems to have useful material on his likely status, saying that he might have been more of a regent. Also Studies in the history, literature and society of Late Antiquity by Hakkert seems to have quite a few mentions of him and should probably be examined before a FAC nom. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Unable to find an accessible copy of A Companion to Late Antiquity online (found one that didn't have page numbers, which is fairly useless in terms of citations, unfortunately); only snippet view of Studies in the history, literature and society of Late Antiquity. I'll see about buying them if I make a run for FAC, but I'm focusing my efforts at finishing off my GAR's as of right now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. I'm happy with the sources as they stand. Treat the above as a suggestion for FAC if this goes there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support by Kges1901
[edit]

Excellent article.

  • In the first paragraph of history, there are three consecutive sentences beginning with 'Aegidius', suggest diversifying the vocabulary.
    •  Done; not sure how to change the third "Aegidius" without severe awkwardness unfortunately.
  • Aegidius is credited By whom?
    •  Done
  • Not useful to link Italy to the modern country in the history section.
    •  Done
  • Childeric I was exiled briefly explain who Childeric I was and why he is relevant
    •  Done
  • The sources go on to say that Aegidius ruled them for eight years, before Childeric was recalled and reinstated as king. This story is considered fictional by most modern historians. Both sentences can be combined, and suggest noting that these are the primary sources.
    •  Done
  • Primary sources of the time say he was either assassinated or poisoned, but the person doing so, or allegedly doing so, is not given. Suggest rewording as "Primary sources of the time report that he was either assassinated or poisoned, but do not mention a perpetrator." Kges1901 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
G'day Iazyges, just a reminder that this review is here. This is progressing well so far as I can see. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901: Implemented where I could; I avoided use of "Primary sources", because they didn't exist in the way we use them (almost all Ancient "primary sources" were removed from their stories by several degrees.) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing. Changed to Support. Kges1901 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about a Soviet offensive in 1944 on the Eastern Front and passed a GAN several months ago. Kges1901 (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I'll work on this over a few days, but will make a start now.

Lead
  • "the area of manganese ore mines of crucial importance to Hitler" could do with a bit of generalisation, in terms perhaps of the German war effort, with Hitler taking a particular interest in its protection?
  • Rephrased.
  • worth pointing out that the German bridgehead was part of a salient centred on Apostolovo, and link Salient (military)
  • Done
  • worth mentioning that the 3rd UF was on the north of the salient and the 4th UF on the south of it
  • Done.
  • should mention that the German IV Corps was located in the cut-off section of the salient near Nikopol
  • Done.
  • in general, the lead needs to better explain what German formations were across the Dnieper in the bridgehead
  • point out that Krivoi Rog was in the north of the salient
  • Rephrased to northwest for accuracy.
  • perhaps summarise that this offensive resulted in the pinching off of a significant part of the salient and mention losses on both sides in terms of casualties in men and tanks
  • Hard to put in casualties as the Soviets don't have reliable and complete casualty figures, while the German casualty figures are likely incomplete though Soviet reports of German casualties are demonstrably exaggerated.
  • what was the "subsequent offensive"?
  • One that there is no actual article on, the Bereznegovatoye–Snigeryovka offensive. Rephrased.
  • I might have more for this section once I've gone through the article

Break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
Background
  • In general, linking of ranks is needed, Generaloberst for Hollidt etc
  • Done
  • link bridgehead
  • Done
  • add something here about the salient, which parts each Front had, and link salient
  • As I understand it, the salient is the same thing as the bridgehead - the Soviets did not have a substantial salient into the German line at this time. Added the front attack sectors (general information).
  • suggest "since being captured by the Germans in 1941, these deposits had been used by Germany..."
  • Rephrased. Could you kindly read over it to see if it makes sense?
  • Hitler should be Adolf Hitler at first mention, Hitler thereafter
  • Done
  • the Hitler quote, should that read "the end of the war"?
  • Done
  • rank for Manstein
  • Done
  • link a few terms, Trench warfare, Land mine
  • Done
  • the use of Lieutenant general for Generalleutnant isn't right, they weren't equivalent ranks in WWII. Some editors use the German ranks for this reason (Generalmajor was also not equivalent to Major general).
  • Fixed. And not only that, but Russian General-leytenant is also not equivalent to American LTG either as it is a two star rank. Should I create a stub on the Russian/Soviet LTG rank? Kges1901 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I do is use the native rank with notes providing U.S. Army rank equivalents. Take a look at 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) for an example. I'm not saying you have to adopt this approach, but anglicising rank equivalents jars with me, especially when what appears to be the case on face value actually turns out not to be the equivalent. I wasn't aware of the Soviet General-leytenant issue, but I think it just underlines the importance of a consistent and clear approach to non-Anglo ranks. You could create a stub, but also have a look at Comparative officer ranks of World War II to check whether it is correct. I use Niehorster (an accepted reliable source at FA) to cite equivalents, the Soviet page is here which notes that in the cases of General-major and the former Kombrig they are more indicative of hierarchy than firm equivalents. I'm sure you could fashion a note to that effect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sequence is out here, it should start with the transfer of command on 1 Jan, then what Manstein tried to do on 4 Jan, it currently doesn't make sense as to why Manstein was going to Hitler about Nikopol before he took command of 6th Army
  • Done
  • for Bolshaya Lepetikha link Velyka Lepetykha? They appear to be roughly in the same area
  • Corrected, they are the same place. Good catch.
  • link Apostolovo
  • Done
  • suggest "which meant that if Soviet troops could capture Apostolovo they would have effectively cut off the German forces in the bridgehead"

Break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
Resolved
Prelude
  • In general, this section needs more information on the German side. When Red Army dispositions are detailed, they should be accompanied by German dispositions, in terms of what corps were located opposite each Front
  • Done.
  • when were the 3rd UF and elements of the 4th UF tasked?
  • Done
  • suggest explaining what Stavka was
  • Explained and rephrased.
  • Vasilevsky's conclusion doesn't make sense. If the 3rd and 4th UF were already tasked with destroying German forces in the area, how was his 29 December 1943 conclusion any different?
  • My understanding is that Vasilevsky was accelerating the schedule for the attacks.
  • suggest reconsidering→reconsideration
  • Done
  • again, no German information regarding the prelim attacks in terms of the opposition or losses
  • Added opposition and losses (see below).
@Peacemaker67: Done. Kges1901 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very Soviet-centric perspective is being created here. Perhaps stubborn German resistance was also a factor in the lack of success by Soviet attacks, along with lack of ammo and tanks?
  • what were the German casualties in the prelim attacks?
  • Added. Note that the 10 day reports include delayed reporting, so not all casualties may be in the period that the reports were made in.
  • On what same day did Vasilevsky submit a new plan? 20 Jan?
  • 17 Jan, rephrased.
  • suggest "Vasilevsky submitted a new plan to Stavka for an attack to begin on 30 January."
  • Done
  • suggest consistency between Supreme High Command and Stavka
  • Done. Stavka would be common name.

I'm in the middle of this, but break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • were there any German formation or unit transfers, equipment replacements etc to note during the Prelude?
  • Added from Ziemke, moved 24th Panzer info up.
  • put the planned diversionary attacks ahead of the main attacks, as they were to precede the latter
  • Done
  • against which German corps were the attacks to be launched, and who commanded them?
  • Done, except commander of the LVII Panzerkorps is unknown as its regular commander, Friedrich Kirchner was on leave at the time.
  • I looked at that too, and found that Esebeck was actually with LVIII Panzerkorps in France at the time, no evidence exists that he was sent to the Eastern Front at the time. If Kirchner was on leave I suspect that the chief of staff may have commanded it, but no RS. Perhaps Hinze can illuminate that when my interlibrary loan arrives in a couple of weeks. Kges1901 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given we have two 6th Army's, you need to preface each one with Soviet or German, otherwise it has potential to get confusing
  • Done in cases where I did not believe it was obvious.
Resolved
Comparison of forces
  • Manstein and AG South are overlinked
  • Done
  • A breakdown of the German 6th Army by corps and then by divisions is needed, otherwise we have no idea who is up against whom. An order of battle table would probably be best.
  • If you like I can also add a detailed Soviet order of battle as well, and have them next to each other. Thanks to Tessin there is an equal amount of information available for both sides on the same day - 1 February. Kges1901 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • where you talk about 24th Panzer Division, suggest "significantly reducing the armoured forces available to the Germans"
  • Done
  • is there a breakdown between the 3rd and 4th UFs in terms of men, guns, vehicles etc?

Break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
Offensive
  • in general, this section needs more context throughout, such as in which geographical sector each attack was being made and in what direction, and against which German formation. It is rather hard to follow.
  • @Peacemaker67: I have attempted to address this through the expansion from Hinze's information. Does this satisfy your concerns on this point?
  • the 24th Panzer Division reappears, but hadn't it been sent elsewhere?
  • rank for Kleist
  • Done
  • local resistants? were these partisans?
  • which formations of the 6th Army were in which area?
  • what were the casualties suffered by 3rd UF 30 Jan to 5 Feb?
  • it isn't clear if Soviet formations were leapfrogging each other, or attacking in parallel, and on what flank. It would be valuable to state things like "On the right flank of the XXth Army, the XV Army attacked the German XC Corps" etc
  • At least initially, the Soviets attacked in parallel, but the advances of some units outpaced others, for example 8th Guards Army outpaced 37th Army during the initial drive towards Apostolovo.
  • Did the Soviets not attack between 2 and 8 Feb in the 4th UF sector, or were attacks continuing?
  • I'm pretty sure that the attacks continued; I will probably incorporate information from the 4th UF combat journal to expand this section - either the actions in this period were overshadowed by those of the 3rd Ukrainian Front, or they did not reflect well on the Soviets. There is little mention in Hinze of this sector.
  • @Peacemaker67: I have finished adding the information from the combat journal and added a PD Soviet situation map to better show the 4th Ukrainian Front's advances, as from reading Hinze and the combat journal I think the Soviets knew very well what German units they were facing in this sector. This appears to be the last outstanding point; could you please indicate any further comments if necessary? Kges1901 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 24th Panzer is mentioned again, but now we learn it has been called back. Its movements should be clarified
  • Resolved by above.
  • IV Army Corps is overlinked
  • Done
  • Reserve of the Supreme High Command is overlinked
  • Done
  • which German corps was holding Krivoi Rog?
  • Done
Resolved
Aftermath
  • the Soviet estimate of the German casualties is so obviously inflated as to be useless, and I would dispense with it. Suggest using Soviet figures for their own casualties and German ones for theirs. Same goes for aircraft shot down, which seems excessive, but with no German information to compare it to, it is hard to know.
  • the lack of Soviet casualty figures is a significant gap in coverage. From what I can see, there are only Soviet figures for 1-10 Feb for 4th UF. It is hard to properly assess the full outcomes of the offensive without this sort of information. Is there an equivalent of Tarasov for 3rd UF?
  • This results from the Soviets not (publicly) revealing their casualties. The Russian official history does state that about 20,000 irretrievable losses occurred during the offensive, but that figure is cited to a work that doesn't support the number, that provides figures for the entire Dnieper–Carpathian strategic offensive. So I don't want to include it given that it looks like guesswork. As for the combat journals of the 3rd Ukrainian Front, unlike the 4th Ukrainian Front, they do not have totals for 10 day periods – each daily entry in the front combat journal gives only enemy losses, never their own losses (for the ground units). However, the daily aircraft losses of the 17th Air Army are given, but no totals, so even though I could theoretically make an estimate of the air losses by adding up the daily reports, I would prefer not to perform OR there. Kges1901 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
General
  • Glantz points out that the Korsun fighting drew reserves from this sector, this should be made clearer, and what reserves were withdrawn should be identified if possible. Was it only the 24th Panzer? Or other forces as well? What about the role of deception?
  • I'm wondering if Crucible of Combat: Germany's Defensive Battles in the Ukraine, 1943-44 by Rolf Hinze should be used here, as I am sure it would have useful details regarding the German side, which are currently a bit thin. I've requested a review of it from WP:RX just to check on its reliability.
  • Thanks for taking the time to request a review, PM. I will look into it, as Glantz wrote in When Titans Clashed that it is the "most thorough" German perspective work, though apparently not the "most unbiased". Kges1901 (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Well done so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Moving to support, as all my comments have been addressed. For FAC (assuming this is going there), I suggest a bit more emphasis on context in the Operations section, such as in which geographical sector each attack was being made and in what direction, mentioning flanks, and stating against which German formation each attack was made. This has been partially addressed with additions from Hinze, but could do with a bit more work for FAC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • Suggest moving the map out of the infobox and putting it somewhere enlarged. It's hard to follow the article without the map.
  • Where specifically would you like it for reader convenience, as the article body is long?
  • Remove the hard-coded image sizes
  • Done
  • It's not clear to the reader where Army Group A is in relation to Army Group South (although it's on the map)
  • Tried to clarify
  • There seems to be some blanks lines after the first paragraph in the 3rd Ukrainian Front operations, 30 January–5 February section
  • Fixed.
  • I hate the equivalent ranks. First, it assumes that the reader understands the US Army's ranks, which I can assure you most don't. The rank of brigadier general usually confuses, because they don't have it in Britain and Australia, and brigadier really isn't the same thing. Secondly, while you can source it, you should be aware that it has repeatedly been attacked by historians in the US and Germany, and should be regarded as controversial. Thirdly, it refers to the modern-day US Army, not the World War II version. Until March-April 1945, when there was a wave of promotions, you could count the the four-star generals in the US Army on the fingers of one hand. Bradley and Devers, army group commanders, were only lieutenant generals. Thomas Blamey wrote a whole paper on the subject of rank comparison between the US and Australian armies during the war. There was a host of anomalies. The links to the articles do the job much better.
  • Other reviewer perspective here. WWII equivalents ARE used by a number of historians, such as Stein (Waffen-SS) who includes one as an appendix to his book. The ones from Niehorster ARE WWII equivalents, not modern ones, otherwise he would have Generalmajor as a two-star rank, whereas in WWII it was a one-star rank. I agree that a link to an specific article for a foreign rank is best, but in the absence of that, some sort of note about equivalence is useful, and direct translations are often misleading. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I will point out that these are not the equivalents cited in wartime manuals, where major general is considered equivalent to generalmajor, and brigadier general is listed as "no equivalent". Which is fair enough; with the brigades abolished the brigadier generals in the US Army in WWII were mostly deputy division commanders, but other armies didn't have this position. And we'll leave it at that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the Soviet air units but not the Luftwaffe (well, there is one line)
  • @Hawkeye7: I have added information about Soviet air superiority, which explains why the Luftwaffe was not around. I would note that both Soviet and German accounts mention Soviet bombing, but the German accounts do not mention the Luftwaffe. Despite this, the war diaries of the Soviet air units involved include claims of shooting down large numbers of German aircraft, and their own losses in turn. Kges1901 (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "roadbuilding" -> "road building" ?
  • Done
  • What are "unfavorable weather conditions" ?
  • Clarified, though there could probably be a better way of stating it.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Krivosheev's casualty data doesn't cover this battle? (in the infobox)
  • As a result, the bridgehead was heavily fortified, with three lines of trenches in its first defensive line, strengthened by barbed wire belts and minefields. All heights and settlements immediately behind the front were turned into fortified strongpoints.[10] These positions were what remained of the fortified German Dnieper line. It's unclear to me what the relationship is between the Dneiper Line and the fortifications in the salient as the latter was east of the Dneipr and the former west of the river, as I understand things.
  • Ziemke says that the Group Schorner frontline, which is east of the Dnieper, was what was left of the original Dnieper line. Per File:Map of dnieper battle grand.jpg, the Panther-Wotan line, which is what I think Ziemke is referring to here, actually curves away from the Dnieper at Nikopol.
  • OK
  • hard surfaced roads Needs a hyphen between the first two words. Watch for other compound adjectives that need hyphens.
  • Done
  • two one-lane pontoon bridges Pontoon bridges should be linked. And I suggest rewording to "a pair of one-lane..." to avoid using spelled out numbers in close conjunction.
  • Done
  • Link barbed wire, floodplain
  • Done
  • spearheaded by tanks estimated at 80 by German reports awkward
Rephrased.
  • attacked in a sector of 21 kilometers suggest "were to attack on a 21-kilometer frontage"
  • Done
  • Be sure to convert all measurements on first use.
  • Done
  • The German redeployment section does not reference 23rd Panzer Div, which apparently was also pulled back into reserve.
  • Per Ziemke, 23rd Panzer wasn't in reserve until 31 January. The OOB chart I used for AOK 6 is for 1 February because that is what Tessin provides. The redeployments cover the redeployments before 31 January.
  • Done
  • several divisions missing their entire complement of heavy weaponry suggest "several divisions having lost their entire complement of heavy weapons"
  • Done
  • against Tok nearly destroyed elements of the 3rd Mountain Division, despite being halted Perhaps "against Tok was stopped after nearly destroying elements..."?
  • Done
  • In addition, the previous fighting had caused a lack of pioneers and bridging equipment, vehicles, guns, infantry ammunition, and tanks. Awkward, rephrase
  • Slightly rephrased.
  • The troops of IV and XVII Army Corps held their positions at Marinskoye and on 15 February the 97th Jäger and 24th Panzer Divisions, the latter returned from its abortive march to the Korsun Pocket, attacked to the west of Bolshaya Kostromka to link up with LVII Panzer Corps, erasing a Soviet penetration and reporting the capture of 221 guns, 66 anti-tank guns, and 62 machine guns. Too complicated. Split and reword
  • Done

Source review

[edit]
  • Put Erickson in title case
  • Done
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Berwick (1333)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Siege of Berwick (1333) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

An examination of a siege which led to a catastrophe for Scottish arms and England becoming once again embroiled in the running sore of the Scottish wars. I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems to me to cover the topic well and to meet the A class criteria, it has just passed a thorough GAN assessment, and because I have been encouraged to nominate it by a more experienced editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

CommentsSupport by Constantine

[edit]

Being rather ignorant of the details of the English–Scottish wars, I found the article easy to read and understand, concise and comprehensive. A few minor issues/questions before I support:

  • for the reader who is unfamiliar with the subject, I would recommend adding regnal dates to the monarchs (the {{reign}} template is handy)
  • Done. Except for Richard I who only gets a passing mention and is placed as "140 years before"; and Edward Balliol as in is disputed as to whether he was ever a "legitimate" king, and if it is accepted that he was then he reigned for three separate periods, which seems overcomplicated to try and get into the article. I could footnote the latter if you think it worthwhile.
  • reference is made to Balliol's "truncated Scotland", but can we have some information (a footnote would suffice) about what this was?
  • I have switched the order of the two sentences in question which I hope makes it clearer. It now reads: "On 19 June 1344 Balliol did homage to Edward for Scotland, after formally ceding to England the eight counties of south-east Scotland. Balliol ruled a truncated Scotland from Perth, from where he put down the remaining resistance."
  • Or at least a brief summary of the rest of the struggle between Balliol and David II.
  • Done.
  • Also, the caption of the map at the end appears to be inaccurate, as both the text and the map description imply that Balliol never ruled all of the "blue" territory shown.
  • Reworded.
  • could some information be added about Berwick's fortifications, e.g. a sketch, or a brief description that?
  • Description added.
  • Is the strength of the garrison known, even approximately so? If not, then perhaps it should be explicitly mentioned in the text.
  • No. Several sources give the Scottish garrison of 1319 as 500, then don't quantify the 1333 garrison. Given this I am loath to guess/OR, or even say much. I suspect that there is a reason why none of the sources mention the number, but I don't know what it is.

Otherwise I cannot find anything amiss, although as said, my knowledge of the subject is limited. Well done. Constantine ✍ 09:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thank you, appreciated. And thanks for the assessment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the rapid response. My questions having been addressed, I am happy to support. Constantine ✍ 09:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/s by SN54129

[edit]

Well, Gog the Mild, I wondered why this was familiar! I came here to review, and, indeed, probably to support, as it's a fine piece of work; I can see why it was familiar. A D'OH moment from me too; far from being the reviewer I intended, I have landed rather in the position of being the co-author, so can hardly review my own work. Them's the breaks, I guess. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 11:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number 54129. I guess that we all have those moments . Yes, you introduced Nicholson as a source and added a lot of material from him. I doubt that the article would be here without that, so a belated but heartfelt thank you. Yes, while the article is pining for an assessor, I don't think that a co-author would be allowed. Shame, that. Although if you do see scope for improvement, please flag it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from CPA-5

[edit]

Greetings here (again) let me see how I can help you. Let's start shall we?

  • Reign of Richard I of England?
Done.
Done.
  • I think the parliament of "The English parliament" should be capitalised this is the same issue as using crown or council capitalised because of the organisation or am I wrong?
I don't think that "parliament" is a proper noun, even in this context. I have checked two modern sources and they both have "English parliament", with a lower case p. So I propose leaving it.
  • Just a question but should "Pope John XXII" not have a reign too or shall I beter ask when his papacy did start? Because the Pope reigned a big stuck of Italy.
I've written and assessed several articles involving popes and as they are not monarchs they are not given regnal terms. Even during periods when, as you note, they rule large areas. Anyway, at this time they had been kicked out of Italy and held court at the French town of Avignon.
  • Good point, didn't realised it's in the same period when the siege took place, when the Pope wasn't in Rome at the moment.
  • “son of the governor” should be capitalised and become “son of the Governor”.
Done. Good spot.
  • The dot should be before the source at the “William Seton, son of the governor, drowned during this episode.” part
Done. Eagle eyed.
  • “The army the Guardian had spent so much time gathering was now compelled to take to the field, with all initiative lost.” Looks weird in
my view especially the “The army the Guardian” part, like first the Guardian is that a name of an organisation or is that a name of someone?
Because I couldn't find what the Guardian is in the page itself. Second one is, “The army the” part sounds weird to say or am I wrong?
Should it not be “The army and the Guardian" or be “The army's Guardian"? Can I get some explanation?
It comes from the earlier "In Scotland Archibald Douglas was Guardian of the Realm.." but I think you are right so I have changed it to “The army the Douglas had spent so much time gathering was now compelled to take to the field.” And deleted 'with all initiative lost'.
  • “the Scottish by King Henry VI.” Same as Richard I of England, reign please?
Done.

More Comments

  • "King Edward II of England (r. 1328–1350) attempted to recapture it in 1319 but abandoned the siege after a Scottish army bypassed him and advanced on York," King Edward II's reign is wrong he reigned between 1307 and 1327.
You are eagle eyed. Embarrassing that that got so far. Done.
  • "brought his regents, Isabella and Roger Mortimer, to the negotiating table." --> "brought his regents, Isabella and Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, to the negotiating table."
They are both linked. I don't think that it is necessary to list everyone's full titles at every mention.
  • "Berwick was to remain the military and political headquarters of the English on the border" --> "Berwick was to remain the military and political headquarters of the English on the border,"
It does need a comma, well picked up. But I have inserted it in a different place. See what you think.
  • "until its final re-capture by Richard, Duke of Gloucester in 1482." --> "until its final re-capture by Richard, Duke of Gloucester (and future King) in 1482." and the reign of the King too please.
Future king bit added. IMO the regnal years of a walk on character who wasn't a king at the time in question is more likely to confuse a reader than help, so I am going to skip this time if that's ok.
  • Note 5 "Based on Sumption" need a dot at the end.
Very good. Done.

I hope this was usefull I couldn't find anything else, goodluck. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Zawed

[edit]

Source review and Support by Cinderella157

[edit]

I have conducted a review of the sources and believe them to appropriate and sufficiently reliable. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

38th Infantry Division Dravska

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

38th Infantry Division Dravska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The latest in my series on the Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of that country in April 1941, this is forms part of an expansion of an existing Good topic that will hopefully end up as a Featured topic one day. Undermined by fifth column activities and faced with thrusts by two German corps, the division fell back in disarray and surrendered with the rest of the 7th Army. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Due to a lack of Yugoslav counter-attacks, many of these positions remained in German hands into 6 April. "Remained" implies the Yugoslavs attacked them at some point and potentially retook them, which I'm not seeing. Did you mean that the Germans had secured them by 6 April?
  • I don't think that necessarily follows. The Germans captured the Yugoslav positions, and because the Yugoslavs didn't counterattack, the Germans continued to hold them into 6 April.
  • On pages 39–40 of The South Slav Journal Volume 4 ([17]) there's a large excerpt from General Čedomir Stanojlović's memoirs on the campaign. He pays special attention to the division's Croat chief of staff, Major Ivan Babić, whom he suggests hardly had his heart in the fight. I've managed to extract the whole excerpt from Google snippet view. As its rather long, I think there would be copyvio problems if I posted it here. Would you like me to email it to you?

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the text. I can sympathise with your concerns about POV, but at the very least it seems important to mention that Babić was division chief of staff. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Will do. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added the source and mentioned that Babić was the divisional COS, but I am loath to add anything else for the POV reasons I outlined above. The South Slav Journal of that era at least was a Yugoslav emigre "resistance" periodical, and had a significant bias. I think it is ok for basic facts like that of Babić being the COS, but not much else. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed and the article is very comprehensive, so I'm supporting its promotion to A-class. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Indy beetle! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

  • Wartime organisation: "The wartime organisation of the VJK was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–1937, and the strength of an infantry division was 26,000–27,000 men." : There doesn't appear to be an obvious relationship between the two parts of this sentence, unless the regs laid down what the divisional strength should be.
  • good point. Reworded.
  • Mobilisation: "...invasion commenced, the 38th ID had only commenced mobilisation, and was largely in its mobilisation..." consider rephrasing to avoid repetition of commenced and mobilisation?
  • varied wording
  • 5-6 April: On the evening of 5 April, one of the aggressive..." no antecedence for "the aggressive"? Perhaps "a particularly aggressive..."?

Struggling to find much else to fault here. Zawed (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Zawed! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Gog the Mild

[edit]

This is very good, to the extent that I couldn't find much to comment on that wasn't on the picky side. So, some picky points to consider:

  • "the division also lacked modern arms and sufficient ammunition." This tends to beg the question, sufficient for what? (What front line unit ever feels that it has sufficient ammunition?)
  • added "to meet the German onslaught"
  • "Each infantry regiment was to consist of three to four infantry battalions, a machine gun company" Should that be 'Each infantry regiment was to consist of three to four infantry battalions and a machine gun company'? Possibly with a full stop after "Company"?
  • Done.
  • It may just be me, but I find the use of "as" in "The 38th ID was a component of the 7th Army as part of the 1st Army Group" confusing. Perhaps 'The 38th ID was a component of the 7th Army, a part of the 1st Army Group,'?
  • Done.
  • "some 30–55 kilometres (19–34 mi) further south." "further south" than what?
  • the Drava, clarified
  • "On the left flank of the division was Mountain Detachment Triglavski (MD Triglavski), and on its right flank was Detachment Ormozki of the 4th Army... Border guard units in the divisional sector would consist of..." Why the change to the conditional?
  • Fixed.
  • "the 538th Frontier Guard Division, who were guarding the German border.". 'which was'?
  • Fixed.
  • "One German column pushed towards Maribor from Mureck, and the other pushed on". 'an other', or 'a second'? Or do the two columns relate to the two corps previously mentioned?
  • LI Infantry Corps - clarified.
  • "in the sector of the right flanking Detachment Ormozki without striking any resistance" "striking" seems an odd choice of word: 'hitting', 'meeting', 'encountering?
  • Fixed.
  • "XXXXIX Mountain Corps captured border crossings on the approaches to Dravograd, but were held up". '...was held up'?
  • Fixed.
  • "On that day, Marko Natlačen—the governor of the Drava Banovina" It may help a reader if this were changed to 'On that day, Marko Natlačen—the governor of Drava Banovina province'.
added parens
  • "Jezerski vrh". This seems to usually be spelt with an upper case V. Which may of course not have been the case in 1941. There is a lower case Jezerski vrh in Albania.
  • Yes, hard to nail this down. Have gone with the current Google Maps capitalisation, but the original Serbo-Croat (Terzic) uses the lower case.
  • "Morale in the 7th Army had started to decline due to fifth column elements encouraging soldiers to stop resisting the enemy." I am not sure about the inclusion of "had".
  • Fixed.
  • "In the early hours of 7 April, three Blenheims of the Yugoslav 8th Bomber Regiment" Perhaps link Blenheims? (I don't think that it is already linked.)
  • Yes, already linked under 6 April.
  • "the rest of the 8th Bomber Regiment was awaiting orders to bomb a rebelling Yugoslav regiment of the neighbouring 4th Army in Bjelovar – these orders were subsequently cancelled." I am a little confused as to how awaited orders, which one assumes have not arrived, can be cancelled.
  • Basically the way it generally works in most armed forces is you get a warning order with anticipated tasks, then an operations order with the detailed tasks, and they then issue fragmentary orders to amend the operations order as required.
  • "By the time it entered Zagreb, the 14th Panzer Division was met by cheering crowds" Not sure about "By the time"> What is wrong with 'when'?
  • Done.
  • "This force, split into a dozen units and totalling 2,000–3,000 men, then began to assist the Germans in disarming units of the 7th Army, but did not engage in combat with Yugoslav troops." Is part of this a repeat of "Fifth columnists delayed but did not engage in combat with Yugoslav troops." or is it two separate not engaging in combats?
  • The latter is general regarding the whole area of the 7th Army on 6 April (so both Slovene and Croat), the former is specific to the Slovenian Legion from 1 April.
  • "Proxies for the NszS approached Generalmajor Hubert Lanz, the commander of the 1st Mountain Division, when his formation approached Celje" Is it possible to lose one of the "approached"s?
  • Fixed.
  • Final sentence: any information on the overall percentage of PoWs held for the duration?
  • No unfortunately. Someone may have done the research in Serbo-Croat, but none of the sources I've seen provide that info.

As I said, mostly trivia, and most of them you should feel free to ignore if you wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and review, Gog the Mild. These are my edits. Appreciate the tightening up of the prose in particular. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Most sources seem reliable and appropriate for the topic. One comment:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Neville's Cross

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Neville's Cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the battle was a moderately important event in the history of both Scotland and England. I believe that the article is in about as good a shape as I can get it, and that this meets the A class criteria. Only my third A class nomination, and the first which I didn't write from scratch, so I am probably wrong on that last point and all input is welcomed. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

CommentsSupport from CPA-5

Greetings the page looks good but (I think) I see some issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for looking at this review, and for going through the article so thoroughly. I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "on 17 October 1346, half a mile to the west of Durham, England" how much is a half mile in metric units?
Oops! Done.
There is an other half mile you forgot in the intro. After "on 17 October 1346, half a mile to the west of Durham, England," Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Grr. Missed it. Thank you.
  • "in south west France" --> "in south-west France"
Done.
  • "David led a six day raid" --> "David led a six-day raid"
Done.
  • "paid over a ten year span on 24 June" --> "paid over a ten-year span on 24 June,"
Done.
  • 2 note has an cite error
Done.
  • "the childless David II for £40,000" how much is £40,000 in 2018
@CPA-5: Apologies, I thought that I had responded to this before. I deliberately hadn't converted this. There is no requirement to convert any historical value and it is not usual. I already had three conversions and I was wary of showering the reader with numbers - the article could become Battle of Neville's Cross as told by an accountant. It would be easy enough to add a conversion, but as the deal this relates to never happened it seemed appropriate to skip it this time. I am happy to debate the pros and cons and could probably be readily persuaded. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by 1349" --> "by 1349,"
I do not use the convention of always putting a comma after dates, unless otherwise required by the construction of the sentence. This applies to a number of your comments below.
  • in the infobox the "•Capture of the Scottish King" should be --> "• Capture of the Scottish King"
Well spotted! Done.
  • "In January 1343" --> "In January 1343,"
  • "In 1346" --> "In 1346,"
  • "In January 1343" --> "In January 1343,"
  • "since 1332" --> "since 1332,"
  • "In June" --> "In June,"
  • "On 7 October" --> "On 7 October,"
  • "on 16 October" --> "on 16 October,"
  • "north east to Durham" --> "north-east to Durham"
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Compass points says "Compound compass points are usually fully compounded in American English, for example northwest, while in British English they are sometimes written as separate words or hyphenated". I use British English and write compound compass points as separate words. Hopefully consistently so.
  • "marched north west" --> "marched north-west"
See above
  • "the French king." --> "the French King."
Done.
  • "In early 1346" --> " In early 1346,"
  • "the Scottish king" --> "the Scottish King"
Done.

@Gog the Mild: Greetings Gog I think the page is (in my view) okey, good luck with your nomination. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed


@Zawed: Thanks for the assessment. All done and awaiting the second installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background: link their names on first mention of David and Edward (presently linked on second mention) and also recite their names in full as well. Then adjust the second and following mentions as appropriate.
Done.
  • Background: "Hostilities continued..." given the context of the previous sentence, it almost seems necessary to point out the contrast here. i.e. "However, hostilities..." or "Despite this, hostilities..."
Done.
  • Aftermath: "King Edward III ordered Coupland to hand over David II, rewarding Coupland..." : Coupland's name is repeated twice in close, see if you can rephrase to avoid this.
Done.
  • The caption to the map in the infobox needs place name.
Done. (Sort of.)
  • You have cites in the infobox for the Scottish/English casualties, this isn't necessary since they should be cited in main body of article.
Done.
  • I'm getting a cite error in respect of note 2; "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "inflation-UK" defined multiple times with different content"
Done.

More comments to follow. Zawed (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To my mind, the campaign boxes under the infobox are out of order; the Scottish Independence Wars should be first, since the Second War of Independence is a subset of that.
Done
  • Background: this is one large paragraph, I suggest breaking it into two for ease of reading.
Done
  • Background: I think note 1 should follow cite 11, not be ahead of it.
Done
  • Prelude: I just want to check, note 12 also applies to the comment about the chroniclers of the time as well as the quote?
Yes. Let me know if you would like more detail.
  • Prelude: note 2 should start after the bracket, not before it (it is my understanding that cites and notes follow punctuation).
MOS:REFPUNCT would suggest otherwise. Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis. which is the case here.
  • Battle: "stood-to-arms"; should the hyphens be there? If so, perhaps see if this phrase could be linked.
Well, it is, on exploration, usually hyphenated when used as a noun, and often when used as a verb. A surprisingly lack of consistency across reliable dictionaries. (I did check this before nominating, but only in one.) So I can reasonably unhyphenate it. Done.
  • Battle: "to the high ground at Neville's Cross"; link Neville's Cross. I also notice that you haven't explicitly referred to Neville's Cross in the lede, and suggest you do so since it forms part of the article's title.
Done
  • Battle: "within sight of the Cathedral": I would name and link the cathedral (presumably Durham?)
Linked but not named. It seems clear to me to from the text ("to the west of Durham and within sight of the Cathedral") and would cause "Durham" to appear twice in seven words.
  • Battle: you refer to groups or battles initially, then switch to units, then back to battles (and later on there is a reference to formation). Perhaps this was to differentiate between the Scots and English? I wonder if you should use groups for Scots and battles for the English.
It was (to differentiate). Considering, if you don't like "unit", how about formations for the Scots and battles for the English? "Groups" seems to imply a disorganised mass.
  • Battle: are we aware of any reason for Dunbar's refusal to command the first unit; wouldn't he have been defying his king?
I have taken it out. It comes a bit from nowhere. The Scottish high command had 'issues', I could write an entire article on them. Note that Dunbar's formation, the Scot's largest, left the field without engaging, taking its second in command, Robert Stewart (nephew to the King, heir-apparent, and future king of Scotland), with it. I either need to include all of the internal politics from the start, to, IMO, the considerable confusion of the reader, or just state the facts.
  • Aftermath: "childless David II for £40,000"; no conversion for this amount?
  • And I've just noticed the comment about it above. FWIW, I think it better to have the conversion for sake of consistency.
Done.
  • Aftermath: "a ransom of 100,000 marks"; why the change in currency?
Because that's what the actual or proposed agreements, and the sources I have access to said/say. I can convert if you prefer. (It would be £66,666 13/- 8p.)
  • References: A few of the references used are quite old; is it not possible to use more recent ones for the material cited by these? For example, Tate & Longstaff is used for William Zouche in the infobox, but presumably is mentioned in Sumption as well (see cite which supports William Zouche first mention in the article body).
Infobox: I have taken it out. It wasn't added by me. It is covered in the text and is inconsistent as we don't load the infobox down with everyone else's full titles. So Tate & Longstaff has gone. Dalrymple (1776) and Fraser (1878) are only used to support the list of Scottish prisoners. Older sources are fonder of listing noble involvement than more modern ones and I consider them reliable for this, limited, purpose. I have swapped Paul (1904–1914) for Sumption.
  • References: for the Given-Robin reference, what does the 116 refer to?
Volume. That's how it comes out when I put |volume=116 into the standard template.

That's my remaining comments done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Many thanks for ploughing through this and picking up all the bits I missed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking really good. I've just noticed one last thing, which is the Tanner ref. It caught my eye since it lacks a page number despite being a book. I suspect that "Franco-Scottish Alliance" is an article within the book; can you confirm? If so, you can add |chapter=Franco-Scottish Alliance into the reference template and then it can be removed from the title= field. If Tanner is the editor rather than author, then the author's name will need to be added, and use editor-first=, editor-last= for Tanner. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: Well spotted. Thank you. Yes, it is an article within what is effectively an encyclopedia. There is a new edition, with different authors and a different take on the content. I have tweaked the article to match this latest scholarship. The ref should be ok now, and I have added an url leading direct to the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support now. Zawed (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Constantine

A well-written article, I am not terribly familiar with the events but could not find any major omissions or problems with it. A couple of minor points:

I am always wary of MOS:OVERLINKing, which probably means that I underlink. It seems to me that an reasonably literate reader should understand "ransom", especially in the context. A good point about "annuity", IMO; done. Also parole and hanged, drawn and quartered
Yes, I wanted to add these too but forgot. Good call. Constantine ✍ 08:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fond of regnal dates for the monarchs, they are handy for the uninitiated reader as well
So am I. I can't think why I missed them. Thank you. Done.
  • The sums given in modern terms are very handy, but better context would IMO be provided by providing a contemporary comparison, e.g. a labourer's annual income, or, even better, the revenue of the Scottish fisc, for comparison. For instance, it would not be difficult for a modern monarch to raise £34,000,000, but it would be presumably very difficult to raise £40,000 in 1350 due to much lower monetization of the economy and other factors.
I do take your point, but as noted above, the article could become Battle of Neville's Cross as told by an accountant. I have added a wage comparison to the first example . What do you think?
Looks good. FWIW, I would have no problem with removing all conversions to modern sums after the first reference; anyone interested can simply do the math, and since the first example happens to be a nice round number, it is fairly easy to do so. Up to you. Constantine ✍ 08:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of French knights" Is there is no indication of at least the approximate size of that contingent?
The source says "a handful". I have changed my text to "A small number of..."

Otherwise this reads very well, and the points are really minor. I'll have another read-through tomorrow but don't expect to add much. Well done Gog the Mild, Constantine ✍ 12:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine. Thank you for looking at this, I appreciate it. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes are more than satisfactory, and on a second pass I couldn't find anything else. As usual, good work. Constantine ✍ 08:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All of the sources appear to be of good quality. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Kediri campaign (1678)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk)

Kediri campaign (1678) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it pass all of milhist A-class criteria. I started the article from scratch, made sure it covers every major fact and that it's all referenced to a reliable source. It passed GA too. HaEr48 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Sources used in the article appear to be reliable. Also conducted spot checks on sources available through Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Link Bugis, all of the geographic place names, including rivers, marines,
  • Explain how Speelman became director-general so quickly after van Goens was appointed.
  • That's not what the article said. There were two posts, governor-general (the top post) and director-general. Initially Maetsuycker was g-g and van Goens was d-g. Then on January 1978 Maetsuycker died, and van Goens became g-g. This freed up the d-g post, and Speelman became d-g. Do you have suggestion how to clarify it in the article
  • However, desertion and reduced this army again
  • Desertion and disease caused the forces to dwindle.[1] At the time of the assault on Kediri, the VOC had 1,750 men, of which 659 were Europeans. Combine these sentences for better flow
  • Put Schrieke in title case in the Bibliography

Comments Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "14,500 (according to rebel)" Should read '(according to the rebels)'.
  • "the Mataram–VOC army purposefully split itself and the columns took different, indirect routes to". Is it recorded how many columns there were?
  • To my eye the Background lacks background. Having read the first paragraph of it I have no idea where the action is taking place geographically (somewhere in Asia?), what the VOC is doing there (trading, slave trading, settling, colonising?) nor how long it has been doing it (did they first arrive in 1677?).
  • Who is "Trunajaya"? He is mentioned in the first sentence with no introduction. (A local king?)
  • "to establish a new capital in Kediri"; "The capital was sacked". Is this the same capital?
  • What and/or where is Mataram?
  • "signed a treaty renewing their alliance." Is there a reason why the alliance being renewed is not mentioned? Had it been broken, or expired? In either case when? In any case how long had the previous alliance ran for?
  • "This covered all previous VOC campaigns on Mataram's behalf up to October". ? Do you mean 'This covered the costs of all...'?
  • "and awarded monopolies on textiles, opium, and sugar to the company." On growing, manufacturing, trading or exporting them? Or some combination?
  • "the entire treasury was taken by the rebels". I am guessing from context that "the rebels" are the same as "Trunajaya's forces". In either case, the use of "rebels" suggests that a rebellion is taking place. Could you supply some information on it?

Thanks. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Gog the Mild. I've responded for the first two, but I need to re-borrow some sources to answer the other questions, so it will take maybe a week or so. Apologies for the delay. HaEr48 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was just on the first paragraph . The rest of the review is below.
  • I carried out some minor copy editing. Could you check it please?
  • "various challengers of the king" -> 'the King' per MOS:JOBTITLES. Similarly in several other places.
  • Optional: "Speelman himself". Not sure what "himself" communicates here. Who else would he be?
  • "The VOC also brought the forces of Arung Palakka, its Bugis allies in the Makassar War (1666–69)." I am a little confused by this: brought from where? (And to where?) Is "allies" supposed to be plural?
  • From Celebes (where the Bugis are from) to Java (where the war was fought). Anyway, I reworded the whole sentence to clarify. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "but limited supplies meant it was saved for the final assault". Would that be 'limited supplies of ammunition...'?
  • "that the troops be divided into columns and march along a lengthy overland route". But they marched along several routes, of differing lengths, not "a" lengthy route.
  • "who were unfamiliar with the terrain of the Javanese interior". I suspect that you mean 'conditions', not "terrain".
  • "and continued to pick-off the loyalists' foragers and stragglers." This is the first mention of this; way do you say "continued"?

More to follow. (A nice, detailed article.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which part is odd? The cannon had a name and was considered a regalia, and was among those that the victors captured after the assault. I tried to reword the sentence. Please check, does it read better now? HaEr48 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... according to the journal." What journal?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere . And it was a substantial list. In my biased opinion it reads better now. I am happy with all of your changes. (I hope that you are too, feel free to come back here if, on reflection, you aren't with anything.)
  • One outstanding issue. Regalia has five possible meanings. A cannon would just about fit under number 3, assuming that it was solidly supported by the sources. But it would be (very) unusual and could do with, IMO, some explanation. (I note that you go into some detail to explain that the golden crown was not considered to be regalia.) How about something like: 'The captured regalia included a special cannon, named "Nyai Setomi" and called mriyem berkat ("blessed cannon") and wasiyat Mataram ("Mataram's heirloom"), which was considered an important symbol of kingship.' (I don't insist on this wording, it is only there to give you an idea of the sort of thing which I think would be helpful to a reader.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: I added the explanation "which was considered an heirloom of the Mataram's royal dynasty". Does that make sense? This is supported by the source. I've been to some Javanese museums, and indeed there were some cannons that have personal names like Nyai (Madam) Such-and-Such and considered special in someway. According to this Indonesian news report, the cannon Nyai Setomi mentioned in the article is still considered heirloom of the Surakarta royal family today, and in 2011 just cleaning it requires a special ceremony that was reported in the newspaper. HaEr48 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that you thought my suggestions worthwhile. Do feel free to have a look at one of my ACRs: Siege of Berwick (1333) and Battle of Neville's Cross . Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: A minor item: "On 3 November, Hurdt and Amangkurat were joined by an additional column led by Willem Bastinck from Surabaya, accompanied by 800 ox-carts carrying supplies." The cites after this aren't in number order, which ideally they should be. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Really interesting article, we don't often get articles from this time and place at Milhist ACR. A few comments from me:

  • in the opening sentence of the lead, state where the campaign occurred, as it begs the question
  • also in the lead, suggest "Javanese chronicles known as babads" to dispense with the parens
  • suggest "at Gegodog in 1676" to dispense with the parens
  • "the Amangkurat"
  • the Kking, and which king, Amangkurat I or the Dutch one? King should be decapitalised throughout unless used as "King Amangkurat I"
  • The capitalization was suggested by Gog the Mild. It did look weird to me in the beginning, but according to WP:JOBTITLE it should be capitalized "when a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II", so I think it applies to this case. Also there is no mention of other "king" being involved in this campaign, I think it's safe to say "the King" for Amangkurat? HaEr48 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speelman became director-general replacing van Goens" should this be Governor-General? Otherwise, what role was this?
  • suggest "in the Makassar War from 1666 to 1669" to dispense with the parens and conform to MOS:DATERANGE
  • suggest "Trunajaya also built fortifications along the Brantas, particularly on the eastern side of the river where Kediri also stood."
  • suggest "whose allegiance was wavering, and whose help and followers Mataram and the VOC hoped to enlist."
  • did each column include both VOC and Mataram forces, or only the middle one?
  • it might be helpful to call them the eastern, western and central columns to help the reader keep track using the map
  • suggest "in the [[Solo River|Semanggi (now Solo) River]] valley." to dispense with the parens
  • suggest "marched along the eastern route towards Kediri"
  • suggest "Hurdt wanted to stay in the Semanggi River valley", as we generally use the placenames at the time, rather than modern ones
  • "Amangkurat's forces dropped to about 1,000, while the VOC had 1,750 soldiers left, 659 of them Europeans." is a repetition of the earlier info, suggest dropping it from the earlier info and showing the development of the numbers through the chronology rather than up-front
  • suggest "were joined by the eastern column led by Willem Bastinck"
  • "under the command of Captain Tack" as he's already been introduced, this recurs later
  • Should Evacuation actually be Withdrawal?
  • "Trunajaya and his retinue waswere still at large"
  • "Raden Kajoran" should just be Kajoran at this point
  • there is a footnote to Andaya 1981 but this is not listed in the Bibliography.
  • Schrieke needs an OCLC, you can find it here

That's me done. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for your review, please see above I've responded to them. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lion-class battleship

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Lion-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

With the exception of the brand-new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, these battleships would have been the largest ships ever built by the Royal Navy. Construction of a pair began right before WW2 began and caused their eventual cancellation. Work began late in the war on new designs that would incorporate war experience, but a combination of ever more powerful weapons and post-war economic reality made them unaffordable and they were never ordered. I believe that the article meets the A-class criteria, although I'd like reviewers to look for infelicitous prose, unexplained or linked jargon and any examples of AmEnglish in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901

[edit]

I was unable to find any examples of American English, but I'm a Yank anyway.
Image review

done and thanks for the advice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly part of the image review, but is it possible that you could add at least a couple more images that may be relevant? Currently there are large unbroken sections of text with no illustrations.

Source review

  • All sources are high quality reliable secondary sources.

Lead

  • Suggest avoiding the slash in battleship/aircraft carrier for clarity

Design and Description

  • You may want to rephrase increased weight of the main armament in the first paragraph since there are consecutive sentences with the same phrase, which appear exactly vertical from each other in a standard browser.
    • Good catch
  • Suggest rephrasing the footnote since it is essentially a quote without context, or integrating the seemingly significant opinion into the text.
  • "American insistence" - Perhaps use a synonym as it doesn't seem necessary to directly quote the source.
    • Reworked that bit entirely. See how it reads
  • Suggest linking the exact types of guns in the body (and lead) on first mention unless you have a reason not to, i.e. 5.25 in DP guns.
    • I'd prefer not to.
  • Their rate of fire was two rounds per minute. The ships carried 100 shells per gun. Sentences could be combined as they are too short by themselves. Same suggestion applies for the other similar gun descriptions in the paragraph.
    • Good idea, see if I've varied the phrasing enough to prevent a reader's eyes from crossing.
  • I think you've done the best possible given the limited variety of usable words.
  • all but the new Mk III 16-inch turret. This was finally cancelled by the First Sea Lord on 10 March 1949. Suggest combining the last sentence with the previous one, I presume it means the turret as well.
    • Good idea
  • not well liked - perhaps "not approved of" or "not greeted with approval"

Construction

  • Only the first four received names, correct?
  • Contracts for Conqueror and Thunderer were awarded on 15 August to John Brown and Fairfield. Suggest making this more clear to emphasize that both ships were not going to be built by both companies, perhaps "The contract for Conqueror was awarded to John Brown on 15 August, while that for Thunderer went to Fairfield on the same day"?
  • When in 1942 were they cancelled, if available in sources?
  • Is there information on what happened to the Temeraire's keel? Lead says both were scrapped after the war but it is not mentioned in the body. Kges1901 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thoroughly revising the design in late 1942, the RN's Director of Contracts wrote to Vickers Armstrongs and Cammell Laird "requesting them to clear the slipways and reuse the material on other naval contracts where possible. That's as definitive as my sources get.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'm not in a position to do any spot checks here, but the sources are all high quality RS. Based on my knowledge of the literature on British battleship designs, they are likely the best-possible sources on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nick. I've offered it up for the sourcing workshop that's been proposed at FAC, so I expect it'll get thoroughly inspected source-wise there whenever that starts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. Given the number of source reviews you've gone through in this topic area over the years, I have no concerns at all about not being able to spot check here. Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

This is a very interesting topic, and it's good so see such a I quality article on it. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • The lead is a bit on the short side for the length of the article - a second para would be helpful
    • I split it and added a sentence as I don't really think that there's much more that can be added. Happy to take suggestions, though.
  • Which iteration of the design is shown in the image in the infobox?
  • The first para of the 'Design and description' section starts abruptly. Bringing forward the material on the London Treaty and then moving onto the discussion of how this design originated would help
  • "They displaced" ... " The Lion-class ships had four sets of geared", etc: as none of these ships was completed and the design wasn't even finalised, the tense seems wrong. I'd suggest tweaking this to "they would have displaced", "wer planned to have for sets" etc. This is particularly the case for the material discussing the potential performance of the ships: as none were built, you can't really say how effective their engines or armament would have been.
    • I understand your point, but it reads very awkwardly to me. I'd much prefer it if I didn't have to use so many "would have been"s and "intended to be". Happy to take suggestions here as well
  • Was any use made of the 16-inch guns? (do any survive?)
  • Have any historians discussed how good the various Lion class designs were? As the KGVs were generally successful other than their weak armament, are they considered likely to have been a good iterative improvement? Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ian

[edit]
  • Copyedited (but pretty lightly) so let me know any probs.
  • No particular concerns re. structure and comprehensiveness.
  • I also checked source reliability out of habit and found no issues; there were a couple of formatting inconsistencies that I dealt with.
  • Checked licensing for images added after the initial image discussion above and saw no issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Emanuel Moravec

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk)

Emanuel Moravec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Sturmvogel 66 was nice enough to just pass this through to GA so I thought I'd now submit it for A-Class. This article is about Emanuel Moravec, an interwar Czechoslovak infantry commander and staff college instructor who called for the country to declare war against Germany in 1938. When that failed, he cast his lot with the Germans and was appointed Minister of Education of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. His son, Igor, was probably the only Czech national to serve in the 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf (though the "only" claim is not contained in the article as it's WP:OR). When I found this article it was just five sentences long. Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Emanuel_Moravec.jpg: given the dates involved, this seems unlikely to be own work
  • File:Logo_Czechoslovak_Army_(pre1961).svg: what is the copyright status of the original design?
  • File:Emanuel_Moravec_-_ministr.jpg: not seeing support for that tag at the given source? Same with File:Ceska_mladez.png
  • Voice_sample_of_Emanuel_Moravec.ogg needs a more complete FUR. Same with Moravec_at_Week_of_Czech_Youth.ogv. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - thanks for this. I didn't even think to verify the images already existing at the Commons were correctly licensed! Anyway, I've removed the offending images and completed a FUR for the two AV files. Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Can you clarify where the tag for Emanuel_Moravec_-_ministr.jpg is coming from? Not sure it's supported. Also, what is the status of File:Emil_Hácha_5.jpg in the US? Finally, the fair-use tag at Moravec_at_Week_of_Czech_Youth.ogv should be swapped out - it is for screenshots, and this is a video clip. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - thanks for catching these. I think a lot of these are uploaded by users at the Czech Wikipedia who play a little fast and loose with images in the same way they do with textual references. I'm going to remove these and propose them for deletion at Commons and will replace the infobox image with a NFCI headshot. Will also correct the fair use tag on the movie file. Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - just finished updating this if, at your convenience, you wouldn't mind giving it a check to make sure I got everything right this time? Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything more known about the provenance of Emanuel_Moravec_headshot.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, unfortunately. The credit on the website of the Czech National Museum says "source: National Museum" but doesn't provide any deeper details. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this one. Unfortunately, this isn't a subject I am familiar with, so apologies if I miss something. I have a few observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead you link World War II but not World War I: suggest both or neither for consistency
  • in the infobox, "1942-1945": should have an endash
  • in the Early life and education section, do we know the names of his parents?
AustralianRupert - I apologize, I missed your question. I did check on this and was not able to source the name of his parents, unfortunately, or at least to a RS. The corresponding article on the Czech Wikipedia [18] does list his father's name as Jan Petr and the source appears to be respectable, however, it's offline and difficult to obtain so I can't affirmatively state it actually says that. I would usually just GF it, however, they seem to have a laissez faire approach with sourcing over there so I'm not sure it would be faith well placed. Chetsford (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, that's a fair call. Added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Early life section, suggest linking officer
  • in the Early life section, do we know why he chose to change sides?
  • The Imperial Russian Army captured Moravec in 1915 and made him a prisoner of war: suggest that this might be smoother as Moravec was captured by the Imperial Russian Army in 1915
  • in the Fist Czechoslovak Republic section, link major
  • Moravec wrote and published extensively using the pen name Stanislav Yester: was this fiction or non fiction? What were the topics he wrote about?
  • Igor Moravec fought on the Eastern front: should be "Eastern Front"
  • ordinary Czechs' to...: the apostrophe isn't necessary here
  • for the titles in the Publications section, I suggest adding English translations as well as the original title
  • in the External links: "a scene..." should be "A scene..."
  • Citation # 25, GRATIAS AGIT Award should be "Gratias Agit Award" per MOS:ALLCAPS
AustralianRupert - thanks, kindly, for the review. I've just amended the article to address all these points. Please let me know if you see that I've missed anything. Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
Lingzhi thanks much - I've updated references. Please let me know if I've overlooked anything. Chetsford (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi - just wanted to check and see if there were any other issues or if you see that I've overlooked anything? Chetsford (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]
  • Please provide specific page numbers for all citations. Several repeatedly used references are currently to large blocks of text, so WP:V is not met at present.
  • Can you please explain why Prague in Danger: The Years of German Occupation, 1939-45: Memories and History, Terror and Resistance, Theater and Jazz, Film and Poetry, Politics and War is a reliable source on this topic, especially given that it's used so extensively? It appears to be a reflective memoir.
  • I'd suggest strengthening the first sentence to make it clear that he was a collaborationist (I presume this is what he's best known for)
  • What was Moravec's job and status in 1936? It's pretty amazing that he got two hours of Beneš' time just before the Munich conference. In what position was he advocating mobilisation, and how did this align with the advice from the head of the military?
  • "Moravec reportedly offered Ferdinand Peroutka release from Buchenwald in exchange for accepting a position writing for Lidové noviny, an offer Peroutka declined" - who was Peroutka and what was Lidové noviny?
  • "During his period as a Protectorate minister, Moravec adopted an anti-Semitic worldview that largely mirrored that of the Nazi Party" - as I understand it, it's highly unusual for someone to become anti-Semitic (especially stridently so) in middle age. Presumably he was hostile towards Jews before this? (as was shamefully common at the time worldwide) Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D - thanks, much, for the review.
  • *Please provide specific page numbers for all citations. Several repeatedly used references are currently to large blocks of text, so WP:V is not met at present.
 Done
This is not done. Please break up the large page ranges to the specific page which supports each fact. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D - sorry, I misunderstood your page comment. I've now added Template:Rp to all books referencing more than two pages. Chetsford (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is still not done. Please provide the relevant page number for each fact, not broad ranges of pages for each work. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D - the only instance I can see where there's a range of more than two pages cited is He also promoted the idea of Czech culture as an historic component of Germanic culture. which cites a range of three pages. Unfortunately, this sentence is not succinctly limited to a corresponding sentence on a single page and is a summary of three pages of content discussing this aspect of Moravec's views and writing. Instances where a range of two pages are cited are for similar reasons. For instance, In response to the German ultimatum, Syrový declared that "further concessions from our side are no longer possible"; 42 Czechoslovak divisions were mobilized in preparation for an expected German invasion. cites a page range 201-202; the Syrový telegram is discussed at the bottom of page 201 of the source and the number 42 is invoked at the top of page 202. Chetsford (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm most concerned about reference 5, to which multiple things are referenced to "Pynsent, Robert (November 2007). "Conclusory Essay: Activists, Jews, The Little Czech Man, and Germans" (PDF). Central Europe. 5 (2): 217, 224–225, 272, 229, 236–240, 255–256." The three page range for the large number of references to Demetz's book (which I continue to be concerned about) should also be fixed. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick I apologize that I don't understand. The Rp template provides specific page numbers (or a short range of numbers in cases where a point is summarized from content contained in multiple pages) within the text for each claim. The page ranges in the References section are only a compilation of all those individually invoked in the text and don't support any specific point in the way the inline citations do. I'm not entirely clear how I could remedy this to your satisfaction other than converting the citation style to short citation format. Sorry if I'm misreading. (Edit - I did see one of the Demetz references lacked the Rp template so have corrected that.) Chetsford (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that the page numbers now appear in the article's text. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest strengthening the first sentence to make it clear that he was a collaborationist (I presume this is what he's best known for)
 Done
  • Can you please explain why Prague in Danger: The Years of German Occupation, 1939-45: Memories and History, Terror and Resistance, Theater and Jazz, Film and Poetry, Politics and War is a reliable source on this topic, especially given that it's used so extensively? It appears to be a reflective memoir.
You're correct. It is primarily a reflective memoir, however, is interspersed with historical chronicles and I've only used those sections. Kirkus [19] described these as "... a vast amount of political and cultural material, veering between scholarly and autobiographical approaches. The academic analysis is at times intimidatingly dense, but readers who persevere will be rewarded with rich, balanced profiles of significant figures ranging from Konstantin von Neurath, the Nazi-installed leader of Bohemia and Moravia, to Franz Kafka’s beloved Milena Jesenská, an essayist who was active in the resistance movement." and PW [20] describes it as "Interspersing political and cultural history with snippets of memoir"
  • "Moravec reportedly offered Ferdinand Peroutka release from Buchenwald in exchange for accepting a position writing for Lidové noviny, an offer Peroutka declined" - who was Peroutka and what was Lidové noviny?
 Done
  • "What was Moravec's job and status in 1936? It's pretty amazing that he got two hours of Beneš' time just before the Munich conference. In what position was he advocating mobilisation, and how did this align with the advice from the head of the military?
 Done
  • "During his period as a Protectorate minister, Moravec adopted an anti-Semitic worldview that largely mirrored that of the Nazi Party" - as I understand it, it's highly unusual for someone to become anti-Semitic (especially stridently so) in middle age. Presumably he was hostile towards Jews before this? (as was shamefully common at the time worldwide)
It's possible he was anti-Semitic prior to middle age, however, I have seen no RS that unambiguously says this and - purely on personal speculation - I think it might equally likely have been the case that he became an anti-Semite of convenience, rather than conscience, following the German occupation. I base this assumption on the Pynsent article which introduces Moravec's suddenly Anti-Semitic statements as "subserviently accepts a version of the Nazi line", however, that is still somewhat interpretive to the point I didn't feel I could insert a definitive conclusion without veering into the realm of OR.
Hopefully I didn't miss anything, but please let me know if so! Chetsford (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, have you had a chance to review Chetsford's latest responses? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been horribly remiss with this review: commented above. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nick, are all your observations addressed here? This looks about ready for promotion, but I just wanted to check if you felt there was anything outstanding. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposing promotion, but can't support it either due to my concerns over Prague in Danger being so extensively used as a source. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

[edit]

Seems like a good, succinct bio on someone I admit I hadn't heard of.

  • Prose-wise, no outstanding concerns but pls let me know any issues with my copyedit.
  • Structure and level of detail seem reasonable.
  • Source review:
    • No red flags leapt out re. quality (noting the response to Nick's query about one source) but no harm someone more familiar with the subject/sources having a look also.
    • Formatting-wise, I agree with Nick that we need more granularity in citing the sources. For instance, the way you've cited Demetz is fine, because only one page range is used from the book to cite the info in the article. When you come to say Pynsent though, you should list the book details under a separate Sources or Bibliography section, and employ a short citation (e.g. author, year, page nos.) for the part(s) of this article using p. 217, a short citation for the part(s) using pp. 224–225, etc.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read, assuming all resolved.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! I don't believe we have a style requirement for WP:SFN as per WP:CITEVAR? Chetsford (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, as WS says below, it's just one of several citation methods (I don't use it myself). Anyway it looks to me that individual statements are now cited to relevant page numbers, and that's the main thing. A couple of bits of formatting:
  • You could safely remove the sets of page ranges from the cite book templates for which you've employed the RP page numbering, as they're now redundant.
  • It would be worth trimming the infobox of unused and/or unlikely to be used parameters, as it just clutters the first part of the article in edit mode.
Overall though my comments have been addressed sufficiently for me to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by White Shadows

[edit]
  • Some of the citations use "P" or "pp" to donate pages cited, while others lack that. Citation 5 is a good example of this.
  • Other citations lack page numbers, which is something other editors have mentioned so I won't go into detail there.
  • Who is Radola Gajda in the "See also" section?
  • I'll be sure to bring up anything else that catches my eye.

--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White Shadows - thank you for the review. The difference between "p/pp" and no "p/pp" is because some sources are journals and some are books. The cite templates on WP insert "p/pp" for books and does not for journals. While I agree it's not consistent, I'm afraid it's out of my hands. Insofar as citations lacking page numbers, at the present time the citations that don't have page numbers are those which are unnumbered, such as websites (for example: [21]). I've removed Radola Gajda from See Also. Chetsford (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That can be fixed if you place the journals in a reference section and only cite the author and the page number(s) in the citation itself. Websites are fine when it comes to not having page numbers, that's not to be expected.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:SFN citation style to which you're referring can't be mixed with the referencing style used in this article according to the policy under WP:CITEVAR if I read it correctly? Chetsford (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SFN is just one method to cite things though. It's certainly my preferred method, but it's not the only one. If you place the journals in a reference section and create citations using the <!ref> tags, you can then include the page(s) from said journal. It doesn't seem like a huge issue, but I've never seen an ACR pass with citations that don't actually include the pages of whatever book/journal is being cited.

If you're still having problems or are confused by anything that I'm saying (communicating in text does that), please just let me know. I'd be happy to help fix the problem if I can be of any service.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 05:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed the page numbers in citation 12 were removed during a previous edit. I'll replace them. Could you clarify that's what you were referring to as I don't see any other journals referenced without page numbers? Also, as far as I can tell all the journals are presently in the References section and use !ref> but let me know if it's displaying differently for you. Chetsford (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've added the page numbers for citation 12. It was just one page for all three points so I didn't use the RP template. Chetsford (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in good shape. A few comments from me:

Lead
  • the lead sentence should properly define his notability. It is clear that he was a notable writer, and that should be included. Suggestion: "Emanuel Moravec (17 April 1893 – 5 May 1945) was Czech army officer and writer who served as the collaborationist Minister of Education of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia between 1942 and 1945. He was also chair of the Board of Trustees for the Education of Youth, a fascist youth organisation in the puppet state.
  • point out that he served in the Austro-Hungarian army, Russian Army and Czechoslovak Legion in WWI then fought alongside White Forces against the Bolsheviks, including links
  • some context for his collaboration is needed, suggest adding that he turned to enthusiastic collaboration after the occupation of rump Czechoslovakia and creation of the puppet Protectorate
  • Other than his son Igor serving in Totenkopf and being executed for treason, I don't think any of the personal stuff is needed in the lead, as it isn't significant. I would instead add a couple of sentences summarising the Legacy section
Resolved
Early life etc
  • link conscription and World War I
  • do we know what regiment he served in?
  • do we know when and where he was captured, what battle for example? and where he was held?
  • do we know when he was paroled?
  • explain that the First Serbian Volunteer Division consisted of former POWs, including Serbs and those from nations of the A-H Empire
  • do we know what fierce engagement he suffered shell shock in?
  • explain Czechoslovak Legion in-text
  • explain that the Legion fought on the White side against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War
  • do we know where he fought during the Russian Civil War?
Resolved
Career
  • link Czechoslovakia, normally you wouldn't link well-known countries, but as it no longer exists...
  • apparently the War College was called the War School at that time, and link
  • commissioned as a major, and in what year?
  • do we know any more about his postings between commissioning and 1931? Seems a bit sparse.
  • suggest "In parallel with his military career," also do we know what newspapers he was published by, and their politics?
  • if writing under a pen name, how did Masaryk link Moravec to Yester? Was he outed or something?
  • Czechoslovakian Army
  • combine the para that starts "In 1938 Moravec" with the single sentence para above.
  • link Edvard Beneš and state his position
  • is there a link for the territorial demands Poland made, if not, then a quick explanatory sentence would help here
  • Beneš backtracked on mobilisation or his rejection of concessions?
  • note b should be in the body, as it explains Moravec's political philosophy of the time
  • Beneš' diplomatic incompetence?
  • Resttschechei is a German term and not helpful, perhaps rump Czechoslovakia?
  • add that the Protectorate was a puppet state and link puppet state
  • Czech Lands jars, just say the puppet state
  • were only intelligence officers sent o/s? What about the pilots of No. 312 (Czechoslovak) Squadron RAF and other Czech military types that served with the Allies?
  • point out in the text that Moravec tried to leave before the Germans moved in, as it isn't clear
  • if V uloze... is the most popular of his works, it should be in the Publications list. Also say when it was published to inform the timeline.
  • explain that the Board was a fascist and Czech nationalist youth org
  • explain who Heydrich was, SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Polizei and Acting Reich Protector of the Protectorate, effectively the military dictator of the puppet state
  • Hácha in full, link, and explanation that he was the President
  • In his new post as minister of education
  • Protectorate schools
  • State President Hácha
  • at what point in 1943 did he discuss it with Frank? The reason I ask is that Frank was only promoted to Obergruppenfuhrer in June 1943. Also, state that Frank was Reich Minister for Bohemia and Moravia at the time
  • fn 18 needs page number(s)
  • state that Buchenwald was a concentration camp
  • suggest "During his tenure as a Protectorateeducation minister"
  • Tatsachen und Irrtümer should be in Publications if it is being discussed

"...the Czechoslovak resistance group, the Three Kings,"

  • to go after Reinhard Heydrich
Resolved
Personal life
  • state that Rykov was a prominent Bolshevik
  • Yuri Moravec
  • Karl Hermann Frank
  • rank and position for Jodl
  • explain what Igor was tried and executed for and by whom he was arrested and tried
  • who arrested Yuri and what was he tried and sentenced for and by whom
Resolved
Legacy
  • Emil Hácha
  • suggest "or Jaroslav Eminger, who was later completely exonerated for his service in the Protectorate government"
  • who was Cyril Svoboda? position I mean?
  • in the quote "people such as"?
Resolved
Publications
  • add the ones I mentioned above
  • add oclc's
  • Just need to decap the title of the Borufka citation
General
  • the newspaper articles should all have page numbers for purposes of verification

That's me done. Nice work so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 - thanks very much for this thorough review. I'll be getting to this shortly and will ping you when I'm done. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Running update on updates:
  • Lead: all updated per suggestions; let me know if I missed anything
  • added
  • Legacy: all updated per suggestions; let me know if I missed anything
  •  Done
  • Personal life: mostly updated per suggestions; in point of fact Yuri and Igor were both arrested by the Sbor bezpečnosti, however, I don't have a secondary RS for this
  •  Done
  • Early life etc: I've updated insofar as possible. There's some information I just don't have, unfortunately. (By way of comparison, our entire article on the Carpathian Front is just two sentences I wrote a few months ago just to have something to WL to!)
  • There are still a few things to do in the other sections, I've done a few, I'll leave you to do the rest.
  • Publications: added newspapers.com page #s and book oclc #s; added Prague in Black but the PDF returned a broken link for me ... still working on other sections and will continue putting running updates here
  • Career: updated insofar as possible with the following notes:
  • commissioned as a major, and in what year?
Unfortunately I don't have the year of his commission.
  • do we know any more about his postings between commissioning and 1931? Seems a bit sparse.
Unfortunately I don't have further details beyond his service in the 21st Regiment.
  • if writing under a pen name, how did Masaryk link Moravec to Yester? Was he outed or something?
By my reading of the material it is suggestive that it was a literary, not secret, pseudonym.
  • Beneš' diplomatic incompetence?
If we worded it as "disillusioned with his incompetence", I think we (WP) would be making an affirmative statement that Beneš was incompetent, whereas if Moravec was "disillusioned with his competence" Moravec is the one questioning the presence or absence of competence.
  • add that the Protectorate was a puppet state and link puppet state
I don't think, technically, the protectorate was a puppet state in the way of Slovakia or Manchukuo where there was the appearance of independence but sovereign powers were held elsewhere (Germany or Japan) as the protectorate was an overtly incorporated subject of the Reich with no pretense of independence and Hacha was legally subordinate to the Protector (unlike Jozef Tiso who was legally a sovereign but practically subordinate to Hitler).
  • were only intelligence officers sent o/s? What about the pilots of No. 312 (Czechoslovak) Squadron RAF and other Czech military types that served with the Allies?
I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, that RAF 312 was crewed by Czechs who individually fled and volunteered of their own volition as opposed to being "sent" per se. The Czechoslovak intelligence operators actively sent abroad under official orders a few hours before the state extinguished itself as part of continuity of government planning.
  • at what point in 1943 did he discuss it with Frank? The reason I ask is that Frank was only promoted to Obergruppenfuhrer in June 1943.
I don't have a date on which the discussion occurred, however, the full source refers to Frank by the title Obergruppenfuhrer on which basis I deduce it was after June, however, I removed the title out of a preponderance of caution.
Chetsford (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still a few things to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 - thanks again for the review. I've finished updating the rest of the sections. Let me know if you see that I've missed anything or have any questions or further edits. Chetsford (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just the decapping of the title of the citation. Otherwise good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - done! Chetsford (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Catrìona

[edit]
  • It looks like you have made good use of Czech/Slovak language online sources, but I'm surprised there isn't more on him on Czech print sources. When I was reasearching Prague uprising, it became obvious that I wouldn't be able to take the article to featured status because of a lack of access to and inability to read Czech-language print sources, which are the most recent and best quality histories of the uprising. This isn't necessarily a reason to oppose, but just a reminder that comprehensiveness is one of the most difficult criteria to asses as a neutral reviewer. (Update: due to my limited experience with A-class reviewing, I neither support nor oppose the promotion of this article.)
Unfortunately, there is only one definitive book on Moravec, which is a 1997 biography by Jiří Pernes. I didn't use it as a source, however, as it was the centerpiece of a major plagiarism scandal in which Pernes was involved which, I think, was serious enough that it casts doubt on whether the book can be viewed as a RS. Adding a further layer of complexity is that the dissertation from which Pernes supposedly plagiarized may or may not have resulted in the awarding of a PhD, so in case of the latter it wouldn't meet the standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. (The scandal was actually unmentioned in Perens' own article, I had to add it last February. [22]) I'm sure most of the content of the book is probably accurate but, for purposes of the article, I treated it as though it didn't exist. Chetsford (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Chetsford. Given Nick-D's questions about the liberal use of Demetz and the fact that he includes an element of personal narrative alongside his historical research, I would like to suggest using Pernes (or another source if available) to corroborate Demetz on those personal details he is used for. Assuming of course that he corroborates them. Failing that, I think that Demetz might qualify as a biased source and should be attributed in-text with a note about the fact that his book contains personal recollections as well as historical research. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. This may take a little while as I think the book was pulled after the plagiarism issues but I'll track down a copy make these additions ASAP. Chetsford (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Chetsford, as this is otherwise ready for promotion, I suggest you attribute Demetz with the note. That will satisfy me for A-Class, but the Czech sources and Pernes will be needed before I'd support it at FAC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help out with this as needed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Chetsford I'd like to wrap this up. If you can address the above I think this can be promoted. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, I've neglected to check this and then was away for a few days. I'll get this finished off tomorrow. Thanks, Peacemaker67 - Chetsford (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 - thanks for your patience. I wasn't entirely sure how to handle this so let me know if you think an alternate approach would be preferable. However, I've done two things: (1) added the "lay summary" parameters to the Demetz source linking to this [23] explanation of the book's contents from Publisher's Weekly, (2) and added the following caveats in the notes sourced to PW: Prague in Danger: The Years of German Occupation, 1939–45: Memories and History, Terror and Resistance, Theater and Jazz, Film and Poetry, Politics and War by Peter Demetz consists of "political and cultural history [interspersed] with snippets of memoir". References to this volume used in this article do not draw on the book's "snippets of memoir". Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. I'll just do a final check to make sure this is ready for promotion and list it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The sources all look to be high quality and reliable. I did wonder about whether all current scholarship was covered, and found this which contains a story about Moravec and Benes on page 16. Also Prague in Black: Nazi Rule and Czech Nationalism by Chad Bryant and, as Catrìona notes, other Czech and Slovak language sources on this period and Moravec in particular, should probably be examined before a FAC nomination. Most of the sources need a location of publication added, and ISBNs should be hyphenated. A few of the sources need a trans-title field with an English translation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the Czech article, other Czech language sources that might need to be consulted are Borovička, Michael, Kolaboranti 1939–1945 Praha: Paseka, 2007; Pasák, Tomáš, Český fašismus 1922–1945 a kolaborace 1939–1945 Praha: Práh, 1999; Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Emanuel Moravec. Český nacionální socialista. In: Historie a vojenství, č. 2, roč. 2006, s. 25 – 39 a č. 3, s. 49 – 63; and Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech Praha 2008 and possibly some others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Preussen (1903)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Preussen (1903) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another German battleship article - we're getting to where we can see the light at the end of the tunnel! This ship served with the High Seas Fleet during World War I, but saw limited action. She was serving as the guard ship for the Danish straits during the Battle of Jutland, so she missed the largest naval battle of the war. She was one of the few battleships that Germany retained after the war, but she was converted into a tender for minesweepers, and never served again as a warship. A section of her hull was retained for weapons testing, and it was eventually sunk by Allied bombers in 1945! Thanks for all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in fine shape. A few comments from me:

  • link ship commissioning at first mention (first section re Dreadnought)
    • Done
  • the beam conversion isn't consistent between the body and infobox
    • Fixed
  • are naval boilers also Scotch boilers, as the boilers in the infobox are listed as Scotch, but some were naval? Perhaps I'm confusing myself...
    • I would assume so, but Groener doesn't elaborate, unfortunately.
  • the horsepower measurements don't match between the body and infobox
    • Fixed
  • the cruising speed conversions in the infobox don't match the body
    • Fixed
  • the conversions on the 8.8 cm guns don't match between the infobox and the body
    • Fixed
  • do we know where the TTs were located?
    • Not specifically, but the article does say they were in the hull below the waterline - I'd assume one in the bow, one in the stern, and two on each side.
  • link ceremonial ship launching
    • Done
  • move link to Helgoland up to first mention
    • Done
  • link Kiel
    • Done
  • link IX Corps (German Empire)
    • Done
  • maybe add "in the Canary Islands" to Las Palmas?
    • Works for me
  • Friedrich von Ingenohl is misspelled and therefore double linked (the redlink and the blue one) and the second mention can just be Ingenohl
    • Fixed
  • link dry dock
  • drop the von from von Ingenohl when mentioning him again
    • Done
  • suggest linking guard ship in the body
    • Done

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

All sources are of high quality and reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images are PD and appropriately licensed. Kges1901 (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • I cleaned up the infobox a little, but you need to link ihp, nmi and knots there.
    • Thanks, and done.
  • I also cleaned up the cylindrical/Scotch marine boiler business
    • Thanks
  • What's a fleet advance? Perhaps a sortie?
    • Yes - I picked that up from Staff, who I think was probably using a too-literal translation of "vorstoss"
  • encountered and briefly clashed The first two words are redundant
    • Good point
  • link capital ship, torpedo boat, flotilla
    • Did the first one, torpedo boat is already linked, and I don't know about linking a word in a proper name
  • Watch your rounding on torpedo tubes
    • Fixed
  • Spell out and link VAdm
    • It is - in the Design section
  • Danish king Christian IX Capitalize king--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]
  • In the infobox, shouldn't the number of torpedo tubes be listed?
    • Good catch
  • Design: "...funding was allocated for a new class of battleships, to...": should the comma following battleships be there?
    • Nope
  • 1908-1914 section: For context, who is Prince Heinrich?
    • Good idea.

It was a struggle to find the above issues, this is looking in pretty good shape. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed! Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, adding support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

South Australian Mounted Rifles

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

South Australian Mounted Rifles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article marks a return to ANZSP for the first time since the NZ Div Cav article after I found that coverage of the Second Boer War was surprisingly incomplete. It is about the first and second contingents from South Australia in the Second Boer War, and passed a GA several weeks ago. Kges1901 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

This is a very nice article in pristine condition. For a regiment the length seems short, however, it existed for less than two years so probably represents as whole of a treatment as possible. I had one minor comment:

  • Per MOS:SPELL09 I believe numbered 6 officers and 121 men should be "numbered six officers and 121 men" (in the body, I wouldn't think this would apply to the infobox due to space considerations).

Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Checking this version of the article:

  • Ref 1 (Bou): Checks out
  • Ref 14 (Plowman): Checks out
  • The link to Murray, P.L. doesn't work
  • The Google Books link to Stirling doesn't seem useful as it doesn't show a preview of the book's text
  • All the sources meet WP:RS. Allara Publishing appears to have been a very minor press [24], but I'm sure that I've seen this work used as a reference in professionally published works. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]
  • Having one sentence under the history section is very jarring. Is there anything to be added regarding its prewar service; commander, base, units for the four year period between 1895 and 1899? Also I'm not sure if the infobox should use the word "initial" in case readers interpret it as being that size prior to 1899.
  • The problem with this is that the SAMR that is referring to is a militia unit that had no organizational link to the unit that fought in South Africa. The militia SAMR continued to exist until 1903, distinct from the unit that fought in South Africa. Kges1901 (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as the 1st contingent was raised as an infantry unit rather than mounted, it may pay to stress in history section that the SAMR was mounted.
  • Do you recommend a specific place to mention it?
  • Having thought about this some more, it seems that it is more a matter of explicitly clarifying that the unit was redesignated/repurposed to mounted infantry and this included a name change. You kind of say this is occurring in the 2nd paragraph of the 1st Contingent: "...where it received horses and became a mounted rifle squadron." I think that, assuming that this is when it happened, modifying the sentence to include an explicit statement at this point around having its name officially changed from the original South Australian Infantry Company will do the trick. Zawed (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the abbreviation for "The 1st South Australian Mounted Rifles" after first mention.
  • Done.
  • "a mainly SAMR mixed volunteer group": "a mainly 1st SAMR mixed volunteer group".
  • Done.
  • "The 2nd SAMR was raised as a mounted infantry squadron along the same lines as the 1st contingent." recite the 2nd in full. Also, I don't quite understand what is meant by "same lines"; the 1st was a company of infantry, the 2nd was a mounted infantry squadron so they are different?
  • Clarified. The similarity is in terms of the personnel they were drawn from.
  • Looks like a missing word here "J Battery Royal Horse Artillery Major Euthoven", maybe commanded by?
  • Rephrased.
  • "At Bloemfontein, the South Australian Mounted Rifles" suggest clarifying that the two contingents were now unified; i.e. "At Bloemfontein, the unified SAMR..."
  • Done.
  • In the casualties section, shouldn't the POW (the 2nd para of the 2nd contingent section) be mentioned? Also, should the ranks of the DSO recipients be mentioned and is "Humphris" spelt correctly? I'm wondering if it should be Humphries.

That's my review done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:AWM_P00220_South_Australian_Mounted_Rifles_1900.jpg: per the template in use, this needs details on first publication
  • Added date.
  • For the SLSA images tagged CC0, is the library asserting that it has the right to release these photos? Or is this just used to indicate that the images are PD for another reason?
  • Those are identified as CC-Public Domain-Mark 1.0. What is the appropriate template for that?
@Nikkimaria: On second thought, I may not have understood this. Per PD-Australia images taken pre-1955 are in public domain even if the author is known. In that case, all of these are PD and the library with its license is asserting PD for age reasons. This would only apply to the SLSA file 1st contingent South Australian Mounted Rifles 1899 group portrait.jpg. The image taken at Rensburg of Howland seems to have been part of his personal collection, which was apparently donated to the library, thus they would hold the rights.[25]

Kges1901 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at with the SLSA comment above - it's not a matter of them releasing the rights, but rather than the copyright has expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Please emphasize that there was no connection between this unit of volunteers and the militia unit and keep the material on militia unit to a minimum
  • Attempted, see if it is clear enough now.
  • Link ranks,
  • Done
  • along with the other companies of the regiment. What other companies? I thought that it only had the two?
  • Done
  • Give Breaker Morant's first name.
  • Done
  • from the same group of personnel as the 1st contingent. Do you mean the same types of men?
  • Done
  • 500 Imperial Mounted Infantry is this a unit or just a non-formed group of soldiers?
  • Used unit name instead.
  • Lieutenants George Lynch and Rowell were handed the keys to the fort, over which the Union Jack was raised; they captured 85 prisoners that day. Was there fighting on this day? I'd think it would be hard to capture prisoners who had already surrendered
  • Rephrased
  • After Belmont, the SAMR Do you meant Belfast?
  • Done
  • Tried to rephrase that paragraph, see if it is clearer now.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I'm finally starting to get back into the swing of things after taking several years off Wikipedia. My first solo project after returning is this article, the only class of Austro-Hungarian battleships designed to operate on the high seas, which were unfortunately never built because of World War I. My personal library has grown over the years and this allowed me to finally flesh out this article to the fullest. Thanks to everyone who reviews this article as I work to take it to FAC!--White Shadows New and improved! 02:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some of the entries in your Citations are not in your References. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch! That has been fixed.--White Shadows New and improved!

Abstain, soft decline (not willing to re-review, see below). Review limited to A1 (quality, reliability, occasionally ) / A2 (scholarly historiography)

  • It is my current habit to abstain or decline on reviews as my review for quality emphasises scholarly history (HQRS / historiography) and while my comments are actionable they may unintentionally exceed the criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was trying to note I may be overly hash on sourcing. The Abstain is not meant to halt the progress of this article to a-class. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2 not actionable: was there any interesting historiographical issues raised in the sources you read of WEIGHT to justify a discussion or section on this? Given Gebhard and Sondhaus (including not yet cited) there may infact be a historiographical review element in the published sources of WEIGHT to include?
This is a request that if you read anything of historiographical interest, to include it. Trying to note that it is a potential expansion Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political-economic / Economic history: "Different figures have been offered…" in which year? It matters. You may be surprised by the amount of Original Research around people computing prior year to current year values in different forms of worth. (I explictly suggest you DO NOT compute such, my belief is it comprises original research as repeatedly stated at FAC years ago now).
  • "Fitzsimons, Bernard (1978). The Illustrated encyclopedia of 20th century weapons and warfare, Volume 18. Columbia House." volume isn't part of the title. Etc., for similar. TERTIARY check clean.
    Fitzsimons opcit, both in bibliography and foots, spell out the author of the article used and the article title! Both in 8 and 18. The actual work cited is Author "article" (date) in Fitzsimons…. If it is unsigned doubly consider if it meets TERTIARY expertise. Note: consider
  • Potential un-/under-used source Gebhard, Louis [<1968] "The Development of the Austro-Hungarian Navy 1897–1914: A Study in the Operation of Dualism (1965)." PhD thesis
  • "Gill C.C[sic]" If we can't get his initials right, how do we know he's cited?
  • Good variety in citations based off citation through article (indicative against bad research of scope)
I may have obscured this. This is meant as great praise. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the outbreak of World War I a " missing subclause comma
  • "when the war expected to be over." missing verb "was"
  • Review halted, restricted to sources.
  • Review halted due to fundamental english second language issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This disparity illustrated that while the Austro-Hungarian Navy was approaching its goals on paper, a modernization of the fleet's battleships were necessary." 'Modernisation of the fleet's battleships' is singular, not plural. While the quality reviewed so far is high in sourcing, the language quality does not appear to me to be adequate to EFL standards in any of the primary English sub-types Fifelfoo (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will be apologising in depth when able to. Also the article's getting a free detailed language copy edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit I follow very little of what you are saying here.
  • "It is my current habit to abstain or decline on reviews as my review for quality emphasises scholarly history" What?
  • "while my comments are actionable they may unintentionally exceed the criteria" Similarly confused here.
  • Not following what you're referring to regarding "A2". If you're referring to a lack of original sources in the article, I have to point out that there are several primary sources that are used in the article. That said however, I wasn't aware lacking original sources was a factor necessary for an ACR.
  • Volume 8 and Volume 18 issues have been fixed. Good catch.
  • There is admittedly not a lot of resources that exist on the subject because we're talking about a series of battleships that never got off the drawing board. STT hadn't even laid down the keel of a single ship before Franz Ferdinand's assassination, and the ensuing July Crisis and Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia resulted in the battleships never being built.
  • The missing period in "C.C" was just a simple typo which has been fixed. I think that's a huge stretch, the conclusion you are drawing from that. If you're not confident he's being properly cited, the link to the work itself is on google books, and the entire file can be downloaded directly to one's laptop as it is now in the public domain.
  • "Good variety in citations based off citation through article"" What?
  • Fixed the comma and missing verb issue.
  • "Review halted, restricted to sources" What?
  • "Review halted due to fundamental english second language issues." Not sure what this is supposed to mean. If you're implying English isn't my primary language, I have to say that it most definitely is. I've got to say, some of the stuff you just wrote near the end there is borderline insulting...a handful of typos which are in some cases extremely minor and in other cases the sort which would be quite easy to make for almost anyone on this site are not indicative of the sort of conclusions you are drawing here. The use of the word "modernization" in a singular rather than plural context suddenly makes the entire article sub-par by ACR standards?
  • The fact that you aren't even willing to re-review is even more insulting. You may as well have left no comments altogether. An ACR isn't the place to belittle other editors and then state immediately that you aren't interested in any revision to issues that you brought up. That's not how this works.

--White Shadows New and improved!

  • It's very late here but I'm starting to think there was some communication breakdown between us, which let me to interpreting your comments extremely negatively. I apologize for that and appreciate the help you have offered regarding copy-editing.--White Shadows New and improved!

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Monarch class coastal defense ship Wien": should have a hyphen, e,g "Monarch-class"
  • same as above for "The Tegetthoff class battleship Viribus Unitis"
  • the table in the Ships section needs citations
  • Tegetthoff-class battleship is overlinked in the Construction and cancellation section
  • in the References, the two Fitzimons works should use title case capitalisation
  • in the References, are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Fitzsimons works?
  • per WP:LAYOUT the See also section should be above your Notes section
  • there appears to be a mix of English variation. For instance, "defense" (US) but "metres" (British) - either is fine, but the article should be consistent
  • in the Armament section: "10 35 cm, 14 15.24 cm (6.00 in) guns, 20 8.9 cm (4 in)" --> "ten 35 cm, fourteen etc..."
  • same as above for other instances where there are two sets of figures next to each other
  • "By July 1914, Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino had already begun acquiring the raw materials and equipment necessary to lay down "Battleship VIII",[38] but after the July Crisis and Austria-Hungary's subsequent declaration of war on Serbia a month later which marked the beginning of World War I, construction for the battleship was pushed back to September at the end of July". Suggest removing "at the end of July" here
  • "The rest of the completed main guns were later taken by the French as a war prize" --> "The rest of the completed main guns were later taken by the French as war prizes"
Thank you for the suggestions. I’ll be sure to make these changes as soon as I can.—White Shadows New and improved! 14:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of these points.--White Shadows New and improved! 01:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've made a few more tweaks. Please check you are happy with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • the info in the lead about the delays and cancellation needs correcting. Based on the material in the body, it appears that construction was halted in July 1914, the contracts were suspended in August 1914, there was an unsuccessful Hungarian attempt to cancel the class in October 1914, and then in February 1915 a compromise was reached to suspend the project and halt construction until the end of the war, with eventual cancellation in late 1917. The lead should reflect this sequence. As present it says that construction was postponed until September 1914 when the war was expected to be over (although the latter isn't supported by the body), that there was delays in October (not in the body), and says that Austria-Hungary expected to win the war by February 1915 (not supported by the body)
  • Construction on the first battleship was to begin 1 July. This was delayed or halted by the political chaos that ensued following the Archduke's assassination on 28 June. Austria-Hungary was deeply involved in the July Crisis, which led to the keel not being laid down on the intended date. Following the outbreak of war, construction was formally pushed back to September as Austria-Hungary didn't expect a world war to unravel, and they also anticipated a quick decisive victory over Serbia in a matter of weeks. In October, the Hungarians attempted to outright cancel the plans, but Haus fought them on that all the way until February 1915 when it was agreed to delay construction indefinitely until the war was won. The plans were eventually canceled in 1917 as the war continued to drag on. Plans still were developed for a new class of dreadnoughts and even super-dreadnoughts all the way up to nearly the end of the war, but these were just plans and they had no formal approval by the Delegations. I may one day create an article centered upon those plans, but that's neither here nor there.
  • This hasn't been addressed. The lead doesn't reflect what is in the body.
  • I've reworked the lead to address this. If there are still issues regarding this point I'll have to ask for further clarification.
  • the lead says they would have been the first class of ocean-going battleships in the Austro-Hungarian Navy. This is clearly incorrect, as the Tegetthoff-class had already entered service, and A-H had already had several classes of ocean-going battleships before them. I would have thought this would have been a description of the Habsburg class, not this one. Or are we talking about the first class of superdreadnoughts?
  • They were indeed the first truly ocean-going battleships that would have been built for the Navy. By "ocean-going" I of course mean the sort of battleships that could engage in offensive operations as far out as the Atlantic. Of course the Tegetthoffs could operate in the Adriatic and even the Mediterranean, but they were never intended to operate in the high seas like the German or British battleships. That's why the forecastle of the Ersatz Monarchs were designed to be raised rather than the flush decks present on the Tegetthoffs. The Habsburg class most definitely was not considered an "ocean-going" class of battleships. The Habsburgs would be described as the first pre-dreadnought battleships of the Navy, not the first ocean-going battleships.
  • I've taken this advice and added a bit to the lead to mention the raised forecastles which would have given the ships better seaworthiness.
  • Chief-of-staff of a building? Belvedere?
  • The Belvedere was the residence of Franz Ferdinand. The Chief of Staff of the Belvedere was basically the one in charge of the heir's personal household, and Ferdinand's right-hand-man. Bardolff was Ferdinand's subordinate, and the article says that he as acting on Ferdinand's orders when he suggested a second division of dreadnoughts.
  • This is pretty obscure. Why not just say that he was chief of staff to Franz Ferdinand? The link doesn't achieve anything, as we aren't told that the Belvedere was FFs palace, and it isn't even in the brief description you get when you hover over the link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggested that to Haus"
  • Fixed!
  • "34-centimeter (13 in) 45-caliber guns with three guns each in two superimposed turrets." isn't clear. Do you mean each turret would have three guns and there would be two turrets, superimposed? What about rear turrets? Or is it some other combination?
  • This means the turret structure would be the same as the Tegetthoffs, but with a larger set of guns. I'm not sure how to better describe the layout...in total there would be 12 guns and four turrets. Three guns would be located per turret, and the four turrets both fore and aft would be superimposed on-top of one another. Unlike the Tegetthoffs however, two of the turrets (bow and stern) would only have two guns, while the other two would have three.
  • Armament issues should be all sorted out now.
  • Is there any sort of monetary conversion available for Kronen?
  • None of the conversions I've seen out there are all that reliable, or rather I haven't seen any sources that I've used when writing this article include any conversions for other denominations.
  • I don't recall where now, but a few years ago there was a discussion where the point was made that converting figures like this into modern currencies (and adjusting for inflation, more importantly) is misleading, for reasons I don't really understand. I'll see if I can find it, but my takeaway from the discussion was "don't do it". Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opposed the budget in large numbers" isn't particularly useful, could you just delete the last bit?
  • Fixed!
  • "criticized the budget as fiscally"
  • Fixed!
  • should Ersatz Monarch be in italics? (several examples of this)
  • outside the title of the page and the initial bolded usage of the article title, no. The class' formal name was never going to be "Ersatz Monarch". That's the title historians (and the Austro-Hungarians themselves) used to describe a class of battleships that would have been constructed had WWI not occurred, but they were never actually built because of the war. It was effectively a placeholder name for what would have been a properly named class once the first ship was launched and christened.
  • That's not a call I'm comfortable making, because it would set a precedent that would apply to many, many other ship-related articles, including other Austro-Hungarian warship classes such as the Ersatz Zenta-class. Most sources I've seen use the italics, but also stress repeatedly that the italics were simply a placeholder name for the class of ships, which would have been properly named had they been built.
  • I always italicize in cases like this (for instance, most German and Austro-Hungarian warships are ordered as "Ersatz ____"), for a couple of reasons. First, the sources generally do, and second, Ersatz is a foreign loanword that isn't widely used, so it should be italicized per the MOS, and the name of the ship being replaced would normally be italicized per our conventions. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicized throughout the article.
  • Pitzinger should just be Pitzinger at second mention
  • Fixed!
  • Vego's claim about the "open ocean" is extraordinary. Does anyone else support this claim? Surely all the previous battleships were designed for the Mediterranean at least?
  • By "open ocean" that means the Atlantic. The Tegetthoffs were designed for the Mediterranean but that's not what Vego means when he says "open ocean".
  • link Horsepower#Shaft horsepower
  • That's part of a conversion table. I can't really link to another article as part of {{convert}}
  • I don't think you need to name Vego's book, just that he's a naval historian
  • Fixed!
  • is that four single-shaft steam turbines, or a single turbine with four shafts?
  • "Four (or 4) shaft steam turbines" is the proper technical term. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships uses the term, as does Vego in his writings. There are four shafts with turbines powering each of the four shafts.
  • I'm not a naval architect myself, but that is indeed my understanding of the ship's propulsion system.
  • Done.
  • the infobox says 21 kn, but the text says a range of 21 to 25?
  • Fixed! Needed to add to 25 kn to the infobox. Good catch!
  • what was the final layout of the main battery in terms of turrets? ie twin turrets superimposed forward and aft of the main superstructure, plus a twin turret amidships etc?
  • The final layout was identical to the Tegetthoffs, just larger in size and with two less guns in total.
  • the six inch gun conversion has two unnecessary decimal places
  • I don't think I can help that, that's part of the conversion template itself.
  • the Armament subsection is confusing about the number of 4 in guns and TTs, (says 20 × 4 in in one place and 16 elsewhere, and six TTs and five TTs)
  • This is something I will work on fixing soon. There is admittedly a lot of confusion as multiple respectable sources give conflicting claims...this is no doubt in part because the battleship class went through literally dozens of different designs...even after the war started. Heck, there were designs for battleships being drawn up even after the Ersatz Monarch class was technically canceled in 1917. I need to list what each of the different claims are for the armaments and include notes explaining that different sources cite different numbers. I ask you just give me a bit of time to finish that up as that'll no doubt be the longest thing out of this list to flesh out.
  • Still working on this! I just want to make sure all the major sources have their details covered and I'd rather not have massively long efns that explain different authors give different numbers for different components of the ships' general characteristics.
  • Sorting through all the different sources took a few days, but that should be all addressed now.
  • link belt armor
  • Fixed!
  • there is armament info in the armor section
  • Fixed!
  • the fn need citations
  • I'm having problems linking citations in efns...any guess what's the issue?

That's me done. Nice work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • The sources are all of high quality and reliable, mostly commonly used sources on A-H naval matters.
  • the United States Naval Institute Proceedings needs an ISSN or OCLC
  • I'm not sure one exists? These were printed 104 years ago.
  • You can find them here.
  • Fitzsimons' books need a location, as does Roberts
  • Roberts has been removed as I don't think Warship 1995 has anything covering the Ersatz Monarch class (I don't have a copy ATM). Regardless, it was not necessary to keep around as a citation when Fitzsimons covered the one piece Roberts was being used to cite quite nicely. I have added a location to Fitzsimons' books.
  • This PhD dissertation [26] p. 108 states that STT got the contract for all four of the class?
  • That may be a mistake. Every source I've seen says the contracts were split between STT and Ganz-Danubius.
  • I'm wondering if this article by Sondhaus might provide further information on the class, or whether it would have been captured in his book?
  • Let me check on that.

Just a few minor points to sort out here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Link class in the lede.
  • Done
  • I cleaned up the infobox (mostly for you as standards have changed since you were last active). A couple of pointers: No need to specify language if you're gonna abbreviate, which is most things in the infobox; no need to specify output for knots and nautical miles as they default to km and miles; convert meters into feet and inches (|ftin), boilers and horsepower go in the Installed power parameter; be sure to link lesser-known measurements like hp, knots, nautical miles, etc.
  • Thank you!
  • Add links to steam turbines, armored belt, barbetters, conning tower, battery, deck; you can use any recent A or FA-class article from me or Parsec to see formatting and the links.
  • Done
  • The construction of the Tegetthoff class battleships Hyphen between Tegetthof and class since they're a compound adjective modifying battleship
  • Done
  • equipped with 35-centimeter (14 in) guns Only need to convert on first use.
  • Removed
  • Link caliber
  • Done
  • lattice towers Cage masts is what they're referring to
  • Done
  • Done.
  • That's an awfully broad range of speeds from 31,000 shp. The British King George V class ships of a similar size needed 27,000 for 21 knots. Given the nearly exponential ratio between horsepower and speed, those extra 4,000 wouldn't have gotten more than 22 knots. I'd suggest that you drop any sources that say 25 knots and just leave those that say 21 or 22 knots.
  • Done
  • The quote from Vigo should be moved a sentence earlier to flow better with the sentence covering speed.
  • Done
  • substantially greater reserve stability and a smaller list in heavy seas Link to ship stability and explain what you mean by list, which should also be linked, 'cause I'm not understanding it.
  • Let me know if you like the re-write.
  • to facilitate the size of the main battery Awkward. Try: "to accommodate the greater size and weight of..."
  • Done
  • Link funnel and bridge. Remember these are jargon terms and need to be linked or explained for readers not familiar with the terminology. Which is just about all of them.
  • Funnels and bridge are both linked, as well as a few other terms. If there's anything else you think needs linking, please let me know.
  • Done
  • There are a couple of British spellings in the Armament section.
  • Did you intend to say "Armor"? Because I don't see any spelling issues in the Armament section?
  • Nope. The second para of the armament section is littered with Brit spellings of millimeter. That's because the conversion template defaults to BritEng. You fix that by adding "|sp=us" to the template. If you chose to abbreviate the units by adding "abbr=on" then the difference doesn't show.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be fixed. I've made sure that every instance I can find of a conversion template being used that doesn't have "abbr=on" attached has an "sp=us" attachment.
  • Ok. I think I get what you mean here. Made some edits that should be in-line with this. Please let me know if I've missed something.
  • Explain why the secondary armament differs in the second para from that listed earlier.
  • Done. Please let me know if you'd like to see more.
  • that anti-aircraft guns would also complement the vessels awkward
  • Fixed
  • with twelve of them on mountings What does this mean?
  • Please let me know if you like the clarification.
  • thick in the central citadel, where the most-important parts of the ship would have been located Awkward. The belt armor forms the side of the citadel, so not "in", and explain what's in the citadel better, if you want to do that. I generally don't and just say that it was amidships, linking that term.
  • Done
  • Some of your roundings in the armor section are off and there are missing hyphens. Lemme know if you need me to explain proper hyphen use in these sorts of paragraphs. And remember, once you've converted a term, you needn't do so again.
    • each ship with ten 35.5 cm (14 in) Marinekanone L/45 M. 16 main guns and two 47-millimetre (1.9 in) Škoda SFK L/44 S have already been converted and they should be deleted in these.
    • And 8.9cm shouldn't be rounding to 4 in (102mm). Add a "|1" inside the template to tell it to round to one decimal point, not zero. Same with 310 mm.
  • Any further explanation would be greatly appreciated!
  • Quick question before I made any edits...when you say "you don't need to do so again" regarding converts, do you mean just simply have the language spelled out to say "each ship with ten 35.5 cm Marinekanone L/45 M. 16 main guns" or rather "each ship with 10 Marinekanone L/45 M. 16 main guns"? The point I'm trying to get here is just some clarifications regarding what you mean by asking me to remove conversion templates that are used more than once for the same conversion...I don't know if you want me to just eliminate the conversion itself, or eliminate the references to the measurements altogether.
  • The deck and slopes of each ship Explain
  • Removed "slopes" to eliminate confusion.
  • Explain this armor deck mentioned at the end of the para. Is this something separate than the one mentioned earlier? And what was its purpose?
  • This is actually something I myself have been a bit confused over. As I'm not a naval architect, I can only speculate on what the purpose of this system was, and I only have a fuzzy picture of what it even looks like in my mind. That said, I'd rather documented information be in the article than not. If I removed something simply because I don't 100% understand it, I don't feel like that would be fair to the reader...do you or perhaps @Parsecboy: have any thoughts about what this may have been and what its purpose was?
  • The first thing that I'd want to know is how the source references them. From my own knowledge ships of this period often have multiple armored decks, as naval architects generally didn't emphasize protection against plunging shells which is best provided by a single thick armored deck, possibly with much lighter decks above or below to catch splinters or to deform the shell by ripping off its armor piercing cap before it impacted the main armored deck. Regardless, though, you should keep all the references to decks together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me re-check the source. The book is currently on loan so I'm waiting to take a look at it.
  • Fix the broken link to bow
  • Fixed
  • Link kronen, laid down, launched on first use
  • Done
  • Building times were 36 months just to launch, not finished.
  • Clarified.
  • By July 1914, Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino had already begun acquiring the raw materials and equipment necessary to lay down "Battleship VIII" Of course they had with her scheduled to be laid down on 1 July. The question really is why wasn't she laid down on that date?
  • I've reworded that section a bit to clarify exactly what happened between Franz Ferdinand's assassination and the onset of world war in August.
  • In August 1914, the Austro-Hungarian you already told us the year in the previous para. Don't insult the reader by giving the year so often.
  • My apologies. Fixed.
  • I haven't found anything in my research about what the French did with the guns. I presume they studied them much like they did the guns and turrets of SMS Prinz Eugen after they acquired the battleship after the war, but Wikipedia discourages speculation like that.
  • Thanks for the input Sturm! I've addressed some of these points now, and will get to the rest as soon as possible.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an update Sturm, I'm still waiting on access to the source in question. Will address that point about the deck armor as soon as I can. Please let me know if there's any other outstanding issues from the points above, or anything else you want to bring up in the meantime.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Strumvogel 66: so here's what I did, I cut the info because it's extremely confusing, and the language we have at the moment is very close paraphrasing anyway. If there's a way to incorporate this info that isn't going to almost repeat it verbatim, and isn't going to just make the reader confused, I'll happily do so...but at the moment I don't think the way it was incorporated into the article did either of those two things.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly helpful, so I think that you did the proper thing. Supporting now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • Replaced the image. This one should be good now.
  • See below...I think/hope the PD I've put into place will work.
  • Removed. Would love to find a new image for the infobox!
  • I'll be the first to admit that image policy is easily my weakest area of expertise on this site...when you say things like "this image needs a US copyright tag" I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, I know that sounds bad but there's so many moving parts to Wikipedia that it would be dishonest for me to claim that I have an expert knowledge of every aspect and policy of this site...especially since I've been gone for roughly 6 years. Any help or advice would be appreciated, as would any potential replacement images for the infobox. I'd love to get an image of what the ship would have looked like, or a line drawing of it.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 15:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Images on Commons have to be in the public domain in the country of origin and the United States, since that's where Wikimedia's servers are located. For the Haus photo, we need a source that confirms the date of publication, which will help us determine the copyright status in the US. The other two should be covered by {{PD-US}}. As for the illustration, one possibility would be to move it to en.wiki and use a fair use claim. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Arab–Khazar wars

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Arab–Khazar wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I've been working on this article since 2012, and have now finally managed to complete it after finding a copy of Dunlop's 1954 history of the Khazars, which is still the standard reference for the field. I feel the article is complete and comprehensive, providing both a detailed description of the conflict as well as placing it in context. Any suggestions for further improvement are, of course, most welcome, as I intend to eventually bring this to FA. Constantine ✍ 16:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating topic of which I know very little and I enjoyed the education; I'd like others to read it as well and my comments are designed to ensure that.
I find it hard to leave out facts I find fascinating but may not add value for the general reader, so this is like giving myself feedback :)). I do a job where I think a lot about the user experience so my bias is 'Will people using Wikipedia read and understand it?'
In General; I found it hard to read, especially the Background and Motives. Suggestions;
Editing; Too much information eg the paragraph that starts Some Byzantinists, notably Dimitri Obolensky... I get the point but as a newbie to the topic, its confusing.
So (for example), I would redo this by saying 'While there are different opinions, it is generally accepted that the northward expansion of the Arabs beyond the Caucasus...' A lot of this could be shorter.
Chunking; break it down eg it would be useful to have a separate segment on the different military practices (for example);
Pictures; it needs more! I found the amount of uninterrupted text intimidating :) More (and detailed) maps;
Quotes; too many quotes that don't really add much for me or could be shortened eg According to Georgian sources, the khagan desired to marry the beautiful Shushan, daughter of Prince Archil of Kakheti (r. 736–786), and he sent his general Buljan to invade Iberia and capture her. Most of the central region of K'art'li was occupied, and Prince Juansher (r. 786–807) was taken off into captivity for a few years, but rather than be taken off captive, Shushan committed suicide and the furious khagan had Buljan executed.[100] Arab chroniclers, on the other hand, attribute this to the plans of the Abbasid governor al-Fadl ibn Yahya (one of the famous Barmakids) to marry one of the khagan's daughters, who died on her journey south, while a different story is reported by al-Tabari, whereby the Khazars were invited to attack by a local Arab magnate in retaliation against the execution of his father, the governor of Derbent, by the general Sa'id ibn Salm. According to the Arab sources, the Khazars then raided as far as the Araxes, necessitating the dispatch of troops under Yazid ibn Mazyad, as the new governor of Transcaucasia, with more forces under Khazim ibn Khuzayma in reserve.[87][99][101]
This provides two different versions (ie Georgian and Arab) and at the end I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude from this.
Specific Points;
Lead paragraph is too long; my understanding is it should be 7-8 lines max. (Wrong :)).
I'm not clear from this article what the differences were between Khazars and Arabs (plus - just my curiosity :)) what does 'Arab' mean in this context? ie I thought a lot of the Steppe peoples were Turkic.
As someone who grew up in the Middle East, still works in Lebanon etc and whose family comes from Belfast :), I have some understanding of the length of memory in these places (people in Jhelum still talk of Alexander as if he left the day before) - so it might be useful to have an Aftermath section ie what was the impact? How is this reflected in todays modern Caucasus etc?
If it's helpful, I'd be glad to edit a paragraph and show you what I mean. As I said, it is a great topic and I enjoyed learning about it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Robinvp11, and thanks for taking the time to review this article! Regarding your comments, I have already made a major rewriting and restructuring of the "Background" section as I was also not really satisfied with it. It now is, to my mind, more logically structured in coherent thematic sections (which also deals with the "Chunking" concern). Feel free, however, to either suggest emendations or tinker around yourself to improve prose.
  • On the degree of detail, I try to keep it to a tolerable level, without sacrificing accuracy; for instance, Obolensky is known as the foremost proponent of this idea, and for anyone who wants to know more, his name should be mentioned. Due to the relative eminence of Byzantine studies compared to Khazar ones, the Byzantinist viewpoint has been pretty prevalent in the relevant literature, and thus needs to be examined. For the average reader, this may be useless, but I do not feel it is really a burden (if one feels compelled to delve into every link included in the article, then that is not the "average reader"). In the article I have for instance mostly abstained from analyzing the primary sources as Blankinship and Dunlop do, precisely to avoid tiring the reader; in only a few areas have I felt compelled to include the alternative or disputed facts or dates, where they impact directly on the larger narrative. One such case is precisely what you mention as a problem regarding the Abbasid-era raids. There are two divergent narratives for the same event, and I am obliged to mention them both without indicating a preference, if no such preference is stated in my sources (per WP:NOR). If that is confusing, I cannot really help it, because history is almost never neat and tidy...
  • On pictures, I also like a well-illustrated article, but there is preciously little to use; a relatively obscure 8th-century conflict between non-Westerners does not generate much in terms of illustrations. On the maps, I have worked on a new and more detailed map (now in the infobox), but anything more is beyond my source material; unless someone happens to have some Russian or Iranian encyclopedia of the Caucasus or something similar, I've hit a barrier here. Ditto for photographs or medieval drawings: what little there is on Commons I've used, and I am looking for more online, but it is a) a little like searching for a needle in a haystack and b) even when I find something, its copyright is often prohibitive or unclear.
  • The lead should be commensurate to the length of the article and be just as long as needed to summarize it adequately. There is no hard limit either way; MOS:LEADLENGTH has some suggestions, but they are not at 7-8 lines level, certainly not for an article of this size.
  • "I'm not clear from this article what the differences were between Khazars and Arabs" I've already tried to make this clearer in the reworked Background section. For more one would have to follow the links to the respective articles.
  • "so it might be useful to have an Aftermath section ie what was the impact? How is this reflected in todays modern Caucasus etc?" I have not found any indication in the sources that this is much of an issue today; it may linger in some folk memory, but as the article states, such events were inevitably described in pre-existing terms ("Gog and Magog") etc, so there is probably little that would be specific to this conflict. Likewise the political, economic, etc effects have mostly vanished since with the waves of other conquerors that passed over that region. It is likely that there are studies on this (I guess in Russian, Arabic or Azeri) but I couldn't really find any indication of it in the sources I know; Kemper for instance lists several Russian-languagestudies, but these appear to be generalist works or otherwise to focus on far more recent history of the region or aspects of it unrelated to the present one. The one discernible long-term impact is already stated clearly in the article: the early Arab expansion (and the expansion of Islam) was halted for centuries at Derbent.
  • Looking forward to any further feedback and suggestions. As stated, feel free to work around with the text yourself. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Robinvp11: re. "7-8 lines"—not sure where that comes from? WP:LEADLENGTH recommends a lead of "3 to 4 paragraphs2 for articles of over 30,000 characters in length: this is >40,000. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I was writing too fast and thinking about something else. Sorry :)

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're the subject matter expert :) so its up to you to decide what to include - I'm thinking in terms of the reader, plus I'm a huge fan of Oscar Wilde 'I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead.' I'll have a look round for pictures - its about making the article more accessible and pictures play a large role in that so even modern pictures of the terrain help. Let me take a look. 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Robinvp11, as mentioned above, feel free to make whatever additions or improvements you see fit. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits, but I had to revert some of your additions for the following reasons:
  • the role of the Caucasus as a barrier against the northern barbarian, much predates both the Arabs and the Persians, and is a constant topos in the literature of these regions since the Babylonians and Assyrians. Ditto the belief about the Gates of Alexander, it does not originate with either Persians or Arabs. The Silk Road also considerably post-dates the start of steppe invasions through the Caucasus. Describing the Scythians and Huns as "northern savages" without qualification (later on, where I use the term, the context is the perception of contemporary southern civilizations) is a judgment that one should avoid. The section title was also reverted; "The Caucasus frontier" implies the frontier between two states; the section is about a zone of conflict and interaction between two civilizational models.
  • the whole "arguably continue today, albeit with different players." is textbook WP:POV and WP:OR, I am afraid; there is no linking these conflicts in the article cited, and drawing parallels between the Azeri-Armenian conflict today and a conflict from the 7th-8th centuries, or between two modern nation-states and a steppe people invasion of a settled Near Eastern empire is very unusual and does not rest on very sound ground. Saying that the Caucasus is a trouble spot today and has been so throughout history is not the same as what this phrase implies.
  • Please don't remove the |alt= descriptions, they are not the same as image captions. I've removed Kavkasioni.JPG, as, while it is visually impressive, it is also misleading; the war did not take place among the peaks of the mountains, but in the lowlands around the Caucasus. I also rearranged the photos to avoid image clutter.

I have kept many of your copyedits, as they are more elegant. If you want to continue with the copyedits, feel free to do so, but please discuss the insertion of new material or changes that might alter the sense of the text with me first. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comments by auntieruth

[edit]

Wow, this is massive and very interesting. I'm reading as an editor the first time, and straight off in the lead I can see some issues that you might want to address.

for example:
  • but the Arab–Khazar military confrontation involved several sporadic raids and isolated clashes over a period from the middle of the 7th century to the end of the 8th century. involved sporadic raids and isolated clashes from...
  • the Arabs were able to capture Derbent and even the southern Khazar capital of Balanjar, but this had little impact on the nomadic Khazars, who remained able to launch devastating raids deep into Transcaucasia The Arabs captured Derbent and even the southern Khazar capital of Balanjar, but these successes had little impact on the nomadic Khazars, who continued to launch devastating raids....
  • At the same time, the long wars weakened ... The continuing warfare weakened....
  • Caucasus needs a link; also, typically there wouldn't be citations in the lead, because you'd clarify anything fuzzy in the body of the article....?
Generally, the more "helping" verbs used, the more confusing it gets. I'll be happy to help if you would like some assistance, but you might wish to run through it yourself. auntieruth (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your attention, auntieruth. As I wrote to Robinvp11 above, feel free to make whatever changes and improvements you see fit, and I will go over the changes afterward in case they distorted the meaning somehow. A new pair of eyes throwing a fresh look on the article is always better :) Constantine ✍ 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I will be on vacation and possibly without a good internet connection until early August, so my response to any new comments may take some time. Constantine ✍ 09:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auntieruth55 and Robinvp11, I am back from vacation. Constantine ✍ 18:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Support from PM

[edit]

Had a couple of reads through, and made a few very minor tweaks here and there. Rv if I've changed anything. Not having any idea of this period or region, I couldn't see anything substantive that needed adjustment. The only thing that I found odd was the use of the terms Iberia and Albania. I know they are introduced as being the Caucasian versions initially, but it might benefit from using the "Caucasian Iberia" and "Caucasian Albania" form throughout. It is quite a dense article, but it flows well and is understandable to a novice. Also did a source review, all sources appear to be reliable and of high quality, the only query I have is probably for FAC, and that is whether there is more recent scholarship out there that should be included, a quick search of Google Scholar indicates there might be, but you'll be the best judge of that. You could also change the References to 20em to eliminate more whitespace. Great work! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Peacemaker67 for the review and your corrections. On Iberia and Albania, I had prepared a version like this, but it quickly grew tiresome to read it so many times; I will however try to emphasize this somehow more in the article. On the sources, I did some research but could not really find anything more, at least, anything that would add anything of particular value to this topic; there are of course too many works on the Khazars or the Umayyads and I may easily have missed something, so if you found anything, please let me know. Constantine ✍ 14:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I was referring to these results. Wondering if there is anything there that you could get via WP:RX to ensure all current scholarship on these wars is represented? This is really meant as a question for a future FAC rather than something that is necessary to action at ACR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks. I was aware of these, but most deal with the Khazars in general or specific aspects not related to this conflict. Czegledy's article is useful, but it concerns a single episode, and would be more suitable for writing a dedicated article on these raids than for the present article (for reasons of consistency in detail of coverage). Otherwise, the scholarship in the article is pretty up-to-date. The heavy use of Dunlop may create a wrong impression here; for one, Dunlop's account is still the single most important study on the Khazars, for the other, the article was originally written chiefly by using Blankinship and Brook, who are both up-to-date. I did not have access to Dunlop then, and he was added later because he provides more details (and because he is fundamental to the subject), but I took care to include the corrections provided by Blankinship and Brook into account. There are possibly dedicated articles on the conflict, or aspects of it, in Russian or other languages, but I don't know where to begin looking for them, unless they are referenced in Western sources that I have access to already. Constantine ✍ 09:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CPA-5

[edit]

Greetings the page looks good in my view but there are here and there little issues.

  • First, can see some Britsh English and American English like this words
"centre" (UK English)
"civilizations" (US English)
"uncivilized" (US English)
"kilometres" (UK English)
"civilizational" (US English)
"civilized" (US English)
"materialize" (US English)
"defenses" (US English)
"recognized" (US English)
"marginalized" (US English)
"localized" (US English)
"colour" (UK English)
"maneuver" (US English)
"formalized" (US English)
"favoured" (UK English)
which English should the page use?
  • Generally, I prefer British English. The -ize forms are also used in British English. Fixed defense and maneuver though.
  • Second, I just found there are two differents between the "10th-century" and the "10th century" if the "10th-century" should be the used one on the page, then other centuries like "7th century", "8th century" and "9th century" should change to "7th-century", "8th-century" and "9th-century".
  • Hmmm, I am not sure which spot you mean here; Generally, if the century is used as an adjective, e.g. "a 17th-century painting", then a hyphen is used (just like with a "ten-year-old child"), otherwise it is not. I think I've been consistent in that in this article, if I've missed a spot, please indicate that to me.
  • Third, titles like in this case "emperor Justinian II " should be capitalised or in this case "the Caliph" it should be too. this should be used too if its about plural titles like Byzantine emperors and it should be use too if its about the future/former/new like "future emperor Constantine V".
  • This is actually a similar case to the above; if "emperor" is used as a job description, then it remains uncapitalized; it is capitalized only when used in lieu of a proper name or comes directly before a name, e.g. "the Caliph", "Caliph Hisham", but "the caliph Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik".
  • Fourth, the army should be capitalised if its from an ethnic group or nation like "the Arab army" only if there is a the before the ethnic group or nation if there is an "a" before the ethnic group or nation like "a Byzantine army" then it shouldn't be capitalised.
  • No, "the Arab army" is not about an organization named "Arab Army", but a purely descriptive term; it remains uncapitalized. "The Arab army" in this case refers to this particular army during this particular conflict/campaign, mostly composed of Arabs.
  • Fifth, which one should be used "Al-Jarrah" or "al-Jarrah".
  • Some people treat the "al-" element as an integral part of the name and capitalize it always. I prefer to follow the scholarly use and write it with a capital "A" at the beginning of a sentence, otherwise lower-case.
  • Sixth, generals and sience titiles should be capitalised like "the British orientalist Douglas M. Dunlop", "general Sa'id ibn Salm" and more.
  • As with the emperors, job descriptions are not capitalized, per common English orthography.
  • Seventh, using seasons can make some confusing to people who live in the southern part of the hemisphere. Like in the examples "In the summer of 732", "there to spend the winter.", "in spring 733" and more. Use months instead seasons or if you put "(in the northern hemisphere)" after the seasons then its ok.
  • Well, first, the month is often not known (when it is, I've always incorporated it). I also assume that the climatic implications of seasons are well known, so that a reader understands that campaigning in spring is better than campaigning in winter, for example, which is crucial to understanding the narrative; and since the calendar we all follow is based on the northern hemisphere, it should also be clear that "spring 733" means sometime in February-May 733.
  • I disagree by MOS:SEASON, the phrases are not specified even everyone knows the (Gregorian) calender is based on the northern hemisphere the phrases are still wrong it still should have be specified. If you still want to use seasons then specify it, by adding "northern" in the phrases like in an example "In the northern summer of 732" not "In the summer of 732", Or use like you said months instead seasons, in an example spring is between March–June 733. It also specify people who're around the equator who only use and have wet and dry seasons. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The events related in this article clearly took place in the northern hemisphere. Furthermore, we don't actually have any historical data about the southern hemisphere at that date (7th/8th centuries). Consequently a confusion is rather unlikely. Constantine ✍ 22:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closest date I could find below the equatorial line was about the Canggal inscription and establishing of the Medang Kingdom which made Sanjaya of Mataram king of the kingdom in the year 732 of course there is no official date record (for now at least) but because the kingdom lies in Java wich use dry and rainy seasons so 6 months for every season in a year time its possible that they'll be in the similar moment as the events in this page are. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, but still it does not impact the main point: events in the northern hemisphere clearly follow northern hemisphere seasons. Could I bother you for any additional comments on content, understandability, referencing, or your final vote on the article's candidacy? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said before there is no official date of the Canggal inscription. Which means I can see your point and the page can indeed use seasons. If there is still no confirmed date (or northern season), or the confirmed date is not in the seasons which we are talking about. However if the confirmed season is on the same momment as the season on this page, this would be an issue in the futere but not now. I have no comments anymore. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eight, Umayyad empire --> Umayyad Empire
  • As with the job titles or the army, here "empire" is used descriptively

Support I hope this would help you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, thanks for taking the time to review. I've answered the issues you've raised. Anything else? I am particularly interested in the article's understandability for the lay reader. Constantine ✍ 08:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, this nom is progressing well, would you mind running your eye over the image licensing? Thanks as always, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Only the lead map is particularly clear at that scale - suggest scaling up the others and/or adding legends to captions
  • I've added captions to the two older map, the map on the Derbent wall is unfortunately not suited for this
  • File:Mauer_von_Derbend.jpg: per the Flickr tag, is a more specific copyright tag available? Same with File:The_student's_manual_of_ancient_geography,_based_upon_the_Dictionary_of_Greek_and_Roman_geography_(1861)_(14769210685).jpg
  • Done.
  • File:Califate_750.jpg: what was the author's date of death?
  • 1934, added to the description.
  • Done.

@Nikkimaria: mostly done, on the last image please advise. Constantine ✍ 15:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

William Edward Sanders

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

William Edward Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Here is an article covering another one of New Zealand's WWI Victoria Cross recipients, this time William Sanders, New Zealand's only naval VC recipient. He was awarded the VC for his actions as commander of a Q-ship when it attacked a U-boat. It went through the GA process back in 2014, and I have done some expansion work since in preparing the article for nomination for A-Class. I look forward to reviewers' feedback. Zawed (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

  • Copyedited as usual so pls let me know any concerns. One query:
    • "the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, offered Sanders command of a destroyer of his choosing, which he declined" -- this seems pretty amazing to me, any more details on his reasons?
  • Structure and level of detail seem reasonable.
  • Source review:
    • Sources look to be of good quality except -- perhaps I missed something -- what makes Tauranga Memories reliable?
    • All links check out.
    • Formatting looks okay except FN18 and FN29 are evidently misnamed -- should they both be Howard 2007?
  • Image review:
    • The one image (which I took the liberty of cleaning up and cropping, let me know if you don't think it's an improvement) is appropriately licensed.
    • I'm assuming there's no images available of any of Sanders' ships. Could there be an image out there of a Q-Ship that might add to the article? Or any of the U-Boats in the story?

Nice work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: thanks for the feedback, I have dealt with your points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Zawed, happy to support; well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

Comments Support by Kges1901 Excellent work, Zawed. Comments:

  • before transferring to sailing ships working around New Zealand waters Repetition of work, could the second part of the sentence be rephrased?
  • link master's to master (naval) as that might confuse unfamiliar readers
  • In 'First World War', should it be 'the' Moeraki as you use 'the' for Joseph Craig above?
  • some time at the HMS Do the sources give anything more specific than 'some time'?
  • Also, is the specific date when he started service aboard Helgoland known?
  • In this first engagement, was the U-boat being attacked or was she attacking them?
  • 'HMS' Prize links to a disambig page. Suggest that be expanded at some point, though not a pressing issue.
  • collected three survivors including her captain Perhaps explain how the survivors escaped since the submarine survived, and perhaps clarify 'her' so that it is explicitly the U-boat captain.
  • In 'Medals and Legacy' perhaps mention that the training ship Leander is operated by the NZ Sea Cadets in the text. Linking training ship to Sea Cadets may be unexpected for the reader, perhaps link training ship to training ship.

Kges1901 (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

42nd Infantry Division Murska

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

42nd Infantry Division Murska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the latest in my series on the Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of that country in April 1941. This division was largely manned by Croat troops, whose hearts were not in the fight, as many saw the Germans as liberators from Serb oppression in the interwar period and a means to achieve independence. It was one of many Yugoslav formations subjected to the German Kesselschlacht tactics during the invasion, and surrendered after it was encircled. This article has been expanded from a stub in the last month, and has just gone through GAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review For this version of the article.

  • Spot checks:
    • 44a (US Army): this material appears to be on pages 58 (the weather) and 60, not just 60 as shown at present. Checks out though.
      • Fixed.
    • 21 (Niehorster 2018a) is a dead link
      • It is resolving intermittently, I had to reload the 500 page several times but got there eventually. Must be a problem with the site at present. I've emailed Leo.
    • 13a (Niehorster 2018b) looks OK, AGF that the few elements of the organisation not covered by the online source is covered by the book: it all seems entirely likely.
      • Terzic provides the granular detail.
    • Can a page/sub website be provided for reference 19 (Geografski institut JNA)? It's not clear which of the many maps on the website this is referring to.
      • Done, map 1.
  • All sources are RS. Niehorster is a published expert in the field of WW2 military organisations, and his website has long been an excellent resource. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901

  • An excellent and interesting article, PM. Some comments:
    • In the lead sentence, isn't it redundant to state Yugoslav before 4th Army as it is already stated to be part of the Royal Yugoslav Army and the 4th Army can be assumed to be Yugoslav?
      • Done.
    • Also in lead, perhaps rephrase 'modern' as modern weaponry can be used for anything since the 19th century (at least according to the category description)?
      • I think it just has its common meaning of up-to-date.
    • Suggest summarizing what happened to its personnel after the surrender at the end of the lead.
      • Done.
    • On 6 April, shouldn't LI Infantry Corps be LI Army Corps since the latter is its actual designation?
      • Infantry is used to differentiate it from the later LI Mountain Corps. It is also what some of the sources use.
    • Third paragraph of 6 April includes two back to back sentences beginning with times. Perhaps for variation, since there is an exact hour between the estimates, the second could be 'around an hour later' or something similar?
      • Good idea. Done.
    • German troops advancing across the German border That the border was German is mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph, so 'German' before border is redundant here.
      • Fixed.
    • In 7 April, led the bulk of two regiments from the 42nd ID to revolt Which two regiments? Kges1901 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources don't say, unfortunately.

Thanks for the review, Kges1901. I reckon I've addressed what I can. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Is there any known commemoration of this division's service?

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting promotion - the article is of quality and all my comments have been addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Glycerius

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Glycerius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed as a Good Article and I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class, and it is a part of my series on Roman Emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • This article seems to be in good shape. It is brief, but his period of notability was brief and the paucity of sources on him is understandable. I note that I know little about this period, but that Llywrch conducted a detailed GAN review and is familiar with this period.
  • the use of Latin terms without explanation isn't helpful to the reader. I suggest providing a layman's explanation/translation after comes domesticorum and magister militum, or add notes
  •  Done
  • link interregnum in the lead
  •  Done
  • mention the Visigoths as well as the Ostrogoths in the lead
  •  Done
  • suggest "who instead he nominated"
  •  Done
  • link puppet monarch for puppet emperor
  •  Done
  • "the Visigoths King"
  •  Done
  • was Vincentius killed by these two individuals personally, or during a battle where the Roman forces were led by them? It reads like it was single combat. If a battle, does it have a name or article and where did it occur, if known?
  •  Done
  • suggest "and transferreddiverted them" if that is what is meant?
    Transferred is more appropriate here, as the Ostrogoths were [nominally] vassals of Rome, so he moved them there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • drop initial caps on Simony
  •  Done
  • isbn's should be hyphenated
  •  Done
  • all refs need locations of publication
  •  Done

That's me done, great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901
[edit]
  • Source review All sources appear of impeccable reliability, including Mathieson's website.
  • Image review The image is correctly licensed. Not connected to the image review, but can a relevant image be added in body, if possible?
    Not any images that are especially relevant; maps of the empire near his time either show a much larger empire (Majorian) or no empire (Fall)
  • Are the primary sources that are redlinked individually notable? If not, they can be unlinked.
  •  Done
  • In the lead sentence, is 'Unknown' or something similar before his death date considered acceptable in this area to emphasize that his birth date is not known?
  •  Done
  • and diverted them to Gaul, and diverted an invasion from the Ostrogoths through gifts Suggest rephrasing, repetition of 'and'
  •  Done
  • After his abdication he became Bishop of Salona. He may have had a role in the assassination of Julius Nepos in 480. He died some time after 474, possibly in 480. Suggest combining one of the last three sentences as they are pretty short.
  •  Done
  • who was a puppet emperor controlled first by the Magister militum Ricimer and then by his nephew, the Magister militum Gundobad It may be just me, but it seems unclear that Gundobad was Ricimer's nephew, perhaps rephrase.
  •  Done
  • Fasti vindobonenses should be italicized, I believe
  •  Done
  • Paschale campanum ditto
  •  Done
  • Some historians suggest he was made archbishop of Milan by Odoacer, but this is likely rumor rather than fact Who are 'some historians'? If they are notable they can be attributed in the text.
    Source does not indicate who "some historians" (source used "some modern writers") is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kges1901 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Lead:

  • "Commander of the Protectores". A. Should not be capitalised. B. I am not sure that "Protectores" communicates anything to a reader, or is even an English word.
  • "(Master of Soldiers)". Should not be capitalised.
  • "he repelled the invasion of the Visigoths, who were attempting to invade Italy, and diverted them to Gaul, as well as diverted an invasion from the Ostrogoths through gifts." At the risk of being picky, "he", personally, didn't do these things and arguably had little to do with them. Maybe something like 'during his reign an invasion of the Visigoths was repelled...'?
  • "Glycerius was left without allies, because Gundobad had left to rule the Burgundians". "left" twice in seven words; could one be rephrased?
  • "After his abdication he became Bishop of Salona, which he held until his death". Either 'he was appointed Bishop of Salona, which position he held until his death' or 'he became Bishop of Salona, which he remained until his death'.

Life:

  • "Glycerius was able to repel the invasion of..." See above.
  • "a generally favorable reception from Roman and Byzantine sources". Optional, but IMO 'in' would work better than "from".
  • "Glycerius primarily reigned from Northern Italy". "Northern" should not be capitalised.
  • "as all but one coin found from his reign was minted". ' were minted'.
  • "because he was merely a puppet emperor", Suggestion: '... a puppet for Gundobad'.
    Did "of" Gundobad. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • Personally I dislike the phrase "Primary sources" given that most of them weren't. But it seems to be generally accepted, so that is just a niggle.
  • Checked several sources which you don't use, none of them add to what is already in the article and none of them contradict what is there.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he was made archbishop of Milan by Odoacer, but this is likely rumor rather than fact" Should be ' was likely rumor...'

A little outside the areas I am most familiar with, but this seems to say just about everything there is to say about Glycerius, in context and well written. It uses the available sources about as well as it can without getting off topic. Good work. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

IFF Mark II

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

IFF Mark II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

IFF was one of the many advances of the "Wizard War" in WWII. While the Mk I and II are best considered temporary stepping stones on the path to the "real" Mk. III, it's place in history is still secure as the first operational IFF system. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: After a quick read:

  • Citations generally shouldn’t be in the lead.
  • Any citations for this: “but only 50 of these were delivered.”
  • Seems a bit on the short end, but this is quite a narrow topic.

Other than that, good work.--Randomness74 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation in the lede was for DYK, I've removed. Looking for the 50. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, Maury, ‌interesting article. I'm well out of my depth in relation to content, so I figured I'd try to help out by looking at some of the minor aspects. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • images seem correctly licenced to me
  • "used by all allied aircraft" --> "used by all Allied aircraft"?
  • there are a few overlinked terms: Battle of Britain, Chain Home, radar display, Ferranti, Royal Navy
  • in the Bibliography, are there ISBN or OCLC numbers fo the Brown, Howse and Shayler works? They can usually be found at www.worldcat.org
  • "Robert Watson-Watt": suggest maybe quickly explaining who he was when you mention him for the first time
  • "unfortunately": probably best to avoid this word per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
  • "they wouldn't have the right": probably best to avoid contractions
  • "1000" --> "1,000"?
Got all of these too! I'll never understand the desire for ISBN in the era of URLs though... Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those tweaks, Maury, I have had another look through. I wasn't quite sure of the structure before, but couldn't place my finger on the issue. I have spent a bit of time thinking about it, and have a suggestion now, which I will detail below. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • structure: I'd suggest maybe removing "History" as a 2nd level header, and replace it with "Previous efforts" as a 2nd level header, with "Early concepts" and "Mark I" as level three headers. I would then have "Design and development" as a second level header (replacing the "Mark II" level three header that is currently there), and then change the "Mark III" third level header to "Subsequent development" or something similar (maybe "Replacement by the Mark III"?) Anyway, I have made an edit on the article, to illustrate my point. I've self reverted, though, so you can choose to implement or not, or come up with something better. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've wondered how World War II-era IFF systems worked, so it's good to see a high quality article on the topic. My only comment is that the article should explain what a "Geneva mechanism" is. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Interesting article. Is there a publisher for fn 2? And a citation is required for the last sentence in the Mark I section. Otherwise, my only suggestion is that squitter doesn't need italics; put it in quotes like "pip-squeak". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Interesting read. A few suggestions: /~huesatlum/ 17:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was all too easy" is repeated in successive paragraphs.
  • With Mark I, Mark II, and Mark III all being mentioned in the article, you should add non-breaking spaces before the Roman numerals for clarity where they could be split up into two lines.
  • "Watt's" → "Watson-Watt's"
  • "He filed initial patents on such systems in 1935 and 1936" This doesn't seem to be in the Bowden paper as cited.
  • Link "cam" (lede and body)?
  • Add a DOI to the Bowden citation
  • "Radar Development to 1945" is missing author(s)
  • Citation 2 (The British invention of radar) is a dead link. Is this a website or a transcribed book? The archived site has date and author information that should be added.

G'day Maury Markowitz just a reminder that there are a few outstanding comments here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my disappearing act everyone. I believe everything above has been addressed. I did not add nbsp's, and Watt didn't become Watson-Watt until after this period. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Hi AR, in light of Maury's comment above, are you happy to support this nomination so we can clear it from the reviewing list or is there something still outstanding? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I was hoping for a response to my suggestion, but it is just a suggestion so it shouldn't hold up promotion. That said, now I look at it again, I think there are a couple of things that need covering off on. For instance, this appears uncited: "but only 50 of these were delivered". There is also some inconsistency in the citation style that I missed earlier (apologies). For instance compare "Poole, Ian (1998). Basic Radio: Principles and Technology. Newnes. pp. 187–193" with "Brown 1999, p. 130.". The second of these isn't that important, but the first really should be dealt with before the review is closed, IMO. Otherwise, I think it is good to go. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maury Markowitz, it looks like we can almost clear this one up, just the outstanding comments immediately above to deal with. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just looking quickly at the sources, I notice the retrieval dates in the Bowden and Brown references are presented differently as well. The majority look reliable being textbooks or reputable publishers but what makes Greg Goebel a reliable source? Sorry for this last comment, in case you aren't aware MilHist has tightened up on sourcing following the recent GWE Armcom case (reported in the latest Bugle). Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in citation style is that when I have a source that is used only in a limited location, I put it inline. I do not know anything about the dates, that's something the wiki markup is doing. I have changed the cite on pip-squeek, but was that arbcom about Goebel? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted the retrieval date format. The Arbcom case wasn't about Goebel but as a result of the case Milhist have added a source check to the A-Class reviewing requirements. Amateur websites, which was my impression of Goebel, may not have been a RS. Zawed (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you still need a cite for the delivery of 50. I have added a cite needed tag. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Maury Markowitz, this looks close to promotion, but I believe this last point is outstanding? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Images - both images used in the article are correctly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Source Review - All secondary sources reliable and of high quality, primary sources are appropriately used. Kges1901 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Back to working on submarines. As with the class article which is currently over at FAC, I've taken an old gem that @Bellhalla: wrote several years ago, brought it up to the standards of 2018 in terms of article quality, added every exhaustible source I own and could possibly have come across, and more than tripled the size of the article in the process. Bellhalla deserves all the credit in the world for getting get this article to GA-status as well. With that in mind and despite his apparent retirement from Wikipedia, if this article passes this this ACR, I would like Bellhalla to be given co-credit alongside myself.

As for the submarine herself, U-1 was Austria-Hungary's first ever submarine. She was built by Simon Lake, an American naval architect, and had several interesting design mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater. Perhaps most bizarrely, she was also equipped with wheels (yes, you read that right...wheels) to "travel" along the seafloor. As an experimental design, U-1 had several flaws (the wheels proved to be entirely useless and the engines routinely poisoned the submarine), but she was commissioned into the navy nonetheless as part of a design competition with two other foreign firms.

U-1 was used mostly for training purposes, though she was briefly mobilized during the First Balkan War, and she was occasionally assigned recon missions out of Trieste and Pola during World War I, but never sank or damaged any enemy vessels during the war. She was declared obsolete in January 1918, and again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola right before the end of the war. After a brief period of chaos regarding who owned the submarine following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (as was the case with literally every single ship in the Austro-Hungarian fleet at the end of the war), U-1 was seized by, and later granted to, Italy in 1920. The Italians decided to immediately scrap the submarine in Pola that same year.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

There's not much to say here, this is another nice and interesting sub article that's recently passed GA and seems to meet all the functional criteria for A. I'm always particularly impressed at the exhaustive efforts to properly apply measurement conversions by authors of ships articles. A few minor items that can be actioned or ignored at your leisure:

  • In the last sentence of the lead "subsequently" is used, though, it doesn't strictly seem necessary. Further, it's used in the preceding sentence as well so reads very slightly redundantly.
  • Deleted the duplicated word. Good catch as I can't stand using the same phrase repeatedly in just a few sentences.
  • keeping the possibility of reforming the Empire into a triple monarchy alive might read clearer as "keeping alive the possibility of reforming the Empire into a triple monarchy" but maybe it's just me
  • Done.
  • Faced with the prospect of being given an ultimatum to hand over the former Austro-Hungarian warships, the National Council agreed to hand over the ships beginning on 10 November 1918. - Replacing one of the two "hand over the" with an alternate term like "surrender the" or something might offer a slightly smoother read.
  • Done.
  • This was done in order to properly evaluate the various different proposals which would come forward. - Maybe either "different proposals" or "various proposals" but not "various different proposals"?
  • Done

Chetsford (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

Lead
  • the the first sentence of the lead, the U-1 class
  •  Done
  • also the American
  •  Done
  • link mobilisation in the lead
  •  Done
  • I think the lead needs a bit summarising the observations of Dickson, O'Hara, and Worth, and Greger about her being a failure etc
  • I made a mention of it in the last sentence of the second paragraph. Please feel free to offer commentary!
Background
  • comma after Popper
  •  Done
  • Marinesektion is mentioned without explanation
  •  Done I can elaborate further if necessary.
  • link Lake again at first mention in the body
  •  Done I also linked the company's name in the body. This can be undone if you think it constitutes an WP:OVERLINK.
  • suggest After being recommended by Popper, Simon Lake,...
  •  Done
  • I suggest trimming the book titles from this section, and just quote them as historians/authors
  •  Done I trimmed Dickson, O'Hara, and Worth. I left Greger's book title in place because I feel like it flows better that way but I can trim that down too.
  •  Done
  • What Lake thought of his own subs is a bit immaterial and too close to the subject, I think we should rely on third-party sources for this
  • I thought it was an interesting piece of info that I haven't been able to find elsewhere, probably because it must have not been considered noteworthy enough of an event to be recorded in any English-speaking sources. You are right that he's hardly a neutral observer, but I think the reader can understand that quite well. The point of including the quote was to demonstrate that there were at least a few details of the submarine's design which were actually good things that could easily be overlooked when constructing such a vessel.
  • in the General characteristics subsection, it is said that she had a double hull, but later a single hull. Aren't these things mutually exclusive? Also link double hull.
  • I've just realized there's a conflict in sources. Sieche (a very well-respected naval historian who has extensive credentials when you are discussing Austro-Hungarian naval history), states the submarine had a double-hull. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, which is more or less considered the authoritative work on all naval vessels during the period each book covers (in this case, 1906-1922), states the submarine had a single hull. I'm thinking an efn that states there is a conflict among sources regarding the hull type. Thoughts?
  • Get this, the ship had a double hull. I misread Conway's on that one. Other sources back it up as well that the U-1 class was construct with a double hull.
  • suggest linking diving chamber again at first mention in the body
  •  Done
  • consider providing the range of a selected A-H 45cm torpedo and the range of the deck gun
  • I would if I could but unfortunately I can't find any sources that would give any sort of range for these weapons. That's actually a much more harder task than it seems. I've only been able to find info regarding ranges for weapons a handful of times across the dozens of articles I've edited in topics such as these.
  • Friedman's Naval Weapons of WWI has entries for both the Skoda 37 mm SFK L/23 gun (3000 m effective range) on p. 295 and a number of 45 cm torpedoes on pp. 350–351. My scan of the latter page is a bit hazy, but maybe @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: might have a hard copy? It appears to me the L5/1909 was the submarine torpedo, but I can't make out the range and speed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be fantastic information to have in the article. Really hoping we can get that info because I'd love to include it. Good find BTW!
  • I expected to see details of her engines and power output in the body rather than just in the infobox
  •  Done
Construction and commissioning
  • suggest linking keel laying, ceremonial ship launching and sea trial
  •  Done
  • the location of the diving tanks and need for pumping are mentioned twice
  •  Done tweaked language to make it not repetitive.
  • and was in danger of being crushed
  •  Done
Service history
  • link ship commissioning, mobilisation and Balkan Wars
  •  Done
  • I'm no expert, but I've never seen the spelling of Prisrena for Prizren before, Italian?
  • Yes, it's Italian. At the time, many of Austria-Hungary's coastal locations used Italian names. I followed convention by keeping the contemporary names in place (Pola rather than Pula, Prisrena rather than Prizren, ect).
  • "Both Russian"
  •  Done
  • "the Austro-Hungarian Army and Navy wasere subsequently"
  •  Done
  • "as a training vessels"
  •  Done
  • "training cruisers"
  •  Done
  • link Trieste
  •  Done
  • "U-1s deployment"
  •  Done
  • "mid-1918"
  •  Done
  • when you say "the newly formed state" use the name here
  •  Done
  • perhaps "also not yet publicly dethronedrejected"
  • I used the phrase "dethroned" because we're talking about the nature of the Emperor's rule over the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was rapidly disintegrating at the time. Karl hoped that while the Dual Monarchy may not survive, the Empire in some sort of federated form could...which meant the breaking off of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs from Hungary was actually a good thing, so long as the state didn't also declare that their ties to the Emperor were severed in addition to their ties to the Kingdom of Hungary. With this in mind, I used the word "dethroned" because it carries a more monarchical connotation as opposed to "rejected". If you think the latter is a better phrase to use however, I can definitely replace it.
  • Fair point. I've changed the language to "rejected".  Done
  • sp "Rear Adrmial"
  •  Done
  • link Armistice of Villa Giusti
  •  Done
  • link Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919)
  •  Done
  • "It would not be until 1920 whenthat the final distribution"
  •  Done
  • link World War I reparations
  •  Done
  • suggest fn a is redundant
  • I included it because I didn't want the reader to get confused by the fact that the infobox states Italy took possession on the 9th, while the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is listed as handing the submarine over to the Allied powers on the 10th. The last days of October and the first weeks of November 1918 were incredibly confusing, especially in that part of Europe. I can delete if you think it's redundant however. I just didn't want anyone being confused by the dates listed.
  • Very well. Eliminated the efn.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kges1901

[edit]

Excellent article, some comments:
Lead

  • Did Lake design the submarine, or was it the company? In the body you have Lake as designer.
  • Lake designed it, as owner of the Lake Torpedo Boat Company...if that makes sense. I reworded the lead a bit to hopefully clarify that.
  • posed a risk of poisoning the ship's Seemingly inconsistent, in the lead sentence you wrote 'boat' instead of ship
  • Boat and ship are used interchangeably when talking about submarines. I can change the article to only use one work over the other but SM U-1 and all U-boats of the German and Austro-Hungarian navies have been referred to as "boats" and "ships".
  • Not an issue then, I'll defer to your knowledge of the sources in this area.

Infobox

  • Why are the COs notable? Asking this because CO lists do not seem to generally be included in even most surface ship FAs.
  • It's just extra info that we have available, I didn't see why we shouldn't put it into the infobox, especially since there's a section in every ship-related infobox for CO lists to be included. CO lists don't usually exist in ship FAs because the information isn't available.
  • If data is already cited in body it is unnecessary to have refs for it in the infobox
  • Removed.

Background

  • Constructor General (German: Generalschiffbauingenieur) of the Austro-Hungarian Navy Seems to be missing a 'the' before constructor general. Alternately you could omit the comma before Siegfried.
  • Removed the comma.
  • test each ship against one another. Again, are submarines ships or boats?

Design

  • raiding enemy shipping Allied or Italian? 'Enemy' is sometimes considered POV.
  • Removed references of "enemy" where Allied or Italian can be used in its place. There is one mention of the word "enemy" that has to remain though, as it is used for hypothetical reasons. "Lake envisioned U-1 and her sister ship only submerging while conducting surprise attacks or in order to escape pursuit from an enemy warship."
  • peaceful exploring of the sea perhaps 'sea exploration' for concision
  • Rewritten, but I kept the word "peaceful" in there, to make it clear that the original design was for.
  • In 1917, U-1 was fitted with a 37-millimeter (1.5 in) deck gun. This was ultimately removed in January 1918 when the submarine resumed training duties. Can be combined to ', which was ultimately'
  • Removed
  • The information about her complement seems out of place at the end of the paragraph and could be moved to the first paragraph. The General characteristics section also should include the range, which is seemingly only in the infobox.
  • Done

Construction and Commissioning

  • desire by Austro-Hungarian naval officials to test every possible aspect of the ship Shouldn't it be 'desire of'?
  • Done
  • Missing ref for efn b
  • Done

Service history

  • Upon completion of this refit in early 1915, U-1 returned to training duties through 4 October. Thereafter, she was stationed at Trieste on 2 November. Sentences could be combined. Also, what was she doing between 4 October and 2 November?
  • Merged. She remained in port during this time.
  • and U-1's deployment to the port Repetition, perhaps use 'her', 'to the port' is redundant since the port is mentioned at the end of the sentence
  • I'm not comfortable using the phrase "her port" as it wasn't "her port" until she was deployed there. Replaced "port" with "city" instead.
  • My comment may have been unclear as I meant that U-1 was repeated twice in the same sentence.
  • war's end unnecessary contraction, perhaps 'end of the war'
  • Done

Kges1901 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review All sources seem WP:RS and the contemporary sources are used appropriately. Comments:

  • Lake is missing an OCLC number.
  • Fixed
  • Ditto for the RUSI journal article (Mitchell).
  • Fixed
  • Is there an ISSN for Sieche 1985?
  • No dice. I just can't find any leads that point me to either an ISSN or an OCLC.
  • Citation for Baumgartner and Sieche is inconsistent, perhaps cite the webpage in the bib and include a note for the German edition instead of putting it in the further reading (unless you have access to a copy of the book). Kges1901 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant is that the Baumgarter and Sieche ref 17 is the only one not in sfn, perhaps you could do a full citation to the webpage in the bibliography, and possibly annotate using the German edition full ref from the further reading using the – symbol as a break. Kges1901 (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review All PD images are adequately licensed, FUR for lead image adequate. Kges1901 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Territorial Force

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Territorial Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Territorial Force was a British part-time auxiliary, formed in 1908 by the consolidation of the existing Volunteer Force and Yeomanry auxiliaries. It was ridiculed in peacetime, and Kitchener ignored it in favour of his New Army as a means of reinforcing the regular army, the role the Territorial Force was largely designed to perform, on the outbreak of the First World War. Despite this indignity, the territorials volunteered for service overseas, filled the gap between the effective destruction of the regular army in France in 1914 and the arrival of the New Army in 1915, and carried the majority of the British effort in the Middle Eastern theatre. The article has been peer reviewed, and assuming it passes this ACR, I hope to submit it for FAC. Looking forward to feedback. Factotem (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
Careless mistakes by me all fixed now. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Central_London_Rangers,_1896.jpg: what's the basis for the CC claim?
The CC claim refers to the scan by HantsAV. That was the only license applied when I found the image, and realising that that was not valid for the original, I added {{PD-anon-1923}}, based on source and publication date provided by HantsAV and my own research of Elliott & Fry (the original copyright holders).
Found a source for the actual publication date (as well as the actual name given to the painting by the artist), and added that info to the commons info.
Thanks for taking a look at this. Always appreciated. Factotem (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Are there any outstanding concerns with images? Factotem (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work. I had a look at this when it was at peer review, and I was impressed with it then. The changes since then have improved it further. I have a few comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab or duplicate links (no action required)
  • the ext links all work (no action required)
  • typo: "alledged" --> "alleged"
  • "including two of only three bars ever awarded": suggest linking Medal bar here
  • typo: "Gibralter" --> "Gibraltar"
  • "The History of the 51st (Highland) Division, 1914-1918": should have an endash
  • "Call to Arms: the British Army 1914-18": same as above
  • "Defending Albion: Britain's Home Army 1908-1919": same as above
  • "Hay 2017": as there is now no other Hay being used, it probably doesn't need the year given that other similar instances (i.e. Bean) don't. That said, it might be easier in the long run to give all citations years
  • "Territorial War Medal": I wonder if this should be mentioned in text, or clarified who it was awarded to in the caption?
I've amended the text a little to include something about the medal, but don't think it needs a great deal as the article for that medal is linked. Hope that's OK. Factotem (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the images lack alt text, and although it isn't a requirement, it can assist the vision impaired: [28]
  • "Their shabby treatment": seems a little informal. I'd suggest "poor" or even just saying "Their treatment" as it is already implied that the treatment was poor
Thanks. Always appreciated. I believe I've addressed all issues. Factotem (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Keith-264

[edit]
Biblio, I altered the Bewsher isbn to an oclc because the isbn didn't go anywhere when I clicked on and headed for Worldcat; I think it's for the N&M Press reprint ed. Some of the others might be worth checking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Keith. Took the liberty of adding a section header above. Hope that's OK. Thanks for taking a look. Much appreciated.
  • Fair point about Bewsher. I checked, and changed the OCLC to one which Worldcat indicates relates to the computer file. That's seems most appropriate, as I used the online version. I'm sure the ISBNs for the printed publications are good, and the OCLCs used for other works in the biblio checkout OK.
  • Re: your edits to the lead, I've tweaked a few, hope that's OK. Mainly though, the word "territorials" is not, as far as I'm aware, a proper noun, so should not be capitalised. Having said that, Mitchinson generally does, even when using the word as an adjective. I'll have a look through the other sources, and maybe consider capitalising it. Thoughts? Factotem (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking on this further, we don't capitalise "soldiers" or "sailors", so I'm not really convinced that "territorials" warrants it either. Factotem (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends on if it's an abbreviation of Territorial Force or not but I defer to your opinion. Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

All sources look to be of high quality and reliable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901

[edit]

A superb article, some comments:

  • In Conscription debate and pre-war problems, possibly link Gloucestershire, Somerset, and Essex.
Never too sure about these sort of links, because the names refer to the County Territorial Associations and not to the counties themselves, so linking to the counties does not really add all that much to help the reader. Having said that, this is borderline, I think, so I linked them anyway. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe initial German offensive to Race to the Sea since that appears to be what is meant.
The initial German offensive was more than the Race to the Sea, so I've not linked that itself, but I have explicitly added and linked Race to the Sea. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In second line deployment, The divisional artillery, having initially drilled with cart-mounted logs, was equipped first with obsolete French 90 mm cannons, then with equally obsolete has a repetition of obsolete, perhaps replace the second obsolete with outmoded?
Went with "outdated". Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Gallipoli, Lieutenant-Colonel Da Costa, is his full name known?
No. I did search for it when I wrote that part, but nothing came up. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Factotem (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • The Second Boer War exposed weaknesses in the ability of the regular army to counter guerrilla warfare What do you mean by this? What special ability did the TF have that the regulars didn't? If you mean that the regulars basically ran out of manpower because of their shitty tactics, say so.
recast as The Second Boer War exposed weaknesses in the ability of the regular army to counter guerrilla warfare which required additional manpower to overcome. The only reinforcements available were the auxiliaries...
  • Becke 2A and B should match the capitalization as given in the bibliography
Done
Thanks. Factotem (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry to pester, but I'd like to wrap this up and submit the article to FAC. Are you satisfied with my responses, or is there something more I should be doing? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd forgotten to watchlist this page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Johann Heinrich von Schmitt

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Johann Heinrich von Schmitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. It is part of a series of articles I've worked on about the French Revolutionary Wars and the Wars of Coalitions. I will appreciate your input! auntieruth (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Ruth. Nice work, as always. I have a few very minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, suggest linking "Ottoman Empire" done
  • in the lead, "Feldmarshalleutnant Lieutenant-General": is this right? Or is lieutenant general a translation of Feldmarshalleutnant? done
  • in the Family and education section, this appears to be missing something: "The development of map making, and Carlos Pallavicini was at the forefront of this movement." done
  • "now an Oberst colonel" --> "now an Oberst (colonel)"? done
  • there is some inconsistency in capitalisation. For instance, consider "Fähnrich (ensign)" but also "Oberleutnant (Lieutenant)" done
  • in the infobox, "Lieutenant Field Marshal" seems inconsistent with the lead done
  • I saw some English variation issues, e.g. "defense" but "theatre" done
  • "This over-extension left his Corps' northern..." --> "This over-extension left his corps' northern" (lower case "c" for corps) done
  • "material on the Turk's military situation" --> "material on the Turks' military situation"? Wellllll, German sources, and many English sources, usually refer to the Turk (singular).
  • in the Citations and notes, citations 7 & 8 appear to be the same, and probably should be consolidated as WP:NAMEDREFS done
  • "Gazan's division lost over 40 percent of its men, colors, and several guns" --> "Gazan's division lost over 40 percent of its men, as well as its colors, and several guns"?
  • "One of history's great Chiefs of Staff": suggest that this assessment might need attribution in text, i.e. "Described as one of history's great Chiefs of Staff by X..." done
  • Archduke Charles is overlinked in the Assessment and legacy section
  • "File:Johann Heinrich von Schmitt.jpg": the current source does not seem to provide information about when the portrait was created. Is there a better source for this?
  • should Smith's Databook appear in the Bibliography? done
  • in the Bibliography, is the an OCLC number for the Egger work? no
  • in the Bibliography, "Napoleon Online.DE": should there be a space between the full stop and "DE"? not really, iot's Napoleon online.de....I've fixed the link to make it easier
  • same as above for the Wrede work?
  • "Die Österreichischen Generäle 1792–1815" probably should be presented in italics done
  • the promotions box probably needs citations done

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • The article is titled Johann Heinrich von Schmitt, but there is no mention of him ever being known as "Johann". Also, there is a key difference between "Schmitt" and "von Schmitt". If his father had the nobiliary particle I assume he would have inherited it as well. Why this discrepancy? added the von He would have been called heinrich by his friends, but I don't think I use his first name anywhere else.
  • The first sentence should explain who he was before it says what he accomplished i.e. "Heinrich Schmitt (1743 – 11 November 1805) was an Austrian military officer who..." done
  • In 1799, his reputation was tarnished by the assassination of the French delegates to the Congress of Rastatt in 1799... This should clarify that his reputation was tarnished because he was rumored to be involved. As of now it stands ambiguous; when I first read it I was wondering whether he had been assigned to protect them and had failed to fulfill that supposed duty. Very little research done on the assassination. He wasn't assigned to protect them, but the treaties had obviously guaranteed their safety.
  • The first paragraph under "Family and education" should make it explicit that his father was in the employ of the Hapsburg Monarchy. linked
  • planned the basis of the famous 1796 campaign --> The word "famous" is potentially problematic. Considered "famous" by who? Also, what is the relevance of its fame to Schmitt? Hitler "famously" initiated a world war in Europe, but we don't need to say that it was "famous". If the military skill displayed by Schmitt and the Hapsburg forces was celebrated by other strategists or by historians than a separate sourced sentence should be made explaining as much. yes, good point....
  • The official investigation into the assassination placed enormous pressure on Schmitt... Did the authorities ever conclusively exonerate him, or was there simply just not enough evidence to find fault in him? No investigation definitively figured out what happened. Changed some of the wording....
  • Heinrich Schmitt was, in his time, recognized as one of the best and most distinguished officers of the Imperial Austrian army. Recognized by who? changed

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with all the responses to my comments except I still believe some of the "Assessment and legacy" statements aren't qualified. If it's all the opinion of Digby Smith, this should be made obvious. Also, in what context was he considered the most experienced Austrian leader. Among the military officers of his time? Amongst all Austrians of all time? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very reasonable point. I've adjusted the text. Thanks, @Indy beetle:! auntieruth (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the alterations made and the addressing of my comments and I support this article's promotion to A-class. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Johann_Heinrich_von_Schmitt.jpg needs a US PD tag added PD|US|1923
@Peacemaker67: Added book that image was published in to description, it was published in 1871 if not earlier. Kges1901 (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]
  • It looks like Template:Infobox military person doesn't have a "father" parameter any more, so it's throwing an error. I don't see it....
  • "(1765–1763)": ? fixed
  • "Working alongside his deputy, Anton Mayer von Heldensfeld, Schmitt, as Chief of Staff to Archduke Charles, planned the 1796 campaign, which, after several initial setbacks, produced the Imperial victories at the Battle of Amberg (24 August 1796) and the Battle of Würzburg (2 September 1796), and resulted in the French retreat to the west shore of the Rhine.": Probably too much for one sentence. cleaned up.
  • "FeldmarschallLeutnant": I added a hyphen, Feldmarschall-Leutnant. Feel free to revert, but my understanding is, when we're using a word (in German or English) that has a different spelling today, but it's the same word, then we go with the modern spelling, so that readers don't get distracted over a trivial matter. I'm going with the hyphen because our article (see the link) says that's the way to spell it, and because (native speakers will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong) the triple-l looks wrong to modern German eyes. not a problem; i think it's without the hyphen but the wikifying of articles is often beyond me.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, happy to help. When I click on "edit source" for the article, the first thing I see, in red, is: "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox military person with unknown parameter "father" (this message is shown only in preview)." I don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • All the sources used seem reliable on examination. The Napoleon Series has an editorial board, some of whom are published historical authors. I assume the German-language version of that portal (www.napoleon-online.de) which is linked from the home page likewise, but it would be good if you could link to some editorial board information about the German-language site, as I am having trouble navigating it and it isn't apparent that any of the editorial board of the English-language site speak German. It appears that Ebert has been published in Germany, so AGF that he is reliable as an author. Egger has an OCLC, it is 500057034. Just need that info on the German-language site and the OCLC added and this should be good to go. If this is going to FAC, I strongly suggest using a short citation in the Citations and notes section for those sources that are listed in the Bibliography section. At present it is doubling up quite a bit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

James P. Hagerstrom

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HueSatLum (talk)

James P. Hagerstrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hagerstrom was a fighter pilot with the USAAF and USAF, one of only seven to be an ace in both WWII and Korea. He also served in Vietnam, where he frequently butted heads with military brass. After retirement, he sailed around the Pacific with his family on a homemade boat. I created this article several years ago and got it to GA class, and since then I have expanded it quite a bit over the years. After a copyedit from the GOCE earlier this year, I believe it is now up to A-Class status, with the eventual goal of FAC. This is my first nomination, so I would appreciate any suggestions/critiques. /~huesatlum/ 20:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, welcome to Milhist ACR. Thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]
  • Hi HueSatLum, welcome to Milhist A-class. I started copyediting, but stopped at the quote boxes. I don't think it's my place to say whether they should be there and what they should say, but I'd like to see some discussion on them by more knowledgeable people before I continue. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Dank, and thanks for your work so far. My input: I added the quote boxes mainly for visual interest and to break up the wall of text. They essentially take the place of images, as extensive searches turned up no additional images of Hagerstrom that would definitely be allowed here. I believe they add more value than if they were replaced with generic images of, say, relevant battles or aircrafts. They provide a landing point for someone who is just skimming the article, as well as give insight into Hagerstrom's voice and point of view. /~huesatlum/ 02:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. For better and worse, FAC follows MOS (within reason), and WP:MOS says "Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged." There are strong opinions on both sides. It's not my fight, and I'm not sure how people feel about this at FAC these days. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Were you waiting for me to do something before you continued looking at the article, or do you want input from other folks first? /~huesatlum/ 15:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd like to see some discussion on the quote boxes by more knowledgeable people before I continue. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I doubt I'm more knowledgeable than you, Dan, but I'd be comfortable with the quote boxes, so long as the colour was removed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Heh, I don't doubt that. The quote boxes might be fine for A-class (not my call), but I'm a little worried that they'd set up a messy fight at FAC, and this one might be headed to FAC. Can you think of anyone we can ping who's up to speed on what FAC reviewers want from quote boxes? (and maybe that's you). I'm certainly not one of those guys who says you can't have them, but I know reviewers have ideas about what they should or shouldn't say. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Ian Rose, Peacemaker67, and Nikkimaria: G'day everyone, do you have an opinion about the use of quote boxes in this article? Would it be ok if the article went to FAC in your opinion, or would it be something that is likely frowned upon there? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, Template:Quote box discourages their use in articles, and MOS recommends using Template:Quote and really doesn't talk about quote boxes being used at all. Having a quick look through, the Vietnam quote is contradicted by a lot of sources regarding the use of airpower in that war (an example is the "force feed fire support system" explored in Firepower in Limited War by Robert Scales), so I think that might draw the crabs due to its content, unless the quote and criticism of that approach to airpower in Vietnam is explored in the body. In that case, I think it is better to leave it out. The other quotes would probably be ok as block quotes if it is felt they enhance the article. I don't think using quote boxes in lieu of images is a good practice though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Noted but can't respond properly just yet. Later, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There are FAs that use quote boxes, and there are reviewers who have complained about their use. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_184 is the most recent major discussion I'm aware of on the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Back again... I'm responding here primarily as a frequent FAC nominator/reviewer rather than as a FAC coordinator. I took part in the discussion Nikki links above and expressed the opinion that quote boxes are appropriate when the quote in question doesn't quite fit into the flow of text (in which case a block quote would be logical). If you look at the summing up of that discussion I think you'll find that it wasn't a minority opinion. I've successfully nominated several articles at FAC with a quote box or two before and after that discussion and had no issues raised. Putting my FAC coord hat back on, I don't think I've noticed concerns raised in other nominations either. My advice would be to use quote boxes judiciously, as with any other style element. I wouldn't be using colour backgrounds though -- plain background is less obviously eye-catching, and one of the arguments against the quote boxes was that they highlight certain passages in the article to too great an extent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Thank you all for your input. I have made the quote boxes the default light gray background and removed the Vietnam quote, per the suggestions above. I'd like to leave the rest in, although I would be willing to reconsider if it is brought up again here or at FAC. /~huesatlum/ 03:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Dan. Just wanted to check if you were supporting here before I go out to the project asking for another reviewer. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PM, but I'm working on a big project for TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian

[edit]

Since I was pinged for my thoughts on the quote boxes, and I felt compelled to tweak the lead a little at the same time, I may as well undertake a full review...

  • Prose-wise, pls feel free to challenge me on my copyediting, including my tweaks to subheadings -- obviously I think it's improved things but it doesn't mean I'm necessarily wed to particular phrasing. Outstanding points:
    • Thank you for the thorough copyedit! I'm good with all of your changes. /~huesatlum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infobox: Having written several article on Australia's air war in Korea, I hadn't formed the opinion that Mig Alley was analogous to a campaign, simply a region, so I don't know that it belongs here.
    • He was the third son of Hagerstrom and Hazel Hagerstrom. -- any reason we can't compress this to Edward and Hazel Hagerstrom?
    • the 4th and 51st Fighter-Interceptor Wings were the only units equipped with F-86 Sabres, but Hagerstrom and some other members of the 18th FBW were able to fly these aircraft -- can we explain how jets operated by "only" two units were flown by pilots from another unit?
    • the first of which Hagerstrom "shot the daylights out of" -- are these Hagerstrom's words?
    • Hagerstrom was survived by his wife and six of his children -- do we know how and when the other two children died?
  • Structure-wise it seems to work well and logically -- I think I tweaked one header level but that was it.
    • I'm curious as to why you made "After Korea" a level 3 header but kept "Between wars" at level 4? I think they're fairly analogous and should be both the same level. /~huesatlum/ 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content/detail:
    • It is very detailed, perhaps somewhat more than might be expected, but checking at least one of the sources I can see you've made a decent effort to summarise the available material and not simply report everything that's been written about the guy. I was particularly interested in the paragraph on his preparations for Korea, well worth including IMO.
    • I'm not a fan of ribbon images in WP articles, IMO such graphic displays don't belong in an encyclopedia, but I'll grant that the community seems willing to accept them in US military bios.
  • Source review:
    • Reliability-wise, no red flags are popping up; the books generally feature a mix of known authors and/or publishers, other sources are newspapers, government sites, and the Hall of Valor site that appears to have a board of editors and a solid vetting policy for submissions.
    • Formatting-wise:
  • I think I'd prefer to see someone like Nikkimaria conduct the image review if possible.

Nice work overall. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support following responses/actions re. the points above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support Comments from Kges1901

[edit]

Excellent article, prose seems fine. Comments:

  • Hagerstrom was posted to Saigon, South Vietnam, to work for the Seventh Air Force. 'work' seems awkward since working in the contest of the Air Force tends to be used for civilians. Perhaps say "to serve with the Seventh Air Force"?
  • For the references, Newton/Senning and Maurer should use sfns like the other books and have full refs in the bibliography. Kges1901 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), White Shadows (talk)

List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another day, another list of ships from me (and White Shadows, who recently returned from a long time away) - this one covers all of the ironclads built by Austria-Hungary between the 1860s and 1880s. It's the capstone to this project. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list as we prepare to take it to FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

  • G'day White Shadows, welcome back!
    • Great to be back!
  • in the first table under propulsion "chaft"?
    • Good catch. Fixed the typo.
  • is it worth mentioning STT in the narrative of the Drache class?
    • I can see an argument going in either direction for that. If there's a consensus to add it in there I personally have no objections to doing so.
      • I think I should have couched this (and my later comment about builder) in terms of whether we need to note the shipyard in a list of this type. From what I've seen of FLs, I would suggest not, but if you are going to mention one, you should probably mention all, as it sort of begs the question? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • After further thought, I've decided to include the building for every class in the list.
  • fist ships
    • Good catch!
  • suggest "firepower" rather than "gun power"
    • Changed.
  • who built the Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class and later classes?
    • STT constructed the Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class, Lissa, Custoza, and Erzherzog Albrecht. Kaiser was constructed at the Pola Naval Arsenal but none of my sources give a name for who constructed it. Two of the Kaiser Max class ships were built by STT as well, while the third was constructed at the Pola Naval Arsenal. Tegetthoff and Kronprinzessin Erzherzogin Stephanie were also built by STT, while Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf was constructed by the Pola Arsenal.
      • Added the builders for all classes.
  • nominally assignd
    • Another good catch.
  • The Custoza section says Lissa had ten guns, but her table says 12?
    • That is a typo. Lissa had 12 guns.
  • suggest the only ship of that type in the Kaiser section
    • I like this suggestion! I've included it in the list.
  • the gun arrangement of Kaiser in the text adds up to nine guns, but she had ten?
    • I'm not a huge fan of how all that reads anyway, so I've reworked the sentence to not only flow better, but also present correct information.
  • Kaiser Max and Don Juan d'Austria became barracks ships
    • Yet another good catch.
  • when the ships were transferred, Yugoslavia wasn't called that, it was called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. It only became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929.
    • This is an issue from several older articles dealing with the Austro-Hungarian Navy that I've come across. For example, many older articles say that at the end of the war, the Austro-Hungarian Navy was transferred to Yugoslavia, when in reality it was transferred to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. I've fixed this issue here like I do anywhere I see it.
      • The Royal Yugoslav Navy (and Yugoslavia in general) is a pet topic of mine. By the time the ships were transferred under the treaty, the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (KSCS) had been created from the Kingdom of Serbia (and Montenegro) and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. The latter happened on 1 December 1918. The Austro-Hungarians tried to circumvent the Italians getting a hold of their ships by transferring them to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs before that date, but the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) that actually disposed of the ships disregarded this action and dealt with them as it saw fit, only transferring a few ships to the KSCS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tegetthoff says 11 guns in the text, but six in the table?
    • This is another typo. Text has been corrected.
  • comma after "Genoa, Italy"
    • Is it inappropriate to have the comma in there? I did remove it as a precaution but I thought it was grammatically acceptable to keep it?
  • fn 19 should just be p. rather than pp.
    • Fixed!

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My responses are above. I think I've addressed them all, and if there's some sort of consensus regarding a few of the other points I have no issues including them in the list.--White Shadows New and improved!

G'day White Shadows, just a couple of clarifications above, but this is good to go regardless. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article again and incorporated your suggestions about builders. Glad to have your support!--White Shadows New and improved!

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text to the images;
  • in the lead, suggest breaking up this sentence a little: "Following Tegetthoff's death..." (there are two sets of semi colons, which indicate it is probably a run on sentence)
    • Done
  • in the lead, "...operational role as a guard ship. After World War I...": I feel that a short sentence is needed here to clarify whether any of the ships saw active service during the war either
    • That's a good idea.
  • in the Drach class section, suggest adding a year in the first sentence for a little more clarity, e.g. "Beginning with the launch of the French ironclad Gloire in YEAR, the major..."
    • Good idea
  • minor style point: citation 41 isn't clickable, but all the others are
    • Fixed.
  • in the References, suggest adding a translation for the title of the Dislere work, in the same manner that you have done so for the Pawlik work
    • Done.
  • watch out for US v British English issues, for instance I saw "armoured" (British) but also "armor" (US)
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I will be addressing all of these as soon as I possibly can, perhaps later today.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already done :P Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, both of you. Thanks for your efforts. Added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Eddie891 This's my first A-class review, so please, if my suggestions are not really helpful, just ignore them.

  • Drache class
    • The Austrian Navy, under the direction of Marinekommandant (Naval Commandant) Archduke Ferdinand Max, ordered its first two ships in 1860 in response to Italy's order for the two Formidabile-class ironclads; the Austrian vessels, Drache and Salamander, were designed by Josef von Romako, the chief constructor of the Austrian Navy." Perhaps split in two sentences ("The Austrian Navy, under the direction of Marinekommandant (Naval Commandant) Archduke Ferdinand Max, ordered its first two ships in 1860 in response to Italy's order for the two Formidabile-class ironclads. The Austrian vessels, Drache and Salamander, were designed by Josef von Romako, the chief constructor of the Austrian Navy." because its an awfully long sentence, and really they seem a bit forced together
    • Remove "also" in the next sentence.
  • Kaiser Max class (1862)
  • Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class
    • "with only half that number of guns." again, remove only?
  • Lissa
    • "Lissa was the first of the second generation of Austro-Hungarian ironclads; these ships were built after the experience at the Battle of Lissa. " simplify to "Lissa was the first of the second generation of Austro-Hungarian ironclads; built after the experience at the Battle of Lissa."
    • "The casemate ship, which had recently been developed, solved the problem." simplify to "The recently developed casemate ship solved the problem."
  • Custoza
    • "She proved to be fast and maneuverable in service, but she was built to an obsolescent design; this was less a fault of Romako's than a simple result of the rapid pace of development of naval technology in the period;[31] by the time she entered service, Italy had already laid down the two very large and powerful Caio Duilio-class turret ships, which were armed with four 17.7-inch (450 mm) guns." maybe shorten (or split up) (i.e. "She proved to be fast and maneuverable in service, but as a result of the rapid pace of naval development, her design was obsolete by the time she entered service, as Italy had already laid down the two very large and powerful Caio Duilio-class turret ships, which were armed with four 17.7-inch (450 mm) guns." or "She proved to be fast and maneuverable in service, but she was built to an obsolescent design; this was less a fault of Romako's than a simple result of the rapid pace of development of naval technology in the period. By the time she entered service, Italy had already laid down the two very large and powerful Caio Duilio-class turret ships, which were armed with four 17.7-inch (450 mm) guns."
    • " and was immediately broken up" perhaps change to " and immediately broken up"
  • Erzherzog Albrecht
  • Kaiser
    • Fine
  • Kaiser Max class (1875)
    • " being as expensive in total as had been spent on Erzherzog Albrecht." perhaps just say " being as expensive as the Erzherzog Albrecht."
      • I think the point here was to make clear that the costs being compared are for the three ships in total vs Erzherzog Albrecht, rather than an individual member of the class
    • "Italy seized all three ships after the war" as it's the first time you mention it in the section, please clarify which war.
  • Tegetthoff
    • "As with earlier vessels, significant components had to be ordered from foreign manufacturers, as Austria-Hungary's industrial capacity was insufficient to fill the orders;" I don't really recall much other mention of this being a big problem. If it was really true with other vessels, please add at least a mention elsewhere
    • "She was nevertheless a political compromise" maybe mention how it was a compromise (I presume with lower budgets)
    • "and in 1893, she was modernized. " perhaps just say "and was modernized in 1893."\
  • Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf
    • "In 1881, Pöck finally secured funding for another new ironclad to replace the long-since obsolete Salamander; this new ship was the first Austro-Hungarian ironclad not designed by Romako." split into two sentences
  • Kronprinzessin Erzherzogin Stephanie

Source review by Kges1901

Comments Support by Kges1901 Excellent list, did a quick grammar check.

  • Kaiser Max class (1862)
    • Italy claimed significant areas of the Austrian Empire as historically Italian, so Italy's naval expansionism posed a direct threat to Austria. somewhat awkward repetition, perhaps use "As Italy claimed...Italian, its naval expansionism..."
      • Done
    • They proved to be a flawed design that were very unstable change 'were' to 'was' since subject is singular
      • "They" is the subject, not the design, so "were" is correct.
        • My error.
  • Lissa
    • In 1880, her hull was found to have rotted badly, and so she was drydocked, stripped of most of her armor plate and re-timbered. Using "and so" reads awkwardly, perhaps use semicolon: "...rotted badly; therefore, she was drydocked..."
      • Done
  • Custoza
    • She proved to be fast and maneuverable in service, but she was built to an obsolescent design; this was less a fault of Romako's than a simple result of the rapid pace of development of naval technology in the period - second 'she' is superfluous
      • Removed
    • Three consecutive uses of 'she' to begin sentences in second paragraph - perhaps vary the phrasing
      • Fixed
  • Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf
    • She served as a coastal defense ship during World War I, based in Cattaro Bay, and she was involved second 'she' is superfluous
      • Removed
    • After the war, she was transferred to the Yugoslav Navy and renamed Kumbor, though she served only briefly possibly replace 'though she' with 'but' as another pronoun repetition
      • Works for me
  • Kronprinzessin Erzherzogin Stephanie
    • and she reverted to compound steam engines, though she was a full two knots faster. for concision both pronouns and 'was' could be omitted
      • Reworded
    • The ship was decommissioned in 1905, and in 1910 she was - superfluous 'she'
      • Removed

Kges1901 (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THanks Kges! Parsecboy (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Vance Drummond

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Vance Drummond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This bio has been on my list for some time, the impetus to complete it being 1960s images becoming available to use, and my discovery of a detailed article on the circumstances of the subject’s death. A New Zealand-born RAAF pilot, Drummond survived close calls in Korea and Vietnam only to die mysteriously in a training exercise off the Australian coast – or perhaps not so mysteriously; the evidence from the court of inquiry may offer a cautionary tale for high achievers everywhere... Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

  • Great job as always, Ian.
  • What sort of missions was he flying in Korea, and did he shoot down any enemy aircraft? I expected to see something about that.
    • The sources I've seen don't specify his missions; the most I might be able to do is put in a general statement about the type of sorties the squadron flew in its first few months with the Meteor.
    • Drummond wasn't credited with damaging or shooting down any aircraft; the squadron only claimed five or six MiGs downed and a few others damaged, and the main sources are pretty clear on who was credited with these.
  • suggest linking substantive to Military rank#Types of rank
    • Will do.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some sort of information about sorties undertaken by the squadron in Korea during his tenure is in order, in terms of escort, air superiority, ground attack etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I did give a general explanation of what the FACs did in Vietnam after all... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by PM

Image review

Support Excellent work as usual Ian. I think that the A-class criteria are well and truly met, and have some suggestions for how the article could be further improved ahead of FAC:

  • "In September 1953 he was released and repatriated to Australia." - I'd suggest noting that he was released at the end of the war (though there seems to have been a delay given the war ended in July 1953: I think that the POW exchanges took time)
  • The official history of the RAAF in the Vietnam War has some extra material about Drummond in Vietnam (for instance, he was the first Australian posted as a FAC and seems to have volunteered himself for flying duties) - I can add this from my copy if helpful
    • Stephens highlighted the first point and I've already mentioned it; I had noted the second thing when going through The RAAF in Vietnam but hadn't added it, tks for the prompt!
  • Mark Lax's comment that Drummond was "was well on track to become the Chief of the Air Staff" might be worth including - Lax is a suitable judge of such an issue, and it certainly seems accurate.
    • Yes, it's a bit of a call but probably fair. Of Drummond's closest contemporaries to achieve the CAS spot, Dave Evans was a couple of years older when promoted to wing commander and Jake Newham a couple of years younger. In any case it's Lax's opinion that counts, not mine... ;-) I'm just debating where to work it in, perhaps at the very top of the last section (similar to where Lax places it), or immediately following Lax's speculation on the accident cause, on in the final para as a kind of legacy thing...
Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for looking it over, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

  • infobox - Williamtown is via redirect unlike its links in lede and body
    • Well spotted!
  • "... neither Drummond nor the plane was ever found." - "was ever" sounds too 'final'? Maybe 'have ever been found', or 'have been found'. (Unless that is proper military wording of course.)
    • Yes, fair enough about the finality -- I think it works okay just dropping the "ever".
  • "... a month in confinement." - solitary? ie what is different to being PoW?
    • Great minds, Jenny -- I assume solitary is meant but the source wasn't quite that specific.
  • add category Recipients of the Gallantry Cross (Vietnam)?
    • Don't know why I didn't think to check for that cat -- tks.

Thanks Ian, JennyOz (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks as always for reviewing, Jenny. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweaks Ian, very happy to support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

MAUD Committee

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

MAUD Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The origins of the British nuclear weapons project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: needs minor touchups only.

  • Ahhh, that first ROS in the lede. My eyes, my eyes! Suggest removing mention of WWII and reorganizing this entirely.
    Help! I don't know what ROS means! I can't find it in Wikipedia:WikiSpeak Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure, but perhaps "run on sentence"? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also suggest that the first para of an article on MAUD actually be about MAUD, not some other article. The 3rd para would be a nice basis.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In April 1932" - sort of off topic, as is the next statement. I think this could cut directly to "Then, in December 1938" (although without the Then)
    Deleted. It was mostly to show that Britain was a leder in nuclear physics back then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The government also placed" - separate para.
  • "separation, so the project would get a head start" - "separation, which would give the project a head start"
  • "to Liverpool. The universities were reimbursed" - para break.
  • "university funds. The government also" - and here.
  • "enemy aliens. The MAP gradually" - here too.
    I don't see the logic here. The first paragraph deals with financial arrangement, the second with personnel arrangements. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Heinz London. They concentrated " - and here
  • " of power. He estimated" - and here

- sorry, I was repeatedly interrupted and it continues. I'll be back! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Support: I made a few minor WS and arrangement edits, and added a link to shake, which better explains the concept there. Good to go! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made a few tweaks here and there. Overall, the article looks pretty good to me. These are my edits: [30] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, I'm not sure about the licensing of a couple of these images. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria, it isn't clear to me whether you are satisfied with the image licensing or something else needs doing. Could you confirm? Thanks as always, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Looks like all three of the images mentioned above have been removed from the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. I should have checked... Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with the Sir Mark Oliphant image; I just changed the tag. I removed it because it now looked odd as the only image of a person. However, we need another review to check the ones that I added in their place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 They all look ok, but given it was secret when made, when was the MAUD report actually published? Perhaps a crown copyright licence should be used here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The MAUD Committee report was published by Margaret Gowing in Britain and Atomic Energy (1964). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • All of the sources seem to be of high quality and reliable. I searched for other academic papers regarding the committee, and didn't find anything other than a 1993 article by Gowing in the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science DOI: 10.1098/rsnr.1993.0007, but it looks from the abstract to be mainly about Chadwick rather than the committee per se. Also in terms of recent scholarship, the 2011 book The First War of Physics: The Secret History of the Atom Bomb, 1939-1949 by Jim Baggott seems to have a bit about the committee. Worth a look before FAC perhaps? Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Soviet cruiser Admiral Isakov

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Soviet cruiser Admiral Isakov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about a Soviet Cold War large anti-submarine ship, considered a cruiser by Western sources. This is one of my first major ship articles, part of an effort to improve the coverage of the Soviet Navy, and I welcome improvement suggestions. The article just passed a GAN and seems to be of the appropriate length comparing it to other Russian ship A-class articles. Kges1901 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere in the article, possible to either add them or add cites there? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Dank

[edit]
  • "sank under tow en route to India for scrapping a year later": Looking quickly, I only see a shorter version of that in the text below the lead.

comments from auntieruth55

[edit]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work so far. I have a few suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no duplicate or dab links (no action required)
  • ext links all seem to work (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text to the images, although this isn't a hard-and-fast requirement (suggestion only)
  • in the infobox "4 30 mm", needs something separating the two sets of numerals (see for instance how it is done in Japanese battleship Ise). This applies to the other armament listings in the infbox
  • "91,000–100,000 shp" appears in the lead, but I couldn't find this range in the body of the article
  • "She had Grom SA-N-1 fire control and MR-103 Bars AK725 fire control." --> "She had two Grom SA-N-1 and two MR-103 Bars AK725 fire control systems"?
  • the infobox says "MG-332T Titan-2T" sonar, but the body says both MG-332 and MG-35 sonars
  • "Following repairs at Sevastopol, Admiral Isakov, under the flag of Northern Fleet First Deputy Commander Vice Admiral Vladimir Kruglikov with the frigate Revny and Genrikh Gasanov, visited Havana and Cienfuegos between 2 and 10 December 1982 before returning to Severomorsk on 21 February 1983": this is a very complex sentence, and might be clearer if split
  • "the ship was sold to an Indian company for scrapping, but sank under tow en route": do we know which city/place the vessel was being towed to and from?
  • No, it was probably being towed to Alang but that would be OR.
  • I couldn't find any mention of Goblet or Silex missiles in the body of the article, although they appear in the infobox
  • As the Construction section is very small, I suggest just merging it into the career section (see for instance how it is done in the Japanese battleship Ise article)
  • the hyphenation for the isbn of the Chant work is slightly inconsistent compared with that of Belov and Hampshire
  • link "Displacement_(ship)#Standard_displacement" and "Displacement_(ship)#Light_displacement"

Source review

[edit]
  • The few sources seem reliable, although I am AGF regarding the Russian ones. I do wonder if there are not better sources than an Osprey book (albeit a new one that claims to have looked at previously unavailable Soviet archives) for the Design aspects, for example Jane's Warsaw Pact Warships Handbook or Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947-1982 Part 2 - The Warsaw Pact and Non-Aligned Nations. Perhaps @Parsecboy and Sturmvogel 66: can advise on the value of either of them and may be able to check if they have copies of either? Also there may be some useful stuff regarding the Soviet thinking about the employment of the ship in Oceans Ventured: Winning the Cold War at Sea by John Lehman. Perhaps check them both out before taking to FAC? Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the Jane's book and Conways because both are Cold War sources. Lehman only said the same thing that was in the news article that I mentioned in the article. Kges1901 (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have either of those books, but Sturm does have Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947-1995, which might have post-Cold War updates. I wouldn't expect the Cold War-era sources to be a whole lot of use. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conways does include a nice introduction covering the doctrine behind the evolution of Soviet ship types and states that the Kresta IIs were built to aid their SSBNs breaking though NATO submarine barriers into the Atlantic and Pacific, p. 345. Bibliographic info is on my library subpage. The best source for Soviet warships in English, IMO, is Pavlov's Warships of The USSR and Russia 1945-1995; but since that's based on Soviet sources I don't really think that it's necessary here as Russian-language sources are used. I'll try to do a full review of the article later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian

[edit]

Just started light copyedit, will aim to post any comments later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • suffering a boiler malfunction in the Norwegian Sea on 19 April -- Did this delay her arrival in Severomorsk (not by much obviously), and did it impact her initial tasking with the 120th Missile Ship Brigade? I just think that if we're highlighting the incident we should mention when/where repaired and any adverse effects.
  • Sources gives detail that it was repaired in 5 hours. I included it because it was used in another Russian source that repeated the same information with less detail, so thought it might be significant. Kges1901 (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A NATO submarine was detected during the exercise, and the crew of her Ka-25 made their first night landing on a moving ship -- this reads almost like the Ka-25 landed on the NATO sub, which I presume is not meant -- perhaps expand/clarify.
  • On 27 May 1981 she rammed the British destroyer HMS Glasgow in the Barents Sea -- erm, deliberately or accidentally?

No particular concerns with structure or comprehensiveness (allowing for lack of expertise on the Soviet Navy). I'll take PM's source review and Nikki's image review as read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • I cleaned up the infobox a little, but all measurements in the infobox need to be converted into English or metric as appropriate.
  • Give location of Zhdanov Shipyard in both the infobox and main body
  • What kind of length is given, waterline, overall, etc.? Be sure to link whichever one it is.
  • Link steam turbine, boiler, hangar, radar, sonar, (not the systems, but the terms) in the infobox
  • Endurance isn't the fuel capacity, but the range in nautical miles.
  • Add number of barrels for the AK-630 to the infobox.
  • Horsepower figure for a turbine would be shaft horsepower, so change hp in your conversions to shp.
  • Link class, Atlantic, Mediterranean, the various radar types (early warning, etc.) And link to the actual radars if they have articles.
  • Convert displacement in the infobox and main body and link to full load displacement in the main body.
  • General rule is that everything linked in the infobox should be linked in the main body and vice versa.
  • Explain and link L/60 notation, Parsec's German ship articles usually have to do so, so you can copy his wording. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link and spell out DP in the armament section and converted the measurements here. Same with CIWS.
  • The Electronic warfare section is more appropriately named sensors. Do you have any information on actual electronic warfare systems fitted to her?
  • had no Vympel fire-control radar "lacked a" Vympel
  • Link Baltic, boiler, carrier group, oiler, aircraft cruiser, frigate, naval jack
  • Change and link trials as sea trials.
  • If you spell out sister ship on first use, you needn't use "sister Kresta-II class ship" and can just say sister.
  • How can a ship traverse an island? I suspect that you mean passed. traversing Jan Mayen
  • "rocket" cruiser/destroyer is normally rendered "missile" cruiser/destroyer in English.
  • Unless her commanders are notable, I see no need for the list of them, and if they are, they should be worked into the text.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed a GA review and I believe it is detailed enough to make FAC. This article, my second nomination of the year, is about a fairly obscure Soviet division whose most intense combat occurred at Khalkhin Gol. Kges1901 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: G'day, Kges, interesting article. Thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • seems inconsistent: the infobox says the division was active from 1921, but the article says October 1920
  • I wrote 1921 because in November 1920 it did not have the same designation; it was the 24th Rifle Division VNUS. The 57th was not designated as the 57th Rifle Division until 1921. Kges1901 (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a few duplicate links: Red Army; 82nd Rifle Division; Mukden; Transbaikal Military District
  • In accordance with the transfer of VNUS... --> Following the transfer of VNUS...?
  • 71 45 mm guns --> seventy-one 45 mm guns
  • same as above for 34 76 mm guns, 24 122 mm guns, 12 152 mm guns
  • the dashes in the Commanders section aren't quite right. Where an item on either side of the endash contains a space, a spaced endash should be used per MOS:DATERANGE
  • many of the sentences start in the same way ("On X..." or "In X"). This impacts on the narrative flow a little, so if possible I suggest trying to vary this a bit more
  • Colonel (promoted to Major General 16 October 1943) Viktor Nikiforov: might be smoother as Colonel Viktor Nikiforov (later promoted to major general 16 October 1943)...
  • and was replaced by division deputy commander Lieutenant Colonel (promoted to Colonel 10 August 1944) Nurey Zakirov: this might be smoother as and was replaced by division deputy commander Lieutenant Colonel Nurey Zakirov, who was promoted to colonel on 10 August 1944.
  • there is a missing closing bracket in this sentence: The units in Tongliao (the 293rd ...
  • The division was reduced to the 55th Separate Rifle Regiment...: do we know why?
  • @Kges1901: G'day, regarding Ruth's query below about sources, I wonder if potentially you could outline how the sources used here meet the requirements outlined in WP:MILMOS#SOURCES? Your expertise here, might help finalise the review. For instance, Coox, which is used four times, appears to have been published by a reputable publisher (Stanford University Press), so I'm pretty confident that it meets the requirements. But what about Cherushev & Cherushev? This is used six times, and is published by Kuchkovo Pole, which the average English speaker probably hasn't heard of. Do we know anything about this publisher? What sort of works do they usually publish, are they considered mainstream, are there any reviews of their work? Does the book provide citations, or footnotes or list its sources? What qualifications do the authors have? Lazarev & Pogodin is cited six times in a row and largely supports a whole section. As a primary source written by the division's commander, we probably need to be careful with how we use this source. Are there any other, potentially secondary, sources that can be used for this section to verify/support some of this information? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cherushev is an retired officer but not a professional historian. His biographical dictionaries are compiled from the Red Army's personnel records in the archives, like the other biographical dictionaries published by Kuchkovo Pole. Cherushev's work has received some positive attention in the Western world, see [31], [32]. Kuchkovo Pole is a military history publisher, books they have published are relatively often cited in English works, mostly for their document collections on Soviet military intelligence - [33]. These types of biographical dictionaries do state sources in the introduction, but there are no inline citations to specific documents. As for Lazarev and Pogodin, secondary sources on the Soviet-Japanese war don't normally dwell on specific units that did not see combat, and the brief mention in Glantz is probably an accurate summary of the information available in Russian. Kges1901 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild:

After volunteering to review this article I am chagrined to discover that there seems little for me to do, it seems to be in fine shape. However, a couple of points:

  • "As a result of the Battles of Khalkhin Gol, a series of border clashes with Japanese troops, the division was alerted for combat on 29 June 1939." Given that the majority of the Khalkin Gol fighting was after 29 June, and that the division took part in this, I don't think it reasonable to say that it was mobilised "as a result of" the battles. Also, I am not comfortable with an army level battle with over 50,000 casualties being described as "border clashes". My suggestion would be to delete "the Battles of Khalkhin Gol," but no doubt there are other solutions,
  • "when the last Japanese troops were pushed back over the Mongolian claimed border". "Mongolian claimed border" sounds clunky. Could this be rephrased?
  • "The units of the division also received fuel, rations, and Studebaker and Ford trucks." Reads a little oddly to me; putting food and fuel in the same category as motor transport. What is the significance of the division receiving new/additional motor transport?
  • "the units of the division took the route from Jarud to Lupei at 3:00". Am or pm?
  • "By the morning of 29 August, the operational group arrived in Mukden and was quartered in a gymnasium, where the Japanese units were disarmed." This reads that the Japanese units were disarmed in the gymnasium. Is that what you mean? You repeat disarming the Japanese in the next sentence. I would suggest deleting ", where the Japanese units were disarmed".
  • "they were allocated 36 crews for the escort of Japanese prisoners of war to Soviet territory" Do you mean "36 crews [detachments would be better IMO] from the division were allocated for the..."?
  • I am not an expert in this area, but the sources seem to be all that I would expect and to be appropriately used.
  • I have also made a couple of copy edits. Let me know if there is anything you are not happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text does not seem to be in place[?]
  • There seems to be a lack of non-breaking spaces ({{nbsp}} or {{snd}}) in all of the places where the MoS would suggest that there should be. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kges1901: That all looks fine. "I am not familiar with the usage of non-breaking spaces." Shocking! And you with 4 A class or FA articles to your name. Even your FA article assessors didn't pick it up. What are things coming to that FA assessors let through articles ignoring the MoS? Hohum. I should make you learn them and put them in, but that seems a bit petty. OK. I'll let this one go and if I get a spare hour I will put them in for you. Also I made an edit myself to tie up a last niggling point. Are you/the sources ok with it? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Kges1901. Can I give you a nudge re query immediately above? (My edit that is.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is fine and I do not think it would be an unreasonable assumption from the source. Kges1901 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am done. A classy job of work there. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:Red Army 57th Rifle Division 170th Rifle Regiment territorial soldiers marching 1927.png - I'm not an expert on Russian/Soviet copyright laws, but I'd think we would need the original publication and either the name and date of death of the photographer or evidence that it was published anonymously (us not knowing now is not the same thing, unfortunately) to justify the license tag. We also need evidence that the photo is PD in the US, which may or may not be the case.

Support Comments by auntieruth55

[edit]
  • what is the difference between the Red Army and the Soviet Army? Inquiring minds want to know.
  • Same force, but in 1946 the Red Army's name was officially changed to Soviet Army. Before then, Soviet army was used as a synonym for Red Army by Western sources. Kges1901 (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • who is going to review these sources? I know nothing about the Red or the Soviet Army.
  • I've read through it once, and looks like support. Just a hiccup over the above question. I'll read again in a day or two and I should be able to support. auntieruth (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by White Shadows

[edit]
  • I suggest a footnote mentioning the "Red Army" / "Soviet Army" name change in 1946. What you wrote just above should be sufficient for the footnote.
  • Colonel Konstantin Lazarev should probably be converted into a red link like the other commanders.
  • Just a friendly suggestion, but have you thought about adding in more photos to the article? There's currently only one. I imagine you could find photos of Khalkhin Gol to add to the article. Not an issue for an ACR, but just something I thought of while reading.
  • If I find anything else worth mentioning, I'll be sure to bring it up.

--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review With the proviso that I don't not read Russian and I am unfamiliar with the sources used, I have looked at the information provided by the nominator at Talk:57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)#Sources and AGF the sources appear to be reliable and of high quality. Good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Marcian

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Marcian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my ongoing project to improve articles on the Roman Emperors, and it has recently been promoted to a good article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by llywrch

[edit]

First, I'm responding to the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, so I'm looking at this article differently than members of WikiProject Military history would. That said, two general observations:

  • While it relies on suitably recent publications, it is clear from their titles that these are general histories of the period. Nothing specific to the reign of Marcian or his predecessor (Theodosius II) or his successor (Leo I). The omission of any citations from the periodical literature is glaring, since this is where the most recent specialized work appears.
  • A serious omission is that there is almost nothing about his activities within the Empire: this article covers his rise to power, the foreign challenge of Attila & the Huns, & a paragraph dealing with Council of Chalcedon, & another with his death. It omits all mention of the collapse of the Western half of the Empire that began with the Vandal sack of Rome (454). (As the power & cohesion of the Western half dissipated, the Eastern half increasingly intervened in their affairs. At the very least, a number of refugees from Rome found their way to Constantinople where they had to be received & tended to.) Or that five laws (or Novels) of Marcian survive, providing us with glimpses of how he ruled the citizens of the Eastern Empire. These are enough of an omission to make me wonder how this article managed to achieve GA status. I'm no expert on the history of the Eastern Roman Empire, but it took me only a quick sanity check to see these omissions in content. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llywrch: Please note that most of these books each have subsections for his reign, being categorized by reign rather than a straightforward narrative. I will look into expanding it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llywrch: I have added as much as I could, although I could find little direct mention of his novels. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llywrch: do you have any further suggestions or concerns? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response: My comments were just an initial response, based on what I could recall off the top of my head supplemented by use of just one of the books from my library -- namely, A.H.M. Jones' The Later Roman Empire, considered one of the standard references for the time. In response to your ping, I did a bit more research to find what was available. Here's a few more thoughts:

  • The new section "Economic and legal policy" does cover what I would expect to find in those 5 novels of Marcian. About the only improvement would be to indicate which of those items were the subject of which novel. And if the info isn't in Pharr's translation of the Theodosian Code, then it's not easily available. (One might have to consult the primary sources, which might be only available in Latin or Greek.)
  • As for Marcian's relations with the West, my first response was surprise that this wasn't addressed. So I did a bit of looking myself, & this might be one of those cases where the info should exist -- but doesn't. There's adequate evidence indicating that Marcian & his successors did intervene in the affairs of the other half of the empire, but it's thin for the reign of Marcian. So far all I've found is a notice in Jordanes that the Western Roman Emperor Majorian "undertook the government of the Western Empire at the bidding of Marcian, Emperor of the East." (Gothic History, XLV.235) Not much more can be found at Majorian.
  • There is one book you may want to look at, although it falls in the category of "sources you don't want to cite for Wikipedia, but it's useful to point you to better ones": Michael Babcock, The Night Attila Died. Babcock is a Ph.D. in Philology who came up with a preposterous theory that Marcian hired the historian Priscus to assassinate Attila. (As one reviewer wrote, this makes for a better historical novel than a serious monograph.) Despite this, he knows the sources & period. He has a brief section on Marcian's background (pp. 157-160), which provides these details from primary sources:
    • According to Evagrius Scholasticus, Marcian was by birth a Thracian, the son of a soldier. He decided to enlist & on his way to Philippopolis stopped to bury a man recently slain by the side of the road, but other travelers thought he was the killer & brought him to the authorities, who would have executed him had the real criminal not been found. Following this close scrape, he finally presented himself to the recruitment bureau. Having heard of Marcian's story, instead of enlisting him as a common soldier they gave him the military rank of the man Marcian had found dead by the road. (Book 2, ch. 1 -- which is online at tertullian.org.)
      While this story alone seems fine; it's connected to another story where another "claim to the throne" story is given, which makes me wary of adding it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a young soldier he went off to fight in the Persian Wars of the early 420s, but was delayed by illness. He was given shelter by two brothers, who nursed him back to health & witnessed a sign that he would become emperor. (In the Chronographia of Theophanes the Confessor, also supposedly online.)
      Unable to confirm this one. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Babcock has a third anecdote, taken from John Lydus, that foretold Marcian's rise to the purple.
      Confirmable; but almost all emperors claimed to have seen an event which foretold such, or atleast had another claim it for him. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a few more references, but there is little more known about him. Feel free to add the above -- after verifying Babcock's retelling of these anecdotes is correct, of course. (At least I would verify them before adding them to an article.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: Sorry for the belated response; I'll look into the anecdotes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywrch: Forgot to inform; I have reviewed the anecdotes. While some of them are confirmable, but I am skeptical of their addability, given that many are distinct parts of "Claim to throne" myths. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Furius

[edit]

Small point, but the headings are a bit weird - why 'history' rather than 'life' or 'reign'? Why does the Council of Chalkedon come after Marcian's death? Furius (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Furius: Fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: Do you have any further concerns or suggestions? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Iazyges. This isn't really an era I am comfortable with, but I will try to help out. I have a few observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the date of birth isn't mentioned in the body
  •  Done
  • the first sentence of the Reign section is a bit of a run on. I suggest splitting it after 28 July 450 and then slightly rewording the second part, e.g. 28 July 450. Theodosius II died without a son and had not designated a successor, leaving the Eastern Roman Empire leaderless.
  •  Done
  • a tax on senators property: missing apostrophe
  •  Done
  • slightly repetitious: a fifty year old army officer commanding a unit in the Praesental army (suggest removal of the first "army") here
  •  Done
  • the infobox seems to mention a daughter, but she doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body of the article (unless I missed it)
  •  Done
  • the burial place appears in the infobox, but does not appear to be mentioned in the body of the article
  •  Done
  • Alanic: the link in the article appears to point to a clothing company?
  •  Done
  • the images lack alt text, which while it isn't a requirement, can be helpful
  •  Done
  • in the Bibliography, suggest adjusting the capitalisation here: History of the Later Roman Empire from the death of Theodosius... --> History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius...
  •  Done
  • I will come back and have another look when the above points are addressed

From Gog the Mild

[edit]

Just a drive by comment: shouldn't "Foederati" in the lead start with a lower case f and be in italics? An explanation in brackets afterwards as to what a foederati is would probably help the average reader too. In fact, would it not be easier to replace it with something like "vassals", possibly with foederati, wikiLinked, in brackets after? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've lowercased and italicized it, and added a short explanation. I haven't changed it to vassal, as the Roman's had a huge variation of vassal levels (although their titles were often muddled in the time of the republic and early empire). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comments by auntieruth

[edit]
first paragraph of lead: last sentence is very confusing. Perhaps divide into two?
 Done
While Attila was taking part in the Hunnic raids upon Italy, then a part of the Western Roman Empire, in 452, Marcian launched expeditions across the Danube into the Hungarian plain, defeating the Huns in their heartland, an action which, accompanied by the famine and plague that broke out in northern Italy, allowed Attila to be bribed to retreat to the Hungarian plains. same problem with this sentence. In 452, while Attila was raiding Italy, then a part of the Western Roman Empire, Marcian launched expeditions across the Danube into the Hungarian plain, defeating the Huns in their own heartland. This action, accompanied by the famine and plague that broke out in northern Italy, allowed Marcian to bribe Atilla into retreating from the Italian peninsula.
 Done
need a link on Jesus
 Done
and so on. Such edits would greatly help its readability without reducing it to elementary school level. Please let me know if you want some help. I'll come back and read some more later. Please ping me with any comments or questions! auntieruth (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: Thank you very much. I'd appreciate any help you can give! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by White Shadows

[edit]

Fascinating subject! I enjoyed reading the article and I'd like to thank you for the work you've put into it thus far. My comments and suggestions are below. Please feel free to ask questions if you need me to elaborate more.

  • A1. The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
No issues here!
  • A2. The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
As someone who is not an expert on the time period, you'd think there would be more information on the Emperor of the Roman Empire during the time of Attila? There is, quite literally, almost nothing on his life before his becoming Emperor and having a daughter at some point. I get that little may exist out there on his earlier life, but surely there is something?
There are a few stories which are very likely legendary, and all connected to verifying his claim to the throne, so I don't feel comfortable adding them as fact, nor do I feel comfortable dedicating that much area to rumors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel like that we're missing some other basic info here. For example, it took me about all of 5 minutes to find out where Marcian died. That information isn't present anywhere in the article. Surely we have sources out there that contain additional information such as this?
I'll look into if any secondary sources cover this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A3. The article/list has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
I suggest splitting the lead up into a third section, starting with "After the death of Attila in 453..."
 Done
  • A4. The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
I feel like other parts of the article have too many long blocks of text with little breaks between them. Under "Religious Policy" for example, I suggest splitting the section into two paragraphs starting with the line "The council also agreed to condemn Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria..." :I suggest the same for the "Conflict with the Huns" section. That initial paragraph is very long in my personal opinion. All of this is aesthetic in nature, but walls of text tend to make things more difficult for the reader.
 Done
  • A5. The article/list contains appropriately licensed supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where relevant.
I feel like the alt text for the map of Europe can be expanded upon. What states are being colored for example? Alt text if I recall is supposed to demonstrate to a reader what the image is showing those who can visually see it. I don't see how simply stating that this is a colored map is of any use for someone who relies on alt text.

 Done --White Shadows Let’s Talk 05:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Just a few queries from me:
    • the existing sources look of high quality and reliable, although I am not familiar with this time period
    • all sources need a location
    •  Done
    • a few sources that jump out that might need to be consulted: The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture (1973) by Otto Maenchen-Helfen and Otto Helfen; History as Literature in Byzantium edited by Ruth Macrides; Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367-455 by Meaghan A. McEvoy? Do they add anything substantial?
      The World of Huns does not add anything of substance, and I am reserved at using it even as an extra citation, given that they seem to be very counter-consensus on numerous issues, such as why Atilla raided Gaul, but do not actually offer their own suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      History as Literature in Byzantium: Was able to find a Google Book (without page numbers unfortunately); there is nothing that can be added text wise. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West: I was able to add some bits of info, especially regarding the unfortunately minute section on Western-Eastern relations. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • the isbn's are inconsistent, suggest standardising them with proper hyphenation.
    •  Done

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • " a budget surplus of seven million solidi." A normal reading of this would be a surplus each year on the annual budget, but in the main article you state " left the Eastern Roman treasury with a surplus of 100,000 pounds (45,000 kg) of gold", ie 7,200,000 solidi. Perhaps you could tweak the wording of the lead?
  •  Done
  • "on 28 July 450 the empire was met its first succession crisis in 60 years" Grammar tweak needed.
  •  Done
  • "Soon after becoming emperor, Marcian had his daughter Marcia Euphemia, who came from a previous marriage, marry Anthemius, future Western Roman Emperor, in 453." IMO you don't need the "Soon after becoming emperor" if you give the actual date in the same sentence. Anyway, I would not describe a delay of three years as "soon". And does one simple sentence really need 5 citations? 2 of them to the same source?
  •  Done
  • "After Eastern Emperor Theodosius II died unexpectedly in a riding accident on 28 July 450 the empire was met its first succession crisis in 60 years, as Theodosius did not have any sons, nor had he designated any successor." You use the same 5 cites to 4 sources to reference this equally simple sentence. Is that really necessary?
  •  Done
  • "was eliminated, either by murder or execution". MOS:EUP would suggest 'killed', not "eliminated".
  •  Done
  • "Almost immediately after becoming emperor, Marcian reversed the policies of Theodosius, revoking all treaties with Attila" The second clause only makes sense if one has read the section title, whereas the text should be comprehensible on its own.
  •  Done
  • "... but did not alter his plans to invade the Western Roman Empire. He led his horde west from Pannonia in spring 451, into the Western Roman Empire." IMO the second "Western Roman Empire" is redundant.
  •  Done
  • "During this period, Aetius was unable to launch an attack on Attila, more so than cutting his lines of communication and harassing his rear forces." "more so than..."?
  •  Done
  • "he was seriously lacking on funds". 'in funds', or just 'lacking funds'.
  •  Done
  • "was threatened by Eastern Rome which". What is "Eastern Rome"? I would suggest 'the Eastern Empire'. Likewise a couple of sentences later.
  •  Done
  • "which were safely hidden behind Constantinople". "hidden"? Probably not. 'protected'? 'situated.?
  •  Done
  • "after a wedding celebration to one of his many wives". Suggest 'after celebrating a marriage to one of his many wifes'.
  •  Done
  • "to resume its policy of playing barbarians against each other". I'm being picky here, but the usual term is 'playing off '.
  •  Done
  • "king Ardaric formed an agreement with Marcian. Ardaric had formed a coalition of the Rugians". Suggest 'came to' instead of the first "formed".
  •  Done
  • "Ellac himself was killed". Suggest "himself" is redundant, who else would he be?
  •  Done
  • "was extremely beneficial to Eastern Rome". Suggest losing "extremely" per MOS:PUFF.
  •  Done
  • "could be induced to serve East Rome". Eastern Empire, Eastern Rome, East Rome. Suggest picking one and sticking with it.
  •  Done
  • "The most objectionable decision reached by the council was". Objectionable to whom? Why was it objectionable?
  •  Done
  • "The council, despite intending to be a ecumenical council". Councils are inanimate and so cannot intend anything. Suggest 'despite being called as a', or 'despite the intention that it be'.
  •  Done
  • "Initially it was to be held at the city of Nicaea, which held enormous religious importance to the early church, as it was the site of their first council, the First Council of Nicaea in 325, however Marcian successfully requested to transfer the spot to Chalcedon, because it was closer to Constantinople, and would thus allow him to respond quickly to any events along the Danube, which was being raided by the Huns, under Attila." A long and complicated sentence.
  •  Done
  • "which had taken place during the Second Council of Ephesus". Suggest just 'the Council' as it is given in full earlier in the sentence.
  •  Done
  • "iterated". Three dictionaries state that this is archaic. Suggested 'repeated'.
  •  Done Well, those three dictionaries hate cool words.
  • "see of Constantinople". See.
  •  Done
  • "Marcian made numerous edicts". One normally issues an edict.
  •  Done
  • "forbidding them to criticize the Council of Chalcedon". 'from', not "to".
  •  Done
  • "suppress monks in Roman Palestine". IMO "Roman" is unnecessary, even confusing. (Was there another Palestine?)
  •  Done I included it on the off chance someone involved in the massive Israel–Palestine debate would see it and mess with it; I have a note in their anyways, so it should be fine to remove.
  • "As a result of the council and following edicts". ' the following edicts'.
  •  Done
  • "all of which focused on the construction of churches, including .. . the Hodegon Monastery". [?]
  •  Done
  • "a tax on senator's property". Should be 'senators' '.
  •  Done
  • "only the Vir illustris could hold either offices". 'office'. Singular.
  •  Done
  • "both Flavius Zeno, Pulcheria, and Aspar". Both implies 2, you list 3.
  •  Done
  • "passed away... passed away". 'died'?
  •  Done
  • "despite Aspar's huge influence". "huge" is a little MOS:PUFFish.
  •  Done
  • "Marcian patronized the Blues, who were one of the originally four circus teams; who had by his time become more like political parties than sports teams, wielding large influence in the empire, the other being the Greens, with both vying for power." You should clarify that by this time there were only two teams.
  •  Done
  • "forbidding them to hold any public office for three years". 'forbidding any of them to hold any public office for three years'.
  •  Done
  • "Marcian came to the throne during a time where the". 'when', not "where".
  •  Done
  • "broke an engagement treaty with the Vandals". Suggest Wikilinking "engagement", IMO the meaning would not otherwise be clear.
  •  Done
  • "he was did not have any connection to the Theodosians". Delete "was".
  •  Done
  • "and thus would not be considered legitimate, thus Aspar was once again". Two thus's, a little clunky.
  •  Done
  • "but also to a some manner of luck". ?
  •  Done
  • "the largest external threats to Rome". That is accurate, but 'greatest' may convey your meaning better.
  •  Done

Can I (again) commend the services of GoCE to you.

Indeed. I was planning to ask for a GoCE run through before nominating it for FA, assuming it passed here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sources to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sources
[edit]
  • Several cases of references not being in number order. Could you reorder where appropriate.
  •  Done
  • The "Early life" section has two cases of single sentences being cited to 5 references, in each case 2 of them are to the same source. Is this degree of overkill necessary?
  •  Done
  • I am not sure that Lynn Jones is the author of any of the essays which your cites relate to; she is the editor, and author of only one essay.
    I've removed all references to her, since they aren't needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An optional thought: might it be appropriate to mention that Marcian found it necessary to reissue an earlier law forbidding pagan sacrifices?
  •  Done
  • Checking a couple of sources which you don't use I can find nothing else of significance which you don't mention, nor anything which contradicts the article. It is a good summary of what we know about Marcian and his policies. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria would you mind checking the licensing on the images of this one? It looks otherwise good to go. Thanks as always. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map, but even at larger size it is difficult to distinguish the lighter colour from white

 Done

Can't say that taking away the caption entirely really solves the problem! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason it won't let me scale up the image and keep the caption; so I've scaled it back down to its original size. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Icones_imperatorvm_romanorvm,_ex_priscis_numismatibus_ad_viuum_delineatae,_and_breui_narratione_historicâ_(1645)_(14560242177).jpg: per the Flickr tag, is a more specific copyright tag available?
  •  Done
  • File:450_roman-hunnic-empire_1764x1116.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Fourth_ecumenical_council_of_chalcedon_-_1876.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Razing of Friesoythe

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Razing of Friesoythe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GA in February, there has been a fair bit of work on it since and I believe that it is potentially up to A class standard. The incident is not well known, but I feel deserves a modest degree of prominence. It gives, I think, a feel for the spirit in which the last months of World War II, and probably the rest of it, were fought. No glory and precious few heroes. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • For A-class, the lead probably needs to be expanded a little further, I feel
Done
  • link battalion, Molotov cocktail, Sögel
Done. It seems to me to be getting close to over-linking, but I realise that is subjective.
  • we don't usually include ranks in the infobox
Done
Done
  • "mood was described as buoyant": probably best to say who described it so
Done
  • Vokes was furious when he heard of Wigle's death. "A first-rate.... Suggest making it clear that this quote comes from Vokes' autobiography
  • in the Context section it mentions Sogel, but it doesn't quite seem clear enough that the Sogel incident was in fact a separate one to Friesoythe. Is there a way to make this clearer? Potentially mentioning it as an earlier incident in the lead might be a way to do this
Done I have also given the Sögel section a separate named section.
  • in the Context section, suggest splitting the paragraph after "experience"
Done
  • As G.L. Cassidy put it, "The...: the "T" can be silently decapitalised here
Done
  • suggest clarifying who Cassidy is when introduced
Done
  • the Official History of the Canadian Army is overlinked
Done
  • A recent historian has suggested: probably should name this historian here
Done
  • records "The Argylls were...: the "T" can be silently decapitalised her
Done
  • On 16 April The...: same as above
Done. Although "The" is part of the regiment's name.
  • in the Aftermath, suggest splitting the paragraph after "was spared"
Done
  • in the Bibliography, suggest adding a translation for the German title of the Cloppenburg work
Done. Didn't put it in sentence case, which may be incorrect.
  • in the Bibliography, the title of the Williams' source should use title case capitalisation, and should have an endash instead of a hyphen
Done
  • in the Bibliography, some ISBNs use hyphens and some don't (either is fine, but the approach should be consistent)
Done
  • in the Bibliography, The Canadian Liberation Of The Netherlands: should be a lower case "o" for "of"
Done
  • in the Bibliography, 1 April 1945-30 April 1945: probably should use an endash
Done
  • in the Bibliography, North-west Europe 1944-45: should use an endash
Done
  • Note # 4, the reference should be presented in brackets for consistency)
Done
  • in the Footnotes, citation # 21 probably seems inconsistent to the other citations (for instance citation # 20)
Done
  • in the Footnotes, citation # 25: p. 163–64: should be "pp." for a page range
Done
  • "File:Moncel and Vokes.jpg": lacks alt text, while the other files appear to have it, so I suggest adding it for consistency
Done
  • there is probably no need to repeat the websites in the Bibliography if they are included in specific citations
Done

Image review

[edit]

Looks like File:Captured German flag, Friesoythe, Germany, 16 April 1945.jpg should have the same PD tag that File:Moncel and Vokes.jpg has.

I am not positive that it needs both the Canada and U.S. PD tag, but that seems right...@Nikkimaria: I tried to take this up to help your workload, but I usually only deal with new images...do you agree with my assessment? Kees08 (Talk) 08:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian tag on Captured_German_flag,_Friesoythe,_Germany,_16_April_1945.jpg states that it applies worldwide and subsequently URAA (which is encompassed by the US tag on the other image) does not apply. Therefore, an additional tag is not needed assuming there is a publication date for the image that would support the validity of the current tag. Similarly, for Moncel_and_Vokes.jpg, we need a publication date to confirm the validity of the tag combination; in theory if it was published early enough the single tag from the other image would be sufficient for this one as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! The Library and Archives Canada site says the copyright is expired, but it may be good to get a publication date as well. @Gog the Mild: Can you track down the publication dates for those two images? Kees08 (Talk) 10:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: I have tried, but it is beyond my meager competence. (I had to seek assistance to get the flag photograph uploaded to Commons; photos and copyright are something of a mystery to me.) I have done some thumb-fingered searching, but haven't come up with anything not apparent on the Library and Archives Canada site. I can't even establish that they were published prior to going on that site. Given the detail in the captions it seems likely that they were published before then, but that is just my guess.
If someone could give me some pointers I will have another go. It is probably something I ought to learn anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could try contacting LAC directly to see if they have any further information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I did a lot of research on this tonight. I think you are going to need the initial publishing date. It is crown copyright, the author died in 1996, and it will have to be published prior to 1967. Contact the library for clarification, probably at bac.centredeliaison-liaisoncentre.lac@canada.ca. Say something like we are verifying the copyright on the image, and need the publication date to prove it is public domain, or otherwise ask them how it is public domain. Consider CC'ing OTRS on the email. Best work on this early on in the nomination, before it hits the bottom of the queue (that's what happened to my last nomination!). Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in very good shape, and covers the topic well. I have the following comments:

  • The mention of the capture of Sögel in the lead lacks context: how does this relate to the subject of this article, and how close are the towns?
20 miles. I was trying to cover a couple of things:
  1. indicate the mixed quality of the opposition without straying too far from the activities of the 4th Division. Ie, fighting children at Meppen; fierce resistance at Sogel, with several hard pressed counter attacks which even civilians participated in; firm but brittle at Friesoythe.
  2. Indicate that the 4th Division was displaying a pattern of behaviour. It burnt down the centre of Sogel on the 10th, and razed Friesoythe on the 14th. And, see Aftermath, came close to a third incident.
  3. Show up a certain evasiveness in the official record. The official history states that buildings were destroyed in Sogel as a (justified) reprisal. (Reprisals of course are illegal under the Geneva Convention.) For Friesoythe it gives a minimal description of the "mistaken reprisal" and just states that "No investigation was carried out." Which is narrowly true, but as the author was at Friesoythe as the town was bulldozed it seems inconceivable that he was unaware of what happened. It seems to me to be interesting that the official history explicitly describes the 4th Division as twice committing war crimes, but I am not aware of a source which explicitly links them, so I mention it all in the article for a discerning reader to pick up.
OK, but this is confusing for readers - especially in the first para which is meant to summarise the entire article. I'd suggest mentioning Sogel in passing in the lead, or simply omitting it. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the lead. I think that it is now clearer. I am not sure about the Sogel sentence. It reads fine to me, but I am too close. It would be easy to remove it entirely. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canadian Army's official history described the mood as buoyant" - whose mood was buoyant? The 4th Division's, or that of the Canadian troops overall?
Done. Reworded to better match the source.
  • The 'Context' section somewhat under-states the nature of this campaign. While most German towns and units swiftly capitulated, there were lots of short, sharp, battles like this one - especially when Waffen SS or elite (and often fanatical) units like the paratroopers decided to make a stand. Relevant to the attitudes of the Canadian soldiers, the casualties incurred in these pointless battles were greatly resented by the troops (as they saw their comrades killed or wounded when it was obvious that the war was almost won). I'd suggest branching out a bit more widely with your sources here.
Ha! I had tried to stay on topic. Easy enough of course to come up with something on the pointlessness, nearly every account mentions it. I was concerned that I would, by flagging this up, be straying into PoV territory and (strongly) implying that this attitude contributed/caused the incident. It probably did, IMO, but no source puts that view forward directly. I will have a go at adding something to the Context.
  • "85 to 90 per cent of the town was destroyed in the course of this reprisal, making it one of the most-devastated towns in all of Germany at the time" - in percentage terms yes, but a very large number of German towns and cities had been destroyed by the Allied air raids and ground combat. The context here is important: this was one of hundreds of deliberately destroyed German towns. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was from the source, but I take your point and have removed that section. Let the bare numbers, as provided by the sources, speak for themselves.

Support My comments are now addressed: great work here. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments An interesting counterbalance to war crimes perpetrated by Axis forces. Minor comments, mainly around cites:

  • "During the 10th...": I don't think this reads well, suggest: "The following day..."
Quite right. Done.
  • Note 1: Shouldn't harvard cites be used within the note (and the others) for consistency with rest of article?
They seem to be to me. What am I missing?
  • "defended the town.[7][6]": cites not in order.
Done.
  • "A rumour circulated that a local civilian had shot Wigle."[9][11][Note 2][10]: as above, the cites are not in order.
Done
  • "...being badly cratered." This sentence needs a cite I think? The note isn't supposed to be the cite is it?
Done. (Yes.)
  • "... personal visit to Friesoythe on 15 April.[17][16]: cites not in order."
Done.
  • Aren't Cites 5 and 26 the same?
No.
  • Also if a website, then the Morton entry in the bibliography doesn't need to be there.
It is. Should I just remove it?
  • Cite 25: no page number?
  • "...Be that as it may."[26][13]: as above.
Done.
  • Some of the 978 ISBNs don't have a dash.
Already corrected by User:AustralianRupert. Thank you.
  • In the bibliography, the War Diaries are presented in different styles. Suggest selecting a specific format. Also shouldn't there be a mention of the archives for the staff war diary (like there is for the other one). Actually do they need to be mentioned at all here since I just noticed they are recited in full in the notes?
I have given all of the information on each that I have been able to find. To make them consistent I would have to remove information which seems pointless. I suspect that war diaries by their nature are not consistent. I could just leave then in the notes but it seemed useful to flag them up in the bibliography for ease of access/a remender that they were consulted. (I am half expecting this to go "bang" at some stage when it is noticed is accusing the Canadian armny of a war crime. (Or two.)
  • The book refs are not presented consistently, a couple mention city and country, most only mention city, a couple only mention country.
Good spot. Done.
Zawed (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: just checking where you are at on this. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: a further ping, it would be good to get this one wrapped up. Zawed (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: I seem to have missed repeated pings. I am surprised that your patience is holding up and thank you for bearing with me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

commentsSUPPORT by auntieruth

The Canadian Army's official history described the circumstances as buoyant.[1] It was recognised that the end of World War II in Europe was close.[1] suggest rewording these two sentences: According to the Canadian Army's official history, the army's buoyant mood as buoyant reflected the soldiers' belief that the end of the war in Europe was eminent.[1]
Done.
  • needs some kind of indication where the town is.... on the river Soeste, approximately 25 kilometres (16 mi) northwest of Cloppenburg, and 30 kilometres (19 mi) southwest of Oldenburg. Indication that the units had crossed Ems a week earlier is important--how difficult was the crossing? were they het up (heated up)? how many miles from Ems, in how many days...etc. The destruction of Sogel in the lead comes after the destruction of Friesoythe, which is confusing.
Done.
  • ittle official notice was taken at the time of the incident and the official history glosses over it. It is covered in the regimental histories of the units involved and several accounts of the campaign. There was no investigation of the event. Although the Canadian Army took little notice of the incident at the time, and the official military history glosses over the destruction of both Sogel and Friesoythe, the incidents are described in the regimental histories of the units involved.
"There was no investigation of the event." I had almost exactly those words in an earlier version, but was asked to remove it as unsourced. Which is a fair point. The statement seems to be accurate, but it is not explicitly stated in any source I can find and so is OR.
  • During the action on 10 April or On 10 April.... Destroyed by engineers to provide rubble? Or as reprisal? This is confusing.
Both. Could you elaborate on how the wording might be confusing? (I am probably too close to it.) To clarify, the "official" story is that they were destroyed as a reprisal, and as the rubble was then conveniently to hand it was used to reinforce the roads. Given the appalling state of the roads the cynically inclined may suspect that this was in the minds of those weighing a course of action which would generate a large quantity of rubble.
  • If the Germans were to hold it... if the Germans were to hold it, (comma)
Done
  • reaching the outskirts of Friesoythe, where several major roads met, on 13 April reaching a major intersection in the outskirts of F., on 13 April...
"Intersection" is US English and many readers will not readily understand it IMO. Happy to reword, but I am struggling to think of one. I have changed it. An improvement?
  • Vokes ordered the resumption of the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick E. Wigle. Vokes ordered Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick E. Wigle to resume the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders on.....
If I make that change then I will need to add a new sentence somewhere spelling out that Wigle was the battalion CO. Eg as opposed to the brigade commander etc. I would prefer to leave it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it an outflanking march or a flanking march? I'd have thought flanking march.
Done.
  • etc.
  • it is not clear if Stacy is talking about Friosyothe or Garrel.
Done.
  • I think also, that you should mention Garrel int he lead, because the death of the officer created a cascade of reprisals. Let me know if you want me to look again, or to help .... Nice job.

auntieruth (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing actually happened at Garrel and so it wasn't actually a reprisal I don't feel that it is notable enough to go in the lead. I didn't put it into earlier versions of the article at all, but then relented.
  • The attack went well, meeting only scattered resistance from a disorganised garrison.....the attack (? flanking maneuver?) met only scattered resistance from the disorganized garrison.
Done. (Mostly.)

G'day Gog the Mild, there are a few loose ends to be followed up here. It looks to be close to passing, but we'd want some action shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Apologies, I missed this. Zawed has just pinged me, prompting me to come back to this. Yes, I have been letting this one sit a bit. The main remaining issue as I understand it is US copyright on the two images, for which I need to find the date of first publication. I have just sent a final reminder to The Library and Archives Canada. If they don't reply by the end of the week I will replace the images. (I have looked for suitable replacements a couple of times but not found anything I was happy with; I probably need to lower my standards.) I am aware that there are a few other points not yet addressed, but they are relatively minor. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: It is now "the end of the week" and so an update. The Library and Archives Canada have, a little to my surprise, responded. I have passed this on to Kees08, who has been generously doing the image review. He commented "Try replying back asking again for the specific publication date, does not hurt. Otherwise, they said it was published over 50 years ago explicitly, so you should be good to go." So I think that the last issue has been overcome, or nearly so. Should I ping the other editors who have commented above so they can check to see if my edits and/or responses to their comments are satisfactory? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild , yeah, ping those who haven't already indicated support. I've added mine. Zawed (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08 and Auntieruth55: Thank you both for bearing with me while I have dragged this review out to inordinate length. I would be grateful if you could have a review of your comments above and my responses and see if I have satisfactorily addressed your concerns. (Kees08, that will be direct to your talk page, and I understand that it is provisional depending on the response, if any, to my request for precise first publication dates. I'll keep you informed.) Your input on kicking this, the first Wikipedia article I wrote, into shape is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine regardless, though it would be nice if they give us the real publication date. The email you received was very clear. I do not think you went through OTRS with it (you should still try), but I am willing to AGF on the issue. Kees08 (Talk) 05:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: They may yet get back with the actual dates. If they do, I'll let you know. What's OTRS? (I assume not OTRS.) Gog the Mild (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You will want the Commons page for it I think: OTRS Kees08 (Talk) 02:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Just looking at the sources for quality and reliability per recent change to the ACR process, noting that other reviewers have looked at formatting etc. They all look ok, except:

  • what makes www.canadiansoldiers.com a reliable source? Are casualties covered in Fraser?
  • It's gone. They source most of their comments, so I have used the originals. And found better quality if less precise sources where necessary, rephrasing as required.
  • same for regimentalrogue.com, again, does Fraser have info about battle honours?
  • Done.
  • same for warfarehistorynetwork.com (which I think could be dispensed with in any case, as it is corroborating Zuehlke which looks reliable
  • Done.
  • www.thememoryproject.com seems to be a first-person account, so I don't think it can be used. Do the other citations cover the same material?
  • Sure. Completely unnecessary. I was probably trying to nail down all the corners, given the subject matter, and got over-enthusiastic.
  • I couldn't find any academic papers about this incident on Google Scholar.
  • Me neither. Shameful in my opinion. If anyone has come across any I would be delighted to include them. I may consider submitting this for professional publication.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

32nd Infantry Division Triglavski

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

32nd Infantry Division Triglavski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After a considerable hiatus, I'm back working on the many Yugoslav order of battle articles covering the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. The 32nd Infantry Division Triglavski was seriously deficient in firepower and mobility, was deployed in the mountains along the Italian border, and didn't see a lot of fighting. The 7th Army, of which it was a part, was encircled when the Italians and Germans met across its rear, and the whole army promptly surrendered. This went through GAN in January last year, but I've expanded it a fair bit recently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gog the Mild

  • The links to Overwhelming Force... and The German Invasion... seem to be dead. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trevor-Roper needs an OCLC, not an ISBN. (Or you have the year wrong.)
  • "According to a post-war U.S. Army study, by the time the invasion commenced, the 32nd ID had only commenced mobilisation" Minor style point, two times "commenced" in close proximity.
  • "During the night of 10/11 April". The MoS suggests '10–11 April'.

That's all I can come up with. No doubt more experienced eyes will be more helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in good shape, noting that this was a very short-lived unit which doesn't seem to have done anything but retreat in chaos as part of its parent army. I have the following minor comments:

  • The TOE of the Yugoslav divisions looks fairly standard for this era (though on the generous side). Am I right in thinking that the reason they were so huge was due more to the number of men in their components rather than the number of components?
  • There were a whole bunch of specialist companies at divisional level, but the fourth infantry regiment, a fourth battalion per regiment (a bit like First AIF brigades), and a fourth battalion per artillery regiment are the main reasons I can see. There was a whole "supplementary" regiment attached to the division which included three battalions, each of which could have up to five companies, so that would have blown the numbers out as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Possible to make the deployment location labels larger?

Support Comments

Looks to be in good shape, just a few comments.

  • from the lead: "lacked modern arms and sufficient ammunition.": isn't sufficient redundant?
  • I don't think so. They had some ammunition, but only enough for the short-term. In some ammunition natures, they had far too little.
  • from the wartime organisation section: "The wartime organisation of the VJK was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–1937, and the strength of an infantry division was 26,000–27,000 men." : The structure of this sentence is odd; should it be: The wartime organisation of the VJK was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–1937 and stipulated the strength of an infantry division be 26,000–27,000 men?
  • Much better. Done.
  • Checking the sources, on the face of it, the books and journals look reliable. However, not sure about the Niehorster websites - are they reliable? He seems to be a published author but with Axis Europa, which is associated with Antonio Munoz? Zawed (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has a PhD in history and several books on orders of battle published by The Military Press and other publishers, and held by libraries like the University of Cambridge, Australian Defence Force Academy, US Air Force Academy etc. I've found him to be highly accurate and consistent with other sources for order of battle information. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese battleship Ise

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese battleship Ise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Built during World War I, Ise didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Ise's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and consistency in English styles in preparation for a FAC. I've updated this recent GA with the comments from her sister ship Hyuga's ACR and ongoing FAC, so I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Vami_IV

[edit]
  • Ise (伊勢 (戦艦)). I am not literate in Japanese at the slightest - what's the difference between the two sets of characters? This should have something like what's present here here, which has the kanji name and links to the respective systems for naming.
  • Still in the lead (last sentence): Was Ise scrapped in situ or raised to be scrapped somewhere else?
    • In place, but details like that are best reserved for the main body.
  • I feel the first two paragraphs in "Armaments" can and should be condensed into one.
    • Sure, I don't feel strongly about it one way or another.
  • I advocate for Ise, named being Ise was named in the first sentence of "Construction and Career" so as to streamline the sentence and remove an unnecessary comma.
    • But the comma is necessary to demarcate the subordinate clause. Otherwise we'd have: "Ise was named after Hyūga Province, one of the traditional provinces of Japan, was laid down..." The second "was" is ungrammatical in this wording.
  • Ise was assigned to 1st Division should be "to the 1st Division," like you wrote immediately after it.
    • Good catch
  • [...] off the Siberia coast should be "Siberian coast" or "off the coast of Siberia." Link to Japanese intervention in Siberia.
    • Good catch and done.
  • Provide a link to the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. I would also provide a link to China in the following sentence, or to the Republic of China (1912–1949).
    • Done.
  • [...] help to sink should, I think, be [...] help sink. Unless, that is, if its just part of the British English that the article is written in.
    • I went with "helped sink"
  • Link to Pagoda mast. I would link to naval and shipbuilding terms in general.
    • Added. Every naval or shipbuilding term is linked one place or another; if you find any others please let me know.
  • I feel there is an unexplored gap in time from Ise's overhaul in Kure to Pearl Harbor. I would begin "Start of the Pacific War" like this: "Reinforced by the battleships Nagato and Mutsu, and a newly overhauled Ise, and the light carrier Hōshō, the 2nd Division [...]" The prose up to this point in general is very mechanical.
    • I agree with you on the mechanical wording and have mixed it up a little in an effort to improve it. Any gap results from the spotty coverage available in the sources. She's on patrol off the Chinese coast from early '39 to early '41 and then I only have organizational-type info for her until the war starts.
  • There is no mention of Ise's activities in the Battle of Midway. Did she do anything at the battle?
  • Combine paragraphs two, three, and four in "Conversion to hybrid carrier".
    • I dunno; two and three cover different aspects of the conversion, while the fourth covers her return to service. I suppose two and three could be combined under the greater rubric of the conversion, but not four.
  • In the first paragraph of "Battle of Cape Engaño and afterwards," provide links to the Bonin Islands, Fourth Carrier Division, 634th Naval Air Group, the Yokosuka D4Y, the Aichi E16A, and the Hyūga.
    • All previously linked.
  • In the second paragraph, provide links to Leyte Gulf, Fast Carrier Task Force (Task Force 38), and Luzon.
    • Added links for the places; the other linked in the preceding para.
  • Ise was near missed eight times should be "nearly missed".
  • There are no links to Operation Kita in either of their instances.
    • Additional link in the main body added.
  • HMS Tantalus is not marked as such.
    • Fixed
  • Provide a link to the Fourth Carrier Division, Kure, Ondo-no-seto, in "Final Role."
    • All previously linked, except for Ondo Seto which has no link, Ondo-no-seto is a strait and I'm not sure if it has any relation to Ondo Seto.

X –Vami_IV✠ 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive review, although I'm puzzled why you didn't apply these to the FAC for her sister Hyuga as many of the comments apply to both articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - all image licenses check out. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I spy a couple of "armor"s (and the same "modernized" as in the Hyūga FAC)
  • Couple of dupe links.
  • I second Peacemaker's comment below on links in the lead - that makes sense for short articles, but this one is long enough that a link repeated in the service history section would be of use to readers. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]
  • the pp length is in the infobox but not in the body
  • the decimal conversions of the lengths and beam jar, should be ft in
  • deep load is used in the body, but full load in the infobox
  • the crew figures in the text and infobox don't match
  • where were the pairs of main gun turrets located, I assume one forward and one aft, but the other pair?
  • the text says 20 secondary guns, but infobox says 16?
  • the first reconstruction data says 24.5 kn, but the infobox says 25 kn
  • During the reconstruction the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time
  • Given two 14 cm guns were removed, shouldn't the second infobox show 18 guns? See above comment about the number of secondary guns.
    • Good catch, but the early 1930's armament change wasn't a reconstruction. The infobox refers to the rebuild a couple of years later when a second pair of 14 cm guns was removed, giving a total of 16 guns.
  • I can't make sense of the second infobox range for deck armour. If the deck was 85 mm 55+30 initially, how did it drop to 51? And if the total increase was to 140, how do we get 152?
    • I cut this section so I can go into it in more detail in the class article.
  • Siberian coast?
  • I can't make sense of the third infobox AA gun figures as built. In the body it says 57 weapons, but the infobox indicates 104? Isn't this the final number?
    • That infobox refers to the ship's final armament in 1945.
  • link Leyte Gulf
  • I have to say, your policy of only one link in the lead doesn't make reading the full article very easy. I found myself having to scroll up to hover over the earthquake, Second Sino-Japanese War and Operation Kita to get an idea of each
  • For consistency, it should probably be British submarine HMS Tantalus

That's me done. Great job on a complex ship history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from White Shadows

This is all just aesthetics, but wouldn't it be sufficient to just call the "Design and description" section "Design"? On that same note, could "Construction and career" be split into two different sections? --White Shadows New and improved!
If anything, there's far more description than design in that section, but I always lead off with at least a sentence on the design. A separate construction section would be pretty short and the MOS doesn't recommend one-paragraph sections, so I combine them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sturm, just a reminder that this is here, with outstanding comments that need addressing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sturm, just doing a source review as that is now mandated at ACR. All the books and papers look to be reliable and of high quality. What can you tell me about Combinedfleet.com and its reliability? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the primary authors of the website are published specialists on the IJN. See [34].--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine then. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of torpedo cruisers of Italy

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of torpedo cruisers of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another list article I've put together lately, this one covers the torpedo cruisers built by Italy in the late 19th century. The list caps off this project, and is part of a larger project to document all of the cruisers built by Italy from the 1870s to the 1960s. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list! Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Italicize Goito in the caption
    • Good catch.
  • Most of the images use a pre-1923 publication tag, but most do not have a publication date listed here or at the source. Suggest either tracking down and adding an early publication where one exists, or switching tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • PD for what reason, though? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The photos of other nations' ships in the NHHC's collection almost always come from ONI, one of the responsibilities of which was to collect photos of potential enemies' warships for recognition purposes. The vast bulk of these photos were either taken by naval personnel for ONI, or were acquired by ONI commercially (and in this case, any that were obtained commercially would have been acquired before 1923, since the ships depicted were all scrapped by that point, and the photos would not have been useful to ONI at that point). For example, the first image in the list states that it came "From ONI album of foreign warships (dated circa 1900)".
        • I've also done a bit of digging on the Conti-Vecchi credited with several of the photos - he was indeed a photographer of warships in the late 19th and early 20th centuries - he published a number of photos in L'Illustrazione Italiana through the 1890s and 1900s. Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport by PM
  • in the lead "built by any naviesy"
    • Fixed
  • comma after "minelayers" in the lead
    • Done
  • a bit of repetition in the last sentence of the lead with "early 1920s", suggest "were then sold for scrap"
    • Good catch
  • drop the comma "She spent little time in active service, as a result"
    • Fixed
  • suggest adding Confienza's medium gun to the table
    • Done
  • suggest adding the medium guns to the Partenope table
    • Done
  • "theItalo-Turkish" needs a space
    • Fixed
  • add an OCLC for Notes on Naval Progress
    • Done

That's me done. Great job. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great list, Nate. Ticks all the boxes, just the right amount of detail. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work as usual Parsec. I think that the A-class criteria are met, though I have one comment:

Support Comments: G'day, Nate, thanks for your efforts. I have the following comments/suggestions, all pretty minor: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Folgore class section, there is a citation in the "Ship" field, but none of the other tables employ a citation in that field. Should they, or is this one unnecessary?
    • Unnecessary, good catch
  • in the References, some ISBNs have hyphens and some don't (e.g. compare Gardiner with Osborne)
    • Removed the hyphens
  • in the References, the title of the Stephenson work could take an endash for "1911-1912"
    • Good catch
  • in the References, the 1903 Brassey work appears to be formatted differently (e.g. use of brackets). It is the only entry not to use a template
    • I had to hard code that one, because the {{cite journal}} template throws a fit if you don't include a title (and there isn't one to use)
  • Neal appears in the Notes, but I couldn't find this entry in the References
    • Added
  • same as above for Robinson
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tower Hill Memorial

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Tower Hill Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The latest in my series on war memorials. Like my previous two nominations, this one is in London. It's the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's only memorial in the capital and Lutyens' only work for the CWGC in Britain. I'm hoping to take this to FAC eventually so nay feedback would be very much appreciated! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7
  • The lead seems to be of two minds as to whether there are two memorials or three
    • There are the world war memorials, which were designed to complement each other and act as one, and then there's the Falklands memorial, which is entirely separate except that the site was obviously chosen because of the existing memorials.
  • Link Act of Parliament in the lead (as it is in the article)
    • Done.
  • "Although military casualties were lower in the second war than the first, civilian casualties were far higher" True, but perhaps misleading to the reader; total casualties in the UK were half those of the Great War.
    • I've tweaked this a little.
  • "by its end there was little appetite for another wave of large memorials" I don't see how this follows from the phrase above
    • Copy-edited.
  • "Instead, many memorials from the first war were adapted or expanded to commemorate the new casualties—an approach the IWGC took at Tower Hill' But they didn't; a new memorial was built
    • Although it's an entirely new piece of architecture, it's essentially an extension of the existing memorial.
  • "Maufe first proposed extending Lutyens' structure with a further colonnade" That would seem logical. I am guessing the problem was thet the casualties of merchant seamen in the Second World War was so much greater than the First, so there was insufficient space. (Which the lead implies.)
    • The sources don't specify. The best we get is "this plan was relinquished".
  • "the area already had maritime connections" As an aside, I live further from the sea than anyone in the UK.
    • Heh, I lived in Coventry for a while, which claims to be Britain's furthest city from the sea, and that's only just 80 miles from the nearest coast!
  • "The low, pitched roof has shallow parapets to either side" on either side?
    • If you prefer.
  • "building new memorials to missing for the most part" I think what is missing is a word or two
    • Copy-edited.
  • "a memorial service is held close to that that date at the Tower Hill Memorial" that date
    • Fixed.
  • Was there an unveiling ceremony for the Falklands memorial like there was for the other two? (Google says "The memorial was dedicated on Merchant Navy Day 4 September 2005 by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West GCB DSC ADC") [35]
    • I deliberately wanted to keep the details on the Falklands memorial fairly sparse because it's not the main topic of the article, and that website (although excellent) is a hobby site an so not a reliable source.
  • "it is dedicated to the Merchant Navy casualties of the 1982 Falklands War" Eight of the casualties are from the RFA and nine are from the merchant Navy; I'm unsure if there is a difference.
    • There is a slight difference, so I've added a mention of the RFA.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! ​ HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support As the grandson of an Australian merchant mariner who survived the torpedoing of his ship off the Australian east coast in 1942, an incident which claimed the lives of five of his shipmates, I'm very pleased to see this article developed to a high standard. I think that the A-class criteria are met, and have only the following minor comment:

Comments Support from Factotem

[edit]

Lead

  • The Imperial War Graves Commission (IWGC) commissioned Lutyens, whose first design was for a massive arch on the banks of the River Thames but this was rejected, to Lutyens' disdain. Slightly odd phrasing to me. Wonder if "The Imperial War Graves Commission (IWGC) commissioned Lutyens, whose first design was for a massive arch on the banks of the River Thames but this was rejected, to Lutyens' disdain." would be better? Also not sure if "disdain" is quite the right word, unless that is the actual word used in the source. Maybe "disgust" or "dismay" would be better? (Suggest "disgust", based on the discussion of this episode in the main body of the narrative).
    • Copy edits done. I did look disdain up when I wrote it to make sure I was using it correctly and I do feel it works better than either "dismay" or "disgust" (I'm going for contempt, rather than anger or disappointment) but happy to discuss this further.
  • ...the queen's first use of the device Consider "medium" rather than "device"? (Same again in the History section).
    • Medium works fine (done in both places)
  • ...national collection of Lutyens' war memorials and Maufe's Merchant Seamen's Memorial... I think there should be a comma before the "and" here.
    • Done.

First World War memorial - Background

  • The commission was established in 1917 and one of its first principal architects... Another missing comma before the "and"?
    • Not sure this is absolutely necessary, but done.
  • ... which the commissioners resolved in 1921 extended to the Mercantile Marine... The use of "resolved...extended" here looks like something got messed up in an edit somewhere. Maybe "...which the commissioners extended in 1921 to include the Mercantile Marine..."?
    • Copy-edited for clarity.
  • ...Germany commenced unrestricted submarine warfare as a result of which the British government began grouping vessels into convoys, escorted by warships To me, that comma should come after "warfare", not after "convoys".
    • Done.

History

  • ...requested a functional memorial, such as a home for aged seamen, but the commission was set against functional memorials in the belief that they became associated more with their function than with commemoration Over-use of "function(al)" and "memorial" in a single sentence. Maybe "...but the commission was set against this in the belief..."?
    • I've tweaked this a bit to reduce the redundancy.
  • ... they did not have the power to give full consent and a special Act of Parliament was required Comma before "and"?
    • I think the setnece works fine without it.
  • The building work was undertaken by Holloway Brothers (London) and the memorial was unveiled by Queen Mary (deputising for her husband, King George V) on 12 December 1928, her first solo engagement of the sort. Comma before "and"? Also, "...of the sort" seems odd. Did she have any previous solo engagements of a different sort?
    • Again, not sure this is necessary. I believe this was her first solo engagement as queen representing the king in public, but she had had other engagements.
I read "of the sort" to refer to unveiling monuments, and that she could have, for example, gone solo opening hospitals or the like. Maybe it's referring to the first time she deputised for the king? Either way, it seems odd, and I'm not sure that you need "of the sort" there. Factotem (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite taking place in torrential rain, the unveiling ceremony was attended by a large crowd, who cheered the queen as she was driven away Seems an odd detail to report that the crowd cheered as she left.
    • Ha! They were presumably cheering her for her speech rather than for leaving, but that's when they chose to do it.
      • Part of the context here is that the King had been seriously ill (and would be in poor health for the remaining seven years of his life). This is actually mentioned in the description (not sure who wrote that) on the British Pathe site, if you follow the link in the external links: "Her Majesty The Queen greeted by sympathetic crowds - makes first appearance since the King's illness to unveil Mercantile Marine War Memorial. London." I am not sure, but this might be the same illness mentioned here. The date matches. It is also mentioned here: "In November 1928, he fell seriously ill with septicaemia, and for the next two years his son Edward took over many of his duties." (or in this case, his wife). Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design

  • ...who worked on multiple other war memorials... "multiple" here is, apparently, misplaced formality, and should be replaced with "many".
    • I'm not sure that's a misuse of "multiple", but I've changed it to "several".

Second World War memorial - Background

  • Instead, many memorials from the first war were adapted or expanded to commemorate the new casualties—an approach the IWGC took at Tower Hill and elsewhere, generally only building new memorials to the missing in areas which hadn't been touched by the First World War. Fairly complex sentence which could maybe benefit from being split. Perhaps "Instead, many memorials from the first war were adapted or expanded to commemorate the new casualties—an approach the IWGC took at Tower Hill and elsewhere. Generally, it only built new memorials to the missing in areas which hadn't been touched by the First World War."? Also, what areas are you referring to when you write "in areas which hadn't been touched by the First World War"? Are these geographical areas?
    • That works nicely; thanks. And yes, geogrpahical areas; I've changed it to "places".

History

  • Maufe initially planned a larger grassy area between Lutyens' colonnade and the sunken garden with a Stone of Remembrance at the centre but this was largely eliminated to reduce the overall size of the memorial in order to assuage the concerns of local people, while the depth of the garden had to be reduced at the south end because of a London Underground tunnel Another complex, and to me slightly confusing sentence that needs breaking up. Was it the "larger grassy area" or the "Stone of Remembrance" that was "largely eliminated"? "In order to" is a FAC no-no, as is the use of "while" (instead of "and") as a conjunction.
    • Copy-edited this.

Later history

  • Since 2000, 3 September has been celebrated annually as Merchant Navy Day and a memorial service is held close to that date at the Tower Hill Memorial. Another comma issue, though I confess that the correct use of commas often confounds me. The statements "...3 September has been celebrated annually as Merchant Navy Day..." and "...a memorial service is held close to that date at the Tower Hill Memorial" each have their own subjects and verbs, and can both stand alone, so I believe a comma is necessary before the "and". Happy to be corrected in my long quest for comma enlightenment.
    • I think a semicolon works better here. I admit I haven't studided the applications of commas extensively but I generally use them where one would naturally pause while reading and not where a pause wouldn't be necessary.
  • ...and applied to about 5.5% of listings Missing "is" before applied?
    • Done.

Nice read as always. Factotem (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: Thank you very much for your thoroughness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On commas, I'm quite sure that in a couple of places you're converting separate clauses into a list by omitting the comma. For example, "...they did not have the power to give full consent and a special Act of Parliament was required" might be read as both consent and a special act were beyond the power of the trustees to give, which then makes the final "was required" out of place. The "and a special Act of Parliament was required" is a separate, related clause with its own subject and verb, hence the need for a comma, as I understand it. I'm certainly no expert, though, and I'm not going to push it. Factotem (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for the record, noting the extra edits I made here. The addition of the British Pathé news reels should be OK. The infobox expansion (to cover both memorials) may have made it a bit bloated. I think using {{multiple image}} hasn't broken the infobox, but there might be better ways to handle that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Robinvp11

Interesting read, thank you. The previous reviews have been very comprehensive but a few minor points from me - I did some work for the Marine archaeology trust on WWI wrecks so most of it comes from that :)

That sounds like very interesting work!
Background; I'd suggest Lutyens' role as the creator of New Delhi is more significant than his design of English country houses;
It's not really relevant here but ok.
I agree but if you're going to mention other stuff done by Lutyens at all, more people will recognise the link. You could just take it out.
'Merchant shipping' maybe expand to include fishing vessels - places like Brixham suffered heavy losses and the Memorial does reference this;
Indeed. Brixham has an interesting war memorial of its own.
'particularly after Germany commenced unrestricted submarine warfare, as a result of which the British government began grouping vessels into convoys escorted by warships;' I'm not sure if this matters but ships transporting coal to Cherbourg and Brest were convoyed from very early on in the war ie early 1915 (the French lost their own coal mines, so they were vital). Being really really picky, after unrestricted warfare it became common outside Home Waters.
Do we really need to go into detail on this? The article is about a memorial to those lost at sea and that sentence is just a bit of background on how they were lost.
Again, I agree it doesn't need that level of detail but just add 'Atlantic' or 'outside Home Waters' (you know what happens -there's an argument going on right now as to exactly what day the War of the Spanish Succession started);
On second thoughts, I've taken out the mention of convoys. It's not directly relevant here, though i strikes me that we probably need a general article about merchant shipping during the wars. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'17,000 lives from across the British Empire;' and beyond; I think (but I might be wrong) the WWI Memorial includes anyone who died on a British ship eg there were at least two Japanese (from a South Wales coal ship); maybe needs minor clarification?
Fair point. I've tried to clarify it but you're welcome to see if you can improve it.
Looks good (we're toying with the idea of a project on the global workforce used by the Merchant Marine during WWI ie the two Japanese died on a South Wales collier with a Dane, three Arabs, an Italian, a Swiss and even a German.)
Style; should Commission have a capital C?
Only when the full name is used ("the Imperial War Graves Commission" but "the commission")
Thanks!
Good Stuff Robinvp11 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Robinvp11: Thank you very much for looking over it. I hope you found it an interesting read. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image licensing all looks fine to me. Harry, there are a few points immediately above that need attention, otherwise this is ready for promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Tyvm. I've addressed Robin's comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Trident (UK nuclear programme)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Trident (UK nuclear programme) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After Polaris comes Trident, chronologically the last of the articles on the British nuclear deterrent (but since I'm working through them alphabetically, there's still a couple more to go). Recently completed its GA review. Unusually, the majority of the text is not mine; much of the article was complete before I arrived, and most of it was properly sourced. The Trident boats are still on patrol out there somewhere, and their story is still unfolding, with the construction of the new Dreadnought-class under way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still have to gnome the refs when I get hold of a computer in the next few days. First of all, I am getting back in the swing, please let me know if I'm being too bold for this forum. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned about weight. We're talking about a government procurement programme as a result of a policy. The narrowing down of potential programmes to a single programme significantly unified the programme and policy. The policy was intensely political at the level of parliamentary parties and in the civil population.
    Decisions about the British nuclear deterrent were normally taken by cabinet subcommittees and not put to cabinet, much less parliament, for debate. Having passed over the fundamental issues, debate centred on the type of system, but in the end always came down to the cost. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Goddamnit Cabinet, you had one responsibility to the house. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is to say that apart from the programme and system, this is also [un]fortunately a political and social history article. At appropriate weights.
  • And this isn't asking for much weight, but "Faslane Peace Camp is permanently… people were arrested.[119]" Doesn't explain anything in terms of the context of the encyclopaedically interesting elements of the policy / programme / systems, "Since the early 1960s a vocal body of UKians have opposed their government's independent deterrence policy, the development of programmes to fulfil this policy, and these programmes procurement of systems and their operation. Mainly organised through the CND, this movement has had limited success in influencing Labour policy, and limited success in maintaining long term protest and civil disobedience against the policy and its implementation." And you're done, similarly with Labour itself jumping on and off the stove.
    I'll see if I can find a source for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at how "Renewal" is structured. Apart from recentism, and a focus on the parliamentary over the social, that's more what a summary style section on the politicisation of the programme / policy might need to feel like.
    Probably because we cut the section right back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renewal probably needs a sub-article and summary style.
    There is no consensus for that at the present time. As a result of a discussion in 2016, that entire section was moved here from the Dreadnought-class submarine article, which now matches those of other submarine classes. As the replacement program picks up pace, the Renewal section could be moved to a new article, and replaced with one about decommissioning Trident. At the moment though, we haven't even got a title for such an article. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully reality and the sources will catch up. I understand what you're saying Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WEIGHT is off. It is recent-heavy. Particularly recent reviews in individual detail and renewal.
    I'm always loath to remove material that other editors felt was important. I already cut back the reviews section drastically, because I didn't think the reports had much to say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that. It would definitely come up at a higher level of review though. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that Negotiations comes before Policy. Policy normally precedes procurement?
    The fall of the Soviet Union completely changed the international situation. To put this up the top would not only upset the chronological order, it would make the it more difficult for the reader to follow the reasoning behind the acquisition of Trident. Policy is summarised in the background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. Three policy sections to keep the policy narrative working would be a bit much. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is too big of a topic for an "all-in-one" article, and needs to be summary styled: Background; Policy; Procurement; Systems; Operations; Reviews and changes in Policy; Renewal? Items 2-5 in that list are each capable of sustaining notable articles imho.
  • And for that mess of a set of thoughts, I should probably edit your citations for style. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add some material to address your concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, let me know when you're happy for me to start the gnomish citation lmftfy / review. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the Background section to add a couple of paragraphs on this. Also expanded the Opposition section, with a bit about the CND. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm taking this a step permission to gnome away! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Great work Hawkeye7!!; clear and correct explanation of the SSBN patrol pattern, and fills in a few gaps in my knowledge of the emergency/wartime firing sequence. I've unabbreviated CTF 345, which is Commander, Task Force 345. Endorse promotion once all the nitty gritty by amazing dedicated editors like Fifelfoo has been completed. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments from JennyOz Hi Hawkeye, gnome visit...

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hawkeye, happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Harry Laurent

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Harry Laurent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

For your consideration at A-Class is an article covering another one of New Zealand's WWI Victoria Cross recipients; Harry Laurent. His VC was awarded for his actions during an engagement that followed the Second Battle of Bapaume. I did some expansion work in April and the article went through a GA review the same month. I look forward to reviewers' feedback and hopefully seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: nice work, Zawed. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • no issues with dup links or dabs (no action required)
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • do we know where he went to school and if he had any siblings?
  • do we know which battle he took part in during the Somme offensive?
  • did Laurent's unit take part in any actions between April 1917 and August 1918 when it was committed to the Hundred Days Offensive?
  • "officer training school": link Officer (armed forces)
  • "He was duly commissioned in February 1919" --> perhaps mention that the war had ended by this time and demobilisation had commenced
  • do we know what he did between 1956 and his death?
  • There isn't a lot of information on his life during this period, but did add a little amount about other VC events. Thanks for the review, much appreciated. Zawed (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fifelfoo (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is my current habit to abstain or decline on reviews as my review for quality emphasises scholarly history (HQRS / historiography) and while my comments are actionable they may unintentionally exceed the criteria.
  • "McGibbon 2000, pp. 558–559." Is this a signed article? Then cite the signer. Bloggs, Jane [year] "Harry Laurent" in…
  • G'day Zawed, I believe what Fifelfoo is referring to is whether there is anything negative about Laurent in reliable sources? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • exactly as Peacemaker says. It is meant as a query. And you're the best person to ask due to your source mastery. "No, I exhausted the sources researching and nothing was present," is a perfectly good answer. Similarly asking about historiography. If there's a debate amongst historians and biographers that's weighty enough to include, you would be the editor to check with. "Johns thought he did x because y but this later was dismissed by Bloggs and Thompson who analysed in terms of z." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, OK, I understand now. There is nothing unfavourable in the literature, not that there is anything extensive out there on Laurent. This is pretty much the case for nearly all the NZ WWI VC recipients. Richard Travis (unusually, a biography was written about him) and Leslie Andrew (who had a notable WWII career) are probably the only exceptions. Zawed (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Polaris (UK nuclear programme)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Polaris (UK nuclear programme) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

There was a time half a century ago when courageous sea captains flew the Jolly Roger and roamed the oceans in their boats, armed only with their wits, a handful of torpedoes, and a few dozen hydrogen bombs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Let me know when the things above are sorted, thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 09:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Access to US Defense imagery is now restricted to US military personnel. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. How does that affect us here? Can we still use it? Or do we need an OTRS ticket to verify usage? Kees08 (Talk) 03:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't affect us at all. The image is still in the public domain. See Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 8#Image source is a password protected access website. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, my concern is more if it is FOUO, and non-attainable through an FOIA request, it is less behind a paywall and more unattainable in general. Could we perform an FOIA or try to send imagery, or other method to actually show the image is PD? @Nikkimaria: what do you normally do in this situation? Kees08 (Talk) 09:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could do that, but it technically isn't necessary - as Hawkeye says, even with the access restriction the images themselves are still PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; Hawkeye: FOIA or OTRS ticket if you want to go the extra mile, otherwise nevermind on that points. Kees08 (Talk) 10:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I added a little more to the author, as requested in the source material. Let me know if you disagree. Otherwise, the image review is done and I support based on that. Kees08 (Talk) 04:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D

[edit]

It's good to see a high quality article on such an important topic. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "and in June he secured the approval of the Admiralty to build a nuclear powered submarine" - wasn't he the boss of the Admiralty? Do you mean that he secured approval (from the rest of the government, and especially the Treasury) for the RN to build a nuclear sub?
    That came the following year. Changed to "Board of the Admiralty". As First Sea Lord, he wasn't actually the boss of the Admiralty, just the professional head of the Royal Navy. The boss was the First Lord of the Admiralty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The idea of moving the nuclear deterrent away from the densely populated UK and out to sea had considerable appeal in Britain" - It could be noted that a broader issue was that the V-bomber force was by this time highly vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike (as there would only be around 3 minutes warning). Moving the deterrent to sea was important for maintaining its credibility.
    Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Cabinet Defence Committee meeting on 23 January 1963 approved the plan for four boats, with the Minister of Defence, Peter Thorneycroft noting that this would be cheaper and faster to build" - it's not clear what the four subs were cheaper and faster to build than (the hybrid attack-ballistic missile boats?)
    Just that four boats would be cheaper and faster to build than eight. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From memory, Peter Hennessy and James Jinks' book on the RN submarine service is pretty critical of the quality of the subs built by Cammell Laird.
    Your memory is fine. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest adding something about the operations of the Polaris force - eg, to note how the subs operated, that their crews managed to maintain a continuous deterrent, that the subs are believed to have never been tracked by the Soviets, and the problems experienced with all of the above as the boats wore out. The above book covers this. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't got it or read it, but it's in the library at ADFA, so I'll take a look. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a paragraph on this to the end of the "Operations" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, not a lot stood out to me. Nice work. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo

[edit]

Support. same disclaimer as on Trident Fifelfoo (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk)

United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Nominating this article for A-class review on behalf of Pendright (talk · contribs) per [43]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the United States Marine Corps Women’s Reserve (WR); its ebb and flow from inception to demobilization. Formed in February 1943, it was the last of the four wartime U.S. women’s military services to do so. Its objective was to free-up male Marines in the continental U.S. for duty overseas for the duration of WWII, plus six moths. The WR did not have an official nickname, the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps said they were real marines and didn’t need one. The peak strength of the WR was around 19,000 members. Pendright (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ruth_Cheney_Streeter.jpg: any more details available from Rutgers to support the given tag?
No additional details evident! Pendright (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Frank_V._McKinless_Swears_in_Women_Marines,_February_1943_(6842479845).jpg: if this is an official USMC photo, should it not be PD? Same with File:Woman_Marine_sentry,_circa_1943_(6049891503).jpg, File:Assembling_a_machine_gun,_circa_1943_(6049891599).jpg, File:"The_Wrench_and_Hammer_Brigade",_circa_1943_(6050443802).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above are official USMC photographs and in the PD; now each is so identified with the proper information. Thank you. Pendright (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've added the PD-USGov-Marines template to the image description pages. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Pendright (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest adding alt text to the images. Although it isn't a strict requirement, it does help the vision impaired
Added alt text to each image - Pendright (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "than any fashioned by the WAC": remove the link for "WAC" here, as it is already linked in the leadership section
Double link removed - Pendright (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Uniforms section, the block quote in the first paragraph probably needs a citation
Citation added to quote - Pendright (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an ISBN or OCLC number for the Stremlow and Litoff & Smith works?
Stremlow: added OCLC
Liftoff and Smith: see below Pendright (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • place and location of publication for the Litoff and Smith work?
The Litoff and Smith work turns out not to be a stand-a-lone piece of work, but part of the National Archives and Records Administration publication, which is already a part of the Article’s bibliography. So, I replaced the Litoff and Smith work with another reference. Pendright (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and suggestions - Pendright (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on the below Abstain (see below). Review limited to A1 (quality, reliability, occasionally ) / A2 (scholarly historiography)

  • It is my current habit to abstain or decline on reviews as my review for quality emphasises scholarly history (HQRS / historiography) and while my comments are actionable they may unintentionally exceed the criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, and I hate to say this, this reads as dependent upon the sources that the chief editorial group read, rather than dependent upon the sources available. Archaic, or en_US inclusions, potentially from copyvio free sources, may indicate that the article has not been thoroughly checked as MILHIST's quality suggests? ("inasmuch," below.) As indicated above, I am abstentionist: because my standards may be too high. But consider this. And do note that I "take" commentary on my reviews well. Other editors have ground the flour. And I'm whinging about the flavour of the bread? Please don't take this review harshly, I loved reading the article.
  • What a lovely institutional response above and beyond the era's bigotry. I particularly like Holcomb's interaction with the Marines who happened to be women, and the Marines' culture of, well, razzing and taking razzing over the nicknames. Then again I'm an Australian English speaker. A2: Should scholars or grognards have recorded grossly impolite nicknames I hope you've included them.
  • A2 not actionable: was there any interesting historiographical issues raised in the sources you read of WEIGHT to justify a discussion or section on this? In particular given the subject and the interface between womens' and military history this may be present. Consider the introduction to Soderbergh's PhD thesis published as the book you cite for this? ALT: search for the PhD thesis. (Title is highly suggestive of a doctoral work).
  • A1 Holcomb's quote in lede needs sourcing
Citation added - Pendright (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 "History of the Women Marines". Women Marines Association. Miscited. WMA is a corporate author, not just the publisher.
    A1 failed cite in footnotes: unable to locate in source. Supply details of how to locate claim.
Reference replaced - Pendright (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 Lacy is marginal. But on the right side of the margin for the claim used. Beware the Clean Wehrmacht myth about using commendation related material though.
An editor other than myself inserted this citation; I have had no access to or do I possesses the publication referenced in the bibliography section. Pendright (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 National Archives and Records Administration (1996). Inappropriate short name in footnotes. Miscited (editors take priority for identification). Probable primary source compilation. If the claim is from a PRIMARY in compilation grossly miscited (cite the compiled text). If the claim is from a PRIMARY acceptable for obvious: if it was in the least controversial it would be a fatal problem. If a PRIMARY why haven't appropriate quotes been used from the oral history for illustrative purposes WP:HISTIP.
Because I felt those I had selected were relevant to the story. Besides, oral history usually presents interpretive challenges and, of curse, memories are fallible. Take me for instance; I joined the U.S. Navy in 1943, yes 1943, that's 75 years ago. I'm considered to have a good memory for my age, but time has blurred it too. In any event, both types are important - but circumstances could decide whether it's one or the other. Pendright (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 Frederiksen Ferris. Miscited in footnotes. Double bunger surnames get double bunger footnotes.
    See comments on Lacy.
An editor other than myself inserted this citation; I have had no access to or do I possesses the publication referenced in the bibliography section. Pendright (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 Soderbergh, Peter, A. (1992). is miscited. Publisher name
Spelling corrected - Pendright (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 Stremlow, Colonel Mary V., USMCR (Ret). (1994). is miscited. The OCLC links to a 1943 poster print. FUTON searching indicates the work exists but not as cited.
    Miscited in footnotes: whom is Strejlow, p. 39
Stremlow - Pendright (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 Texts: Stremlow A History of the Women Marines, 1946-1977 (Washington, D.C.: History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1986), and Coping With Sexism in the Military (New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 1990) unused? Consider.
The legislation that established the wartime U.S. Marine Corps Women's Reserve provided that members could serve for the duration of World War II, plus six months. By August 1946, only 300 members remained. By law, the wartime Women's Reserve no longer existed. However, such members were asked to stay on active duty by the Corps. They all volunteered to stay in anticipation of legislation that might give them permanent status in the Corps. For the next two years, these women served in an undetermined status. But in July 1948, the Women's Armed Forces Act became law, which allowed these and other women to serve in the regular Marine Corps. The publication to which you refer is not about the wartime WR. It’s about how the Corps subsequently accepted women into the regular Marine Corps, but failed to intergrade them until the 1970’s. Pendright (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2 Consider Vicki L. Friedl (1996)?
Than you - Pendright (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 in text issue, "In the Free a Marine to Fight publication" books or other major works take italics in your style
Italics added - Pendright (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links has an extraneous em-dash " — ". The rest of your style is en-dash.
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 "Don't ever complain to me…your ability." cite at quote end. Taylor, J.'s probable quotation of her father as a PRIMARY deserved distinct acknowledgement as your readers will want to read Taylor, J.'s claims where they were published. Also, remember, Taylor, J (date) "interview" in work editor etc…. Taylor, J is cited for herself, not for the author/editor who compiled the oral history. That's if it is in an oral… hang on it is in Stremlow, so it is beside the point. Stremlow is responsible. But I didn't reverse myself because as this article uses oral history / primary source compilations you need to know this for next time ;).
Right, thank you! - Pendright (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style: for an Australian English speaker, "WR" as the standard noun grates. hard. "Womens' Reserve" "Reserve" etc.? Consider. There's a reason why people render acronyms as "double u arr," as opposed to "wuh ruh". it is to create a grappleable noun to latch onto. I'd suggest "Reserve," as the institution was (after proving) demonstrably anti-sexist for its time?
WR changed to Reserve - Pendright (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style: "The first group of six women officers recruited was given direct commissions in the WR." Grates in en_AU. Consider "The first six women officers recruited were." "The first group of officers recruited was." You avoid a nasty collective noun singular/plural verb issue in varieties of english.
Done - Pendright (talk)
  • List format, "In charge of public relations was…" "training [no verb], Captain Charlotte D. Gower;" consider was for the verbs? Or drop the requirement for verbs by "Assignments were: …public relations, First Lieutenant E. Louise Stewart;"
Changed to Assignments were: Pendright (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2: apparent contradiction to a civvie "they turned out to be winter uniforms." "Neither officers nor enlisted members had winter dress uniforms." Clarify with "they turned out to be winter [?regular|?service] uniforms." My hesitance is from lack of culturally specific knowledge regarding "regular" uniforms' culturally specific status. Given that it deserves a section, and its importance to the institution and women, its a clarification point for the interested outsider.
They reads: Reserve recruits were promised uniforms upon reaching boot camp, but that was not always the case. In fact, during the summer of 1943, some recruits had to train in civilian clothing until summer uniforms were available. When the new uniforms arrived, they turned out to be winter uniforms instead of the summer uniforms expected. Pendright (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each Reserve member, officer and enlisted, had a winter uniform and a summer uniform. But, an officer was allowed to modify her winter uniform into a dress uniform by simply adding a few trappings. So, with added trappings, the regular, winter uniform of an officer became a dress uniform. This option was not available to the enlisted member. Pendright (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The summer uniform, on he other hand, had three styles for the officers: a regular, summer uniform that both officers and enlisted wore. But, officers were allowed to modify the regular summer uniform into two more style variations, but it was still the summer uniform. The enlisted members had no options.Pendright (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The terms regular, service, and dress uniforms are used interchangeably by reference sources but, in actuality, there was only a winter uniform and a summer uniform with variations in style.

Pendright (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Awkward "just so-called." Consider alternatives.
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2: "Those who did not meet the requirements had two choices: transfer to enlisted basic training or await discharge." any HQRS evidence regarding degradation rates / comparative to Marine potential officers who happened to be males?
The failure rate between women and men in similar circumstances was not dealt with in any of the reference material I used. As a matter of fact, there was not an abundance of publications on the U.S. Marine Corps Women’s Reserve itself. Pendright (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity "Candidates studied … naval personnel" Either this lacks a noun: personnel "categorisation"; or, it is unintelligible to a civvie.
Now reads: Candidates studied the following: naval organization and administration; naval personnel; naval history and strategy; naval law and justice; and naval ships and aircraft.  :::Pendright (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 26 March, 21 platoons of women Marines" we've established that they're Marines through Holcomb. Is the qualifier necessary. To mangle Full Metal Jacket, "Is there a male? How about Marine?" Correspondingly, "A total of 214 women Marine Corps officers". This is a choice, but, given Holcomb's adamant claim, and the cultural portrayal of "You're all equally worthless/worthy." Seems a bit off? Similarly with my suggestion of "Reserve," as a noun above. And at "First group of Marine Corps women's Reserve officer candidates"
Done - Pendright (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style consistency check. "identification of aircraft, and" There are a load of "; and," and "; or," lists in this article. Double check on "; and …" versus "; and, …"
Removed, will double check! Pendright (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style check: "esprit de corps." Does the style guide you use consistently suggest italicisation of foreign phrases?
Done - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The camp was named…" Why do I care. Oh in the next sentence it is explained it is new to the war, consider, "The [new] camp was named…"
Done - Pendright (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What did not change from the time at Mount Holyoke and Hunter was the hostile behavior of the drill instructors towards the women." Hang on a minute gov. The prior hostile behaviour hasn't been mentioned up article. Damn interesting. Shouldn't it be mentioned prior?
Hostile behavior comments added for the candidates and enlisted member sections. Pendright (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BAMS (Broad Assed Marines)" mention this spelling out above in the first use, "BAMS" at first use is a polite phrase, we ought not to censor the spelling out. Those marines copped their shit off arseholes before the arseholes learnt to respect them, the reader ought to be inducted into it in first use, not 3/4 of the way down the article. In particular Holcomb's theme from the lede in the article means it should be spelled out at first use. Same with any other shit talking.
Done - Pendright (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other crude references." If weighty and in reliable sources, spell them out. They are of interest. "Clean Wehrmacht" and all.
Will do - Pendright (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Women worked mainly in offices, classrooms, hospitals, retail stores, libraries, and beauty shops." I call bullshit as someone with a background in mid 20th century labour history by "blue/white" collar status. Rosie the Riveter. This needs a cite. And needs serious consideration. Again, this is perhaps above and beyond A class
Cited -Pendright (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps." Probable poor list comparator. I had learnt as an outsider and undergraduate that the US Marine Corps was a part of the Navy. Improve?
Improved - Pendright (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not separate sentences, "The WR strength on 1 June 1945 was 17,672. Of this number 1,342 were engaged in occupations" They're fundamentally linked. I don't want to know the WR strength at this date. The strength matters to me because of their engagements in comparison to the desired specialised needs in prior sentences.
Joined sentences - Pendright (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clause order incorrect, "While Public Law 689 authorized the creation of the WR, it also prohibited its members from serving outside the continental United States." consider, "WR members were prohibited from serving outside…" The reader is interested in the prohibition, not the authorisation. As detailed discussion of the prohibition, not the authorisation follows.
Revised - Pendright (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style, double check terminating punctuation in quotes for standard in your article, "worth all the trouble and cost"."
Caught one, thanks! Pendright (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style "inasmuch" versus "in as much." Consider.
Done -Pendright (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commit to an 18-month tour" who did this? No appropriate noun target in semi-colon clause set. " members had to " > " members had to: "
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "battle-ready men of the corps for action….[68]" Cited in, surely? Who wouldn't want to know where to grill FDR's claim? Same with Holcomb. The primary source is worth citing, sourcing, in itself for the eager beaver?
Done - Pendright (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fifelfoo: I believe I have responded to all of the deficiencies you noted. If not, I stand ready to continue trying. In any event, I found your review to be instructive. Pendright (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down for 30-36 hours with work and no adequate connection/device, but will respond when I'm back. I'm sure it's supportable (maybe only with a couple of fixits required) after all your wonderful work! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It reads beautifully, and I'm very happy to support. Thank you for producing an article that expanded my knowledge! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Pendright (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JennyOz

Hi Pendright, I just made a few minor tweaks. I did them individually so that you can easily undo any you don't agree with. Here are a few minor comments, none are deal-breakers so I'm happy to add my support.

  • Free a Marine to Fight - you've added italics for it as a slogan rather than the publication. I can't find in MOS any mention of slogans and mottos so don't know if they take italics but I don't think it matters in scheme of things.
Removed - Pendright (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • esprit de corps - MOS actually uses esprit de corps as an example of a foreign phrase so common in English that it doesn't need italics, on here but it's no problem to leave it italicised.
Removed Pendright (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm the Stremlow pdf now only goes to page 20? I'm pretty sure I read it from beginning to end when doing other comments on talk page. I've tried to reload but the last page/s seems to be missing. I was able to find another copy here which I used to make the tweaks to places women previously 'by custom' worked, and the typo re supervising men.
Link replaced: Nice catch! You’re correct in that the copy of Free A Marine to Fight used had 41 pages. Thanks for ferreting this one out. Pendright (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pendright, I was really hoping the missing pages of the Stremlow pdf was only a temporary glitch, and I just wrote the note about it for other reviewers/ promoters. Now that you've swapped the url from the marines.mil copy to the nps.gov one, it has caused a problem. The new nps.gov version does not have page numbers. Eeek! That obviously ruins all the cites. I had a look at the original pdf again. I tested changing the last digit (1) in the url to a 2, and voila, there were the pages 21 to 41!
So..., I think you need to undo the change, ie back to the marines.mil url. Then use it for citations of anything on pages 1-20. Then have a second entry in the bibliography for any Stremlow cites on pages 21 to 41 linking to this.
(Of course this problem wouldn't exist if at the bottom of page 20 on the first pdf (ie the original) had a link like "for pages 21-40 please click here" to jump to second pdf.)
But before you do anything, let's ask the so helpful AustralianRupert is this is correct. AustralianRupert, sorry to bother you but could you please advise how to handle this one booklet that is spread over 2 pdfs? JennyOz (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, would it be possible to locate a copy of the old 41 page document using Web Archive, perhaps? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rupert, sadly not found. There are captures back to 2015 but are split into the two sets. Actually, I've just noticed that the link was only added to the bibliography 9 July so when I did my read through (per talk page) prior to that, perhaps I'd found the nps.gov version online and simply searched for phrases when page numbers not available. Rats, I think we have to use the 2 pdfs.

JennyOz (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, two pdf entries might be the best solution here, although if the work is available as a hard copy, wouldn't the link really just be a courtesy link? In this regard, potentially it doesn't really matter per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. I could be wrong, though. @Fifelfoo: do you have any thoughts on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I misread your comments. I should have queried you further. Sorry! Two pdf entries seem like the best solution at hand. Pendright (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, use two links for the courtesy link. Also try to archive them? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on this article (and your patience with me!), I've enjoyed it. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav coup d'état

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav coup d'état (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 1941 Yugoslav coup resulted in the Axis invasion and dismemberment of that country, and the internecine civil war and Axis counter-insurgency campaign that followed. I've worked on this on and off for several years, but think it is now ready for A-Class. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]

Always a pleasure reading your work, Peacemaker. My comments:

  • It could be made clearer in the lead that the government installed by the coup was more anti-Nazi than its predecessor and that the Germans decided to invade because of this. It should also be made explicit that the new government was an unstable all-party coalition with different factions.
  • The lead says "coup" a lot. Perhaps mix it up with "putsch" or "overthrow"...
  • The 1 "accidental" death caused by the coup is not explained in the body of the article.
  • In the wake of the coup, Simović's new government refused to ratify Yugoslavia's signing of the Tripartite Pact Was ratification a vote by the ministers, or did it have to shepherded through the National Assembly?
  • Were there any specific reactions to the coup by the National Assembly?
  • Would a photo like this be suitable for "The new government" section?
  • This source (p. 17) says that Hitler was surprised by the coup and delayed Operation Barbarossa to invade Yugoslavia. That seems important. Julian Amery says that because of this delay, "The coup d'etet of 27 March may well have been a turning point in the war."
  • This is a matter of some dispute, as the wet spring was also probably a factor in the delay of Barbarossa, and some have argued that there was still sufficient time for the Germans to reach Moscow before winter, even with the start date of 22 June, but I've added some material from Playfair about the postponement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Development of the coup" section needs to make it more explicit in the body that Peter II was installed as King.
  • Several other sources are saying Hitler was so taken aback by news of the coup he initially thought it was a joke.
  • Playfair says that the coup delayed the German intervention in Greece by five days.
  • This source (p. 72) says that in the aftermath of the coup not only were German officials withdrawn from the country, but also most German nationals (encouraged to leave by the German government). It also states that immediately after the coup the Germans initiated a press campaign accusing the Yugoslav government of perpetrating atrocities against German nationals and stirring up tensions between the Croats and the Serbs.
  • This source states that the Polish and Czech governments in exile praised the coup.
  • Prusin explains that Stalin's intentions with the pact with Yugoslavia was to signal Soviet strategic interest in the Balkans but avoid antagonizing Germany, hence the failure to provide military aid to Yugoslavia.
  • Prusin also states that Viktor von Heeren tried to convince Hitler that the coup was merely an internal power play and that military action was unnecessary.
  • This source (the shoddy translation makes me question its reliability, but I'm sure other sources can confirm) says that the day before the coup Leo Amery made a broadcast from London appealing to Serb nationalism. It also says that on the day of the coup the streets of Belgrade were occupied by tanks and that General Simović and some air force officers took the Ministry of War. It also says that Peter II was surprised that he was being crowned (this isn't made explicit in the article). It also discusses the complexities of trying to represent the Croats in the new regime.

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added this source, as Iaremko was an assistant professor of history at Lviv Uni and it seems to have been reliably published, but it is rather hard to follow due to the rather rough translation. I'm a little leery of using some of what she says where it runs against other sources and isn't cited. I'll pick out what I think is unique and useful material, but I'm loath to use it across the board, especially for some of the more exceptional claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed, now supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: well done, IMO. I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the ext links work (no action required)
  • in the lead, Prince Paul and Peter II are overlinked
  • there is a typo here: "reserves throughout 1939–40.}}—and the"
  • "wasn't set" --> "was not set"
  • in the Axis invasion section, Yugoslav government-in-exile is overlinked
  • "The coup was essentially a brave gesture of defiance...": I think potentially this statement should be attributed in text
  • "Czechoslavian": typo?
  • there is a mixture of US and British English, for instance "defenses" (US) but also "organisers" an "polarised" (and others) (British)
  • in the References, "Yugoslavia in crisis, 1934–1941" --> "Yugoslavia in Crisis, 1934–1941"
  • place of publishing for the Shirer work?
  • "Boston, MA" --> "Boston, Massachusetts" for consistency

Comments Support from Factotem

[edit]

On prose:

Background

  • I didn't really understand parts of this paragraph. If I understand correctly, Yugoslavia's main problem was that it was an amalgamation of diverse national and religious groups, and maybe something could be stated about this as a way of setting the scene for what follows? In particular, I don't really understand what ...the strong association between each national group and its dominant religion... means or why it was a contributory factor that made the country weak. You also talk about the dominance of the Serbs without really establishing that there was a significant(?) non-Serb population. I also don't understand what you're trying to say with ...this state of affairs was maintained by subverting the democratic system of government; in what ways was the democratic system subverted and how did this maintain the state of affairs?
  • Added a new para to start, including the national breakdown and distribution of the dominant religions, and added that political bribery was the main method of subversion. Also a bit on the Vidovdan Constitution and control of patronage and government appointments by Serbs. Is this an improvement? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure builds

  • No need to restate the year of Anschluss here.
  • ... which undermined the hard-won balance in Yugoslav politics that government represented When you write "that government", are you referring specifically to the Cvetković government? If so, it should be "that that government" (double "that"). As currently written, you're referring to the institution of government (as opposed, say, to anarchy) and not any specific government.

Responsibility for the coup

  • Simović's response to Mirković's claims was published posthumously, he claimed... "he claimed" is the start of a separate sentence. It needs either a full stop preceding it, or a conjunction.
  • In the first sentence of the third para, Stafford appears to be denying any British involvement beyond support (which I read to be only moral support). Then in the second sentence it states that Radoje Knežević vehemently denied any British involvement... (basically agreeing), as if it is contradicting Stafford's position, and that Stafford apologises for an error that, by my reading, never existed. We then read about Tasovac's assertions of British involvement. All a bit confusing.
  • Stafford says the British supported the plot (perhaps with intelligence and encouragement if Tasovac is taken into account), but that they weren't involved in initiating it or carrying it out. I imagine that Radoje Knežević was sensitive about the suggestion that the British were in any way involved or should receive any credit for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a little unclear to me. Would "...although supported with British intelligence, the "[i]nitiative came from the Yugoslavs, and only by a stretch of the imagination can the British be said to have planned or directed the coup d'etat."[76] Radoje Knežević vehemently denied any British involvement at all in a series of published letters between himself and Stafford, until in 1979, Stafford apologised for his error and for any offence caused to Radoje Knežević. In 1999, Ivo Tasovac criticised Stafford's revised conclusion, pointing to evidence that the plotters were dependent on British intelligence..." be an accurate representation of the sources? This makes it clear how British support was rendered, the nature of Knežević's opposition, and that Tasovac is then weighing in on the dispute between Stafford and Knežević in favour of Stafford's original position. I also think that there was an incorrect use of the personal pronoun "he", which I've amended above to "himself". Factotem (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Suggestion adopted, except I included encouragement as well as intelligence in the first bit. Thanks, sometimes it is hard to see the wood for the trees... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new government

  • 5th para, ...holding its position at the countries' border Do you mean countries' (plural) here, or was Romania asked only to hold at Yugoslavia's border (i.e. "country's border")?
  • On 4 April, Maček travelled to Belgrade and accepted the post,[65] on several conditions; that the new government... Not sure that that comma before ref #65 is correct, and "on several conditions" introduces a list, so I think that the semi-colon should be a colon and each of the conditions then listed should end with a semi-colon.

That's all for now. Factotem (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Factotem, I think I might have addressed your comments thus far? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. No issues on prose here now. Factotem (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial source review (spotchecks not completed)

  • I scanned through (rather than completed a detailed review of) the English language publishers and could find nothing obviously amiss with the reliability of sources used. Cannot comment on the foreign language sources.
  • You identify two refs as Novosti, which I initially could not find in the references section. I wonder if it would be better to identify these by the authors instead? Not a huge issue.
We use {{cite book}} in the list of sources used, which places the author's last name first in the listing, and then name the author in the inline citation. I looked through the sources thinking Novosti was a person and could not find it until I used a page search function. That's all I was referring to. Like I say, not a huge issue. Factotem (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location info for Pickle Partners Publishing lacks city, but when I searched for this Google gave two suggested searches for finding this info, neither of which actually did.

I googled both web and books for "yugoslavia coup 1941" and parsed the first three pages of results. The web search did not reveal any significant sources not already used. The books search revealed the following:

  • It is a little old for specific details, but I believe when I looked at it in snippet it said something about Ristić being Simović's aide, so I think I put it aside as insufficiently independent of the subject. Nonetheless, I have asked at WP:RX for a copy of a book review from 1968 just to see what it concludes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have this now, and it is equivocal to say the least, and confirms that Ristić was Simović's aide de camp, so pretty close to the action himself, even if the reviewer says he maintains some distance and objectivity. Apparently it has a lot of detail on the post-coup period to 6 April, but apparently whatever it provides on the background is covered adequately in Hoptner etc. I won't get a chance to head to a local uni that holds a copy for a week or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm not inclined to make an issue of it here given the age, proximity to events and what you say about Hoptner et al, but I imagine it needs to be addressed one way or the other if it's not to cause problems at FAC, if that's where you're going with this article. Factotem (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945 by Jozo Tomasevich (2002) ISBN 9780804779241 (you actually use a 2001 edition with different ISBN) From Gbooks preview, pp. 47–49 has a little more detail about the German attitude to Yugoslavia which is not fully brought out in the article. It states that Germany was content to leave Yugoslavia be as long as it served German aims, that Yugoslavia was an important trading partner, and that Hitler regarded the the Yugoslav army as too strong to justify the effort to subdue it militarily. This attitude changed as a direct result of the coup, which prompted fears that the British would use bases in Yugoslavia to harass the southern flank of Germany's attack on Russia. Tomasevich also adds a little more detail on the German thinking about Croatian independence than you appear to have in the article.

That's me done now. Factotem (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria. This is progressing pretty well, so would you mind having a look at the images? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


This is the capstone to this topic, the articles for which I wrote last year - this list includes all of the ironclads that the Ottoman Empire ordered or built, including those that were purchased by other countries before completion. Despite their limited finances, the Ottomans were able to amass a fairly respectable ironclad fleet in the 1860s, though decades of neglect and little to no training rendered it effectively useless when war with Greece came in 1897. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list! Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Nate, just a few minor comments from me. Otherwise looks pretty good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no duplicate links or dab links (no action required)
  • the images lack alt text, and although it isn't a requirement for A-class, it can help vision impaired users: [44]
    • Added alt text, though I never know what's particularly useful.
  • in the Avnillah class section, is there a reference for the dates when the ships were laid down and commissioned?
    • Good catch, added
  • Wilmott appears in the Notes, but not in the References
    • Added
  • in the References, is there an OCLC number for the Beehler work?
    • Added
  • in the References, the ISBN for the Greene work should be hyphenated for consistency
    • Done
  • Sorry, one more: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I would advise using harv refs, but still. –Vami_IV✠ 10:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Osmaniye and Feth-i drawings
    • I scaled up the former and cropped out all of the white space in the latter, which should have fixed the problem.
  • File:Ottoman_ironclad_fleet.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, this might not be usable. The photo is credited as having been donated to the NHHC in 1982, but there's no information on the provenance of it. I haven't been able to track down a publication in contemporary periodicals as of yet, so I'll pull it until I can find a publication (if I can). Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the second time I've nominated an article on a British general for A class, the first being Boy Browning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye. Nice work, as usual. I only a couple of minor points from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

support comments by auntieruth

[edit]
  • I don't understand the last sentence of the lead. Baron of Oakridge of Oakridge,....
    But it is correct. See the gazette. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • this text: Kenya was threatened by Italy's declaration of war on Britain on 10 June 1940, as Kenya was a British colony, and Italy occupied neighbouring Ethiopia and Somalia. ....Italy's occupation of Ethiopia and Somalia posed a direct threat to neighboring Kenya after the declaration of war on 10 June 1940....?
    I don't see what the problem is. The point is that not everyone will know that Kenya was a British colony, or that Somalia and Ethiopia had been occupied by Italy since 1888 and 1935 respectively. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • more later....auntieruth (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel ridiculously stupid about this, but I'm still stumbling around "as" (causality) and "as" (preposition, ie., role of). Kenya was threatened by Italy's declaration of war on Britain on 10 June 1940, as Kenya was a British colony, and Italy occupied neighbouring Ethiopia and Somalia. Kenya, a British colony, was threatened by.... because Italy occupied neighbouring Ethiopia and Somalia... ????
    I don't see the problem with the use of "as" as a conjunction meaning (according to the Wiktionary) "considering that" or "because". Changed to "because". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a lot of uses of "as" for causality (they moved a lot because of his father's military postings), "as" meaning role (posted as a lieutenant), and "as" generally prepositional
    The first is not causality, but in its other meaning of "when". The word is also used in the article in its sense of a comparison ("as far") Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-war Germany was in ruins, and the British Zone was more industrial than the other zone, containing the devastated Ruhr area... Needs a better causal link to the food shortages and need for American grain, etc. How about: Although large swathes of post-war Germany lay in ruins, the British Zone, which contained the devastated Ruhr industrial region, was particularly affected. Britain's near bankruptcy needs a better tie in to the resulting trade agreement with US, and eventual creation of Bizonia.
    I have re-worded the paragraph to address this. Let me know what you think. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy was amazing!! Let me know what you think.... Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
just noticed that the second Carter volume doesn't have an oclc #. auntieruth (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Ruth, I'm pretty sure it doesn't have one, unfortunately. This issue came up in an earlier ACR, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British logistics in the Normandy Campaign. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye, apologies, I meant to get to this earlier but it fell off my radar. Support, with just a handful of nitpicks:

  • Maybe make more of who his father was? William Robertson is famous for his role as CIGS during the First World War and for being the only man to hold every rank in the army. I know this of only limited relevance but it feels like you're understating his credentials.
    Added a bit more. I presume he's really famous in the UK. I didn't want to get too bogged down on this, as he does have his own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe explain the distinction between Woolwich and Sandhurst, ie that Woolwich was for gunners and sappers?
    Yes, Sandhurst for infantry and cavalry, Woolwich for sappers and gunners. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did he do to earn his various decorations? The MC in particular is a significant award.
    Unfortunately, the MC was gazetted in 1918 New Years Honours list, so it is not even specified if it was for a particular act. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to appeals for assistance from Britain, the new Prime Minister, Jan Smuts Clarify whose prime minister Smuts is.
    Of South Africa. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parsecboy

[edit]

What? He's not a mad scientist?

NFUR on that looks good to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy can you confirm if you are supporting now? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we're good to go on the images now. Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Parsecboy (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D

[edit]

Interesting choice of article here!

It came from British logistics in the Normandy Campaign. My sources talked a lot about people in their positions, but did not name them. So I decided to do so, and in tracking them down generated enough material to create short articles on Miles Graham and Gerry Feilden. The sources on Graham frequently referenced Robertson, and I found a biography on my shelf. So I expanded this article too.

I have the following comments:

  • Do we know for what reason Robertson received so many awards in 1917 and early 1918? Is the article's commentary that the corps front was quiet a hint that they may have had more to do with who his father was than Robertson's efforts? (the Romanian medal seems rather odd!)
    Unfortunately, the military cross citation has not survived, and even a quiet sector on the Western Front could be very dangerous. Foreign awards from minor Allied powers were generally used as an additional form of honours, and many soldiers received them. The May 1917 mention in despatches was for drawing up march tables for artillery batteries so they could be constantly on the move in order to deceive the Germans. (Williamson, p. 14) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More broadly, the huge number of awards he received during the war as a junior staff officer seems surprising. Do any authors discuss his performance? (given his later career, he was presumably pretty good, even leaving aside his father's role)
    Was it? It is sort of hard for me to tell, as I'm always writing up the best and brightest. I am reminded of the first class at Camberley Staff College after the war; the entire class had earned the DSO, many had the MC as well, and several had the VC. Where his career deviates from the usual path is his being appointed ADC to Haking, and for that we know that his father pulled some strings. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem like a lot, but my main point of reference is John Treloar (museum administrator) who seems to have been more of a clerk than a high performing staff officer. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why it took almost two years to build a gravel road in India? Presumably it was over very rugged terrain.
    Added: "The road traversed some of the most remote, rugged and inhospitable terrain in India." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The outbreak of the Second World War in Europe in September 1939 prompted Hertzog to resign rather than support the war, but Robertson did," - the phrasing here is a bit unclear. I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest replacing "dumping programme" with a less technical term (as readers might think it refers to disposing of supplies, not stockpiling them)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Robertson also had to deal with General Dwight Eisenhower's Allied Forces Headquarters, (AFHQ), where Major General Humfrey Gale was the Chief Administrative Officer, and with GHQ Middle East, although it was not under AFHQ, because most of the Eighth Army's support still derived from there." - this sentence is a bit over-complicated
    Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what Fortbase and FLAMBO were abbreviations for?
    FLAMBO apparently stands for AFHQ Advanced Administrative Echelon but I don't see how that was derived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...no. The place where I work once had a committee where no-one at all knew what it's name meant, so perhaps the same happened here. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know whether Robertson's family joined him in Germany and the Middle East after the war, or where they still in South Africa?
    They arrived in Berlin on 11 August 1946. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Robertston advocated for the Berlin airlift? Was this due to him being confident, as a logistician, that it was feasible, or concerns about the unwisdom of trying to push a road convoy through (or both?)
    No, as a logistician, Robertson believed that it was not feasible. However, he believed that it would buy time for a negotiated solution. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936 was due to expire in 1956, and British troops would then have to leave Egypt. This, they were reluctant to do." - I'd suggest tweaking this to clarify that it was the British government which was unwilling to depart Egypt. Given the poor morale in the British Army at this time, I suspect that many of the troops would have liked to have gone home.
    I would have preferred Egypt myself. The weather is nicer and the food is better, and not rationed. Expanded this a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed - great work here. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

19th Mechanized Division (Greece)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

19th Mechanized Division (Greece) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A short-lived formation that was swept aside by the German Panzers, this was the Greek Army's first attempt at a modern, mechanized formation, although in reality it was an ad hoc assortment of equipment and men. Its story does however encapsulate the conditions in which Greece fought in April 1941. The article passed GA last year, and I've added a few details and tweaked around since. I think the article is complete, comprehensive, and as easy to follow as possible. Any recommendations for improvement are of course welcome. Constantine ✍ 18:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support

In generally good shape as-is.

  • I made some edits to spread out some of the larger paragraphs, breaking them at obvious points where the topic changed.
  • Citing is good, but I can't read Greek and others are dead-tree so I can't really delve into that too much.
  • Images are all appropriately labelled, but it could use another two or three in the lower part of the body where it is currently just a big block of text.
  • Perhaps there are images of the 2nd Panzer in Greece, even if they were not part of this battle?

Other than that, good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Maury Markowitz for taking the time, and for your edits. I've found a nice and suitable pic of the 2nd Panzer, taken just a few days after the events described in the article, but still relevant. Any suggestions beyond ACR requirements? Hopefully the article was easy to follow... Constantine ✍ 14:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining suggestion I have is to move the 2nd PZ image down one section so it's a little closer to the "correct date". Other that that I think the article is great as it is, I found it easy to read and understand - which can be a real problem in some "action diaries". Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild Not a lot to say about this other than: Well done, what a stunning article. Nevertheless:

  • "which resulted in two falling out of action and considerable wear on the rest, especially in view of the almost complete lack of spare parts." I don't think that the lack of spare parts made the wear worse, which is how I read the sentence. Maybe: "...exacerbated by the almost complete lack..."?
  • "With the onset of the German offensive on 6 April, the division assumed covering TSAM's left flank up to Lake Doiran" reads a little oddly. "Assumed" doesn't really work. 'Started'? 'Commenced'?
  • "First German probing attacks during the night were successfully repelled." "First" should be 'Initial' or 'The first'.
  • The 2nd para of the article proper, ending "Despite its designation, therefore, the Mechanized Cavalry Regiment was actually a motorized infantry rather than a mechanized infantry unit." needs a cite. I assume Blau or Stockings and Hancock.
    • I think that the distinction between "motorized" and "mechanized" can be assumed to be common knowledge for military-related articles. BTW, neither Blau nor Stockings and Hancock have been used to reference the distinction, but rather the use of different terminology in foreign (English) literature. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cplakidas: Certainly the understanding of the distinction can be assumed. I think that I was unclear. You are stating a fact, without a cite, which I consider to be OR. "...the Mechanized Cavalry Regiment was actually a motorized infantry rather than a mechanized infantry unit." As it stands that is your opinion, or perhaps logical conclusion from the sources. As it happens I agree. However, if it is not backed up by a source it shouldn't be there. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I sort of disagree, it is more of a clarification of the use of a term that has a specific technical meaning; that is not quite WP:OR. Anyhow, I am removing it as it is not exactly vital to the article. Constantine ✍ 13:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a few copy edit changes. Revert anything you don't like.

A good read - flows nicely. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your edits and the suggestions, which have mostly been implemented. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Constantine, this article looks pretty good to me. I fixed a couple of typos and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Katerini is overlinked in the Combat history section
  • slightly inconsistent presentation: compare "03:00" with "7:00", "4:00", "2:30" and "4:30"
  • slightly inconsistent capitalisation: compare "14th and 18th infantry divisions" with "19th and 20th Divisions"
  • "British commander Henry Maitland Wilson": rank for Wilson?
  • "Maj. Gen. Lioumbas" --> just "Lioumbas" as his rank has already been introduced per MOS:SURNAME
  • the information in the last sentence of the lead isn't covered in the body; it is cited, so that is fine, but I'd suggest adding it to either the final part of the Combat history section or you could create a short Legacy section
  • in the Sources section, I suggest translating the titles of the Christodoulou works for consistency with the General Staff work
  • in the Sources section, is there an ISBN, OCLC or ISSN for the Christodoulou and General Staff works?
Hi AustralianRupert, thanks a lot for taking the time to review. All suggestions are good and have been implemented. On the last, I was unable to find anything on the Ippiko-Tethorakismena journal, which isn't surprising since it is a limited-circulation professional journal (which I was lucky to find hosted online), and there is none on the General Staff work, since it is an internal army publication (formally it is a military regulations document classified under training instructions) for issue to units, schools, etc. I am adding a link to it though, hosted at the Cavalry–Armour Retired Officers Union, as such documents are not inherently under copyright. Constantine ✍ 07:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, your changes look good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, this review looks like it is almost ready to be closed. Would you mind taking a look at the images? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've removed the phot in question from the article. Constantine ✍ 10:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • This source (p. 86) and this source p. 210 also call it the "19th Motorized Division". So the alternative, perhaps "more accurate" name might as well be given an honorable mention.
    • It is already mentioned in a footnote, but given the persistent use of the name in English sources, I've chosen to move it into the main text
  • Lioumbas fled with some of his officers into the hills instead of surrendering his person, which I think is relevant to mention.
    • This is already mentioned in the very last section, "The division's commander, chief of staff, and a few other officers chose instead to withdraw to the area of Chalkidiki".
  • What happened to the surviving armoured vehicles after the surrender?
    • Not much really survived, but I cannot find any reference to this either way. The Germans probably made use of trucks etc, but I cannot really verify this.
  • The 19th Mechanized Division is considered the first major Greek mechanized formation Considered by who, the modern Greek army, historians? It should be specified.
    • Clarified now.
  • Are there any cemeteries or monuments that commemorate this unit?
    • I could not find anything unit-specific in the references, in the Hellenic Army's memorial database, or online. Most of the short-lived units of the 1940-41 war are not really well known or commemorated.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: hi and thanks for taking the time to review. I've tried to answer the points you raised above. Any further comments or suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 10:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All my comments are addressed, now supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Reginald Judson

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Reginald Judson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

For your consideration at A-Class, I present Reginald Judson, another one of New Zealand's WWI Victoria Cross recipients. He was awarded the VC having already received the Military Medal and the Distinguished Conduct Medal; all three medals were awarded as a result of action across a four-week period in July/August 1918. I have done some expansion work in recent weeks and the article went through a GA review last month. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and hopefully seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chetsford

[edit]

What a very nicely composed and comprehensive article. I support it! I have a few optional comments ...

  • MOS:LEADLENGTH says that articles fewer than 15K characters should have a lead of one or two paragraphs; this is just over 7K characters and has a three paragraph lead.
  • It doesn't appear there's an ALT for the image in the infobox.
  • In the section "interwar period" the acronym NZEF is invoked without previously being used in full form in the article. That said, on further review of MOS:ABBR this is, surprisingly, not a requirement.
  • Unable to return to his civilian trade of engineering due to his poor health, he subsequently found employment as a secretary at a school in Auckland. - I feel like the "his" prior to "poor health" may not be necessary and makes the sentence a bit choppy. But that's just personal opinion.
  • In September, Judson was a victim of a gassing attack and returned to England to recover his health. - Should that be "gas attack" instead of "gassing attack"? I may be wrong but I thought an "-ing" verb could only follow an infinitive and not visa versa.

Chetsford (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Chetsford: many thanks for the review, although I understood your comments to be optional, I have actioned them as I saw all of them as improvements. Thanks again for the feedback, much appreciated. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Zawed, nice work. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "firstly at Cambridge and then at Aldershot": maybe clarify here that he did not return to the front before the war came to an end?
  • "Kate Wilson": is this name correct? The Taylor source says "Kate Marion Lewis (née Bailey)"
  • in the Second World War section, the capitalisation and grammar of "Guards Vital points Battalion" seems a little off. Is this how it is presented in the source? Grammatically it would probably be "Vital Points Guards Battalion", I'd have thought, but obviously we have to go with whatever the Army decided to name it officially.
  • in the same section, perhaps mention that he had to lie about his age to volunteer again, per Taylor
  • as the Second World War and Later life sections are very short, I'd suggest merging them together
  • one of his sons appears to have predeceased him, was this during the Second World War?
  • in the Citations, there is some inconsistency in how you present "New Zealand Herald" (see # 7 and 10) v "nzherald". IMO, citation 7 is probably the better style, unless they are to be treated as different sources, in which case I'd suggest changing it to "nzherald.co.nz"
  • "These were James Crichton, a private at the time, Harry Laurent and John Grant, both second lieutenants": I wasn't quite sure of the wording here. Perhaps: "These were James Crichton, a private at the time, and Harry Laurent and John Grant, both second lieutenants." or " These were Private James Crichton and Second Lieutenants Harry Laurent and John Grant."

Image review

  • Pretty sure that the image is that which was published in 1921 in an official history. Rather than edit the image, which is a WP file with a fair use tag, I have uploaded a replacement image to WikiCommons and used that in the infobox instead. Thanks for the image check. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

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

Article promoted by Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The bombing of Tokyo in the early hours of 10 March 1945 was the single most destructive air raid of World War II, including the two nuclear bomb attacks. A total of 279 B-29 heavy bombers dropped a vast number of incendiary bombs which had specifically been designed to start uncontrollable fires on one of the most densely populated urban areas in the world. The weak Japanese air and civil defences had no chance against this force. Driven by strong winds, a firestorm rapidly developed which destroyed much of the city within hours. Civilians who didn't, or were unable to, flee had little chance of survival. It's generally believed that 90,000 to 100,000 people were killed, and another one million made homeless. And this was just the start of the firebombing campaign against Japanese cities which continued until the end of the war.

I've long been annoyed that we didn't have an article specifically on this attack, and took matters into my own hands and created it earlier this year. Surprisingly, as far as I can see it's the first article focused on this raid on any language Wikipedia. It passed a GA review in April, and I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are also met. Thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Check that all details in the infobox are sourced - eg the number of anti-aircraft guns. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's sourced in the second para of the 'Japanese defenses' section. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I was looking for the exact number not the addition. Fair enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Nick, a pretty awful aspect of the war, to be honest, and not very uplifting to read. That said, the article is very well done, IMO. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there appears to be a mix of US and Australian English, e.g. "defence" or "defense", "antiaircraft" or "anti-aircraft", "authorised", "finalised", but also "labor" etc
  • in the Works consulted section, suggest adding a page range for the Coox chapter in Cooling?
  • same as above for Selden?
  • some isbns are hyphenated, and others are not
  • is there an OCLC number for the Monography No. 157
  • the infobox mentions 14 aircraft destroyed, but in the article it says "Japanese gunners shot down 12 B-29". Did I miss two others somewhere else?
  • "LORAN systems the B-29s used to navigate was more" --> " LORAN systems the B-29s used to navigate were more"
  • "Tokyo on the night of 29/30 November": it might pay to include the year here
  • "pilots deciding to abort the fight due to anxiety about their prospects of surviving the mission": not sure if this is covered elsewhere, but were there any consequences to these combat refusals?
    • The source doesn't say unfortunately. Various other sources note that morale in XXI Bomber Command was pretty fragile throughout much of the air campaign against Japan, but I haven't seen any discussion about the results of refusals. Given how mechanically unreliable the B-29 was, I imagine it was pretty easy for pilots to convincingly manufacture a reason to abort. Thanks a lot for your comments - I agree that the article is heavy going to read, and it was pretty bad to write as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I completed the GA review for this article last month and looking at the changes since then, am satisfied that it meets the criteria for A-Class. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Looks good to me. The only suggestion I have is to move note 1 into the text, but it's up to you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Indy beetle

[edit]

Just wondering, there are two potential COMMONNAMES for this event, Operation Meetinghouse and Great Tokyo Air Raid. Why choose the more ambiguous "Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)"? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because neither name is dominant. The event tends to be referred to as the 'Bombing of Tokyo' or similar, despite it only being part of a much broader campaign against the city. Operation Meetinghouse tends to be used only in military history works published in the US, and the Great Tokyo Air Raid in works focused on the Japanese perspective, and even then it's not dominant. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria would you mind checking the licensing of the images used? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Tokyo_kushu_1945-4.jpg: possible to translate the source information?
    • Done (AGF that the Japanese-language editors looked into this correctly. It seems highly probable that the photo would have been published during or soon after the war as stated). Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dwelling_of_Remembrance_memorial_in_Yokoamicho_Park_October_2008.jpg: suggest including creator/designer if known. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yeomanry Cavalry

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Yeomanry Cavalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers an interesting period in the history of the yeomanry, from its formation during the French Revolutionary Wars in 1794 until it was absorbed into the Territorial Force in 1908 shortly before the First World War. During this period, this uniquely aristocratic institution was transformed from a key bastion against civil unrest to amateur cavalry of questionable military value before finding salvation in the failure of the professional British military system in the Second Boer War. I hope my efforts are worthy. Looking forward to comments. Factotem (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Painting titles should be italicized
  • File:Westminster_cavalry.jpg: possible to provide a more authoritative source?
  • File:A_Review_of_the_London_Volunteer_Cavalry_and_Flying_Artillery_in_Hyde_Park_in_1804.tif: based on the source, this isn't CC0 but PD due to copyright expiration. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the painting images display the title of the painting in the caption.
Westminster Cavalry: I've found the original source published online, and changed the source URL in Commons to that. Also added source for biographical info of the artist.
Flying Artillery in Hyde Park: I've changed the tag to PD-1923, which satisfies US copyright. There's no explicit publication date in the source, but it does give a date of "ca.1804" and states the creator to be "unknown artist, eighteenth century", so I've added PD-Old, which I'm hoping satisfies UK copyright (assuming, of course that it's a British work. Common sense says it is, but it's not asserted anywhere).
Does this answer your concerns? Factotem (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the image description, A Review of the London Volunteer Cavalry and Flying Artillery in Hyde Park in 1804 is the painting title. Is that not the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that was an arbitrary title applied by Yale, rather than the original title of the work. Seems a bit long, but I'll put it in italics. Factotem (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Have I done enough now, or are there any issues with the images still needing attention? Factotem (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I looked at this during the Peer Review, and I believe the article meets our standards. Some minor bits:

  • "particuarly" is mispelt
re-spelt
  • "datapoints" should be "data points"? (Back then, they would have written it correctly as "datum points")
re-wrote correctly
  • Should "Autumn" be capitalised?
No, and no longer is
  • "maintained at vast expense; In peace a charge" Should "In" be capitalised?
Not sure. He's quoting a poem, and "In" was the start of a new line, but it loses that when translated to narrative. I believe we're allowed to make inconsequential, cosmetic changes to quoted text, so I've decapitalised it.
  • "A commission in the yeomanry's officer corps entailed expenses which, for a troop captain in 1892, was on average £60 per year" Since there is more than one expense, it should be "were on average"?
It should indeed
  • What is "hair powder duty"?
They used powder to whiten their wigs, so Pitt taxed it so that he could afford to fight the Frenchies. Astonished to find an article on it, so linked now.
Me too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: really nice work, in my opinion. Thanks for your efforts. I have a few comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is one disambig link, but in this case I feel it is acceptable (no action required)
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • the images lack alt text, and while it isn't a requirement, you might consider adding it as it can be useful to some readers
  • in the lead, suggest maybe splitting this sentence: Although social status was a significant factor... as it seems a bit too complex
  • in the lead, it wasn't until a: it is generally best to avoid contractions in formal writing
  • Royal Gloucestershire Hussars is overlinked
  • this sentence is slightly awkward: Once prosperous towns that had become de-populated... Suggest maybe rewording as follows: While once prosperous towns that had become de-populated – the so-called rotten and pocket boroughs – were still able to elect Members of Parliament, while major new towns such as Birmingham and Manchester were not represented.
  • which the 'Gentlemen and Yeomanry Cavalry', as it was then called...: I believe the MOS prefers double quotes
  • called out ('embodied')... same as above. There are a few other examples in the article elsewhere, also
  • became in 1967 the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve (TA&VR) --> became the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve (TA&VR) in 1967?
  • citation # 148: for consistency, I suggest splitting the explanatory note from the citation here, moving the note to the Footnotes section
  • Fox is listed in the Bibliography, but does not appear to be specifically cited. Suggest moving it to a Further reading section
  • in the Bibliography, is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research?
  • potentially the article could be added to a couple more categories: Category:Military units and formations established in 1794 and Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1908
Thank you. I've addressed all comments as suggested. Just one thing on the use of quote characters as you've mentioned this in a review of previous articles. I use single quote marks as simple glosses to denote a foreign or strange term. In this article, I've removed all but one instance as they weren't really necessary, but I've left 'new money' in, with single quotes, as this is an unusual term. I believe that's an appropriate usage of single quotes. Factotem (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
And again, thank you for catching my careless mistakes. Fixed now. Factotem (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67

[edit]

A few nitpicks:

  • link food riot in the lead and at first mention in the body (or just the latter)
Is this really necessary? Food riot does not seem to me to offer any great insight, and there is no article on the specific food riots discussed in this article.
  • a bit more linking is needed for the non-British reader, Birmingham, Manchester, various counties
Done.
  • were they not subject to military law while embodied outside of an invasion scenario?
Apparently not. The source specifically constrains the application of military law only to service in the event of invasion. Not covered in the article, but members of the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry were put on trial after Peterloo, which tends to suggest that the yeomanry was not subject to military law when called out in support of the civil authorities.
  • "in the years leading up to the end of the war" which war? Specify and link.
Could be either the French Revolutionary Wars or the Napoleonic War. The source does not make it clear, so I've amended the narrative to say simply "...wars with France"
  • in what ways did the Volunteer Consolidation Act make service more attractive? Other than avoiding being compelled to serve in the militia?
The Act is covered in more detail in the "Funding, remuneration and terms of service" section. The narrative in the "Early 19th century legislation and decline" which you're questioning here reflects the source, which devotes a half-page paragraph to how corps emphasised the militia exemption in their efforts to recruit and how one person joined the yeomanry specifically to gain the exemption.
  • suggest "in Manchester attending a rally for parliamentary reform" it currently reads as if they wanted parliamentary reform in Manchester.
Made the same mistake in earlier revisions and thought I had fixed this. How does it look now?
  • suggest "18 Radicals", as Radical is a proper noun. Also later in Popular perception.
Done
  • it the "Battle of Bonnymuir" likely to be notable in its own right? Wondering about a redlink. Should it be in quotes?
No. It was little more than a scuffle, and not actually anything resembling a battle. There's no sources that I've seen that would meet notability guidelines for its own article. You're right about the quotes, though, and 'tis done.
  • perhaps explain where Monmouth and Chepstow are, county-wise. Link?
  • link Hindon and also where the "Battle of Pythouse" occurred?
Not sure about these. The references to Monmouth, Chepstow and Hindon are in relation to troops of yeomanry, and not the towns. Seems a bit easter-eggish to link them to towns. I've added "In south Wales..." to the sentence which covers the first two, and the Hindon Troop is clearly identified as part of the Wiltshire Yeomanry. Fair?
  • suggest "In Wales, the Glamorgan Yeomanry..."
Done
  • suggest "the use of force was applied sparingly"
Done
  • perhaps mention that Fitzhardinge was Member for Bristol?
Done
  • perhaps mention that Airlie was Scottish? This and the above to show general attitudes across Britain.
Done
  • link reconnaissance
Done
  • "brigaded" is military jargon, perhaps a note explaining it per Wiktionary entry for brigade?
Re-worded to "organised into brigades" and linked to Brigade on first mention earlier in the article.
  • suggest updating "equivalent to £5,988 in 2016" to 2018, and elsewhere, particularly if this is going to FAC soon.
This is an automated function of the Inflation template used to produce the conversions. 2016 appears to be the most recent year for which data is available, and I have no means of controlling it.
  • "there would be class friction"
Done
  • "this was after of a gradual shift"?
Done
  • "military General Staff" seems redundant?
Done

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Much appreciated. I think I've addressed all points, but let me know if you think I should be doing more. Factotem (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

L 20e α-class battleship

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

L 20e α-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


Another ancient article I assumed would be stuck at GA level (in fact, the one article I figured would be the stumbling block to turning this into a completely FA Featured Topic), but with the acquisition of some new sources, I've been able to develop it into something fairly decent. This covers the German post-Jutland battleship designs, which ultimately came to nothing as a result of their defeat in World War I. Thanks to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Nate, looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "World War I" is overlinked in the lead
    • Fixed
  • in the lead, but the by that time: typo
    • Good catch
  • there are no dabs or disambig links
  • 20th century, German embarked: typo
    • Fixed
  • the Ersatz Yorcks and heavier armor: missing possessive apostrophe in "Yorcks"
  • the images lack alt text, and although this isn't a requirement, you might consider adding it as it can be useful for some users
    • Added to both
  • in the infobox it mentions that the belt armor reduced to 130 mm (5.1 in), but I couldn't find these figures in the body
    • Probably a typo - good catch
  • in the infobox it provides a range of 150 mm to 350 mm for the conning tower; however, the body indicates a range of 250 to 400 mm?
    • Corrected
  • in the References, are there any page numbers for the chapter or article by Campbell in Preston's work?
  • in the References, is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Mulligan work in The Journal of Military History? Also, are there any page numbers for this article?

Support Comments: Some comments/suggestions below. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: I don't think it necessary to have the date of the Battle of Jutland or perhaps if you need some context rephrase to "fought later that year"
    • Good idea
  • Background section: suggest replacing "be superior to either British class" with "be superior to these," since it is clear that the comparison is to the British ships
    • Sounds good
  • Background section: "then also being developed", this phrasing doesn't sound quite right, suggest "then under development"
    • Works for me
  • Development and cancellation: missing word here, "By 11 September 1918, the selected the" Perhaps RMA?
    • Looks like Keith already fixed this.
  • Development and cancellation: note a, the first part doesn't explicitly refer to belt armour, but side armour. I assume the tapered bit is supposed to correspond to the "lower section". Also, the successive use of "below the waterline. Finally, the last sentence should that be 20e?
    • Corrected, and yes, 20e is right.
  • Dupe link: belt armor (the second usage is on "armored belt")

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

Image review the image licensing looks fine for the photo, and the NFUR looks good for the infobox diagram. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T7

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

T7 was another one of the dinky little Yugoslav torpedo boats that served under several flags over the best part of half a century. I've previously brought three of this class to ACR and hope this one is also up to snuff. It went through GA last year as part of a Good Topic. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: tidy little article, PM. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dup or dab links (no action required)
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • in the lead, built in 1915–16, per the newish guidance at WP:DATERANGE it should now be "1915–1916"
  • slightly inconsistent: "330 tonnes (320 long tons) fully loaded" (body) v. "330 t (325 long tons)" (infobox)
  • in the lead, I wonder if there should be an albeit brief sentence covering the inter-war period
  • In 1917, one of the 66 mm (2.6 in) guns on each boat... --> In 1917, one of the 66 mm (2.6 in) guns on each boat of the class...?
  • In 1920, under the terms of the previous year's Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye: I wonder if it should be clarified what this treaty was about (generally speaking)?
  • but no other significant alterations was made to her.... --> were made to her
  • in the References, the capitalisation of the title for Jarman 1997b is different to Jarman 1997a
  • in the References, should it be "Barnsley, Yorkshire"? for consistency with "Slough, Berkshire"?

Support - Very nice work on this article, I have nothing to comment on. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • She was driven aground by British motor torpedo boats in June 1944 and destroyed to prevent her salvage. It would probably help to clarify that the British destroyed it so the Axis couldn't salvage it.
  • Due to inadequate funding, 96 F and the rest of the 250t class were essentially coastal vessels, despite the original intention that they would be used for "high seas" operations. I guess this is a comment on their seaworthiness. What exactly does it entail, was the construction of a lower quality, were more durable materials too expensive?

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the authors mention is they were subject to "chronic underfunding". I imagine that meant that the design adopted was cheaper and had poorer sea-going properties than a more expensive design, but I don't know of a source that says that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All my concerns are addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Indy beetle! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria This one looks good to go. Would you mind confirming the image licensing is ok? I've used this one on other FA/A articles, so it should just be a formality. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, though I would suggest the URAA tag is redundant given the worldwide application of that UK copyright expiration. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Henry James Nicholas

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Henry James Nicholas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Continuing with my efforts to bring all of New Zealand's Victoria Cross recipients up to A-Class standard, I now nominate Henry Nicholas for A-Class. After receiving the VC, he went on to be awarded the Military Medal. Unfortunately, he was killed in action just a few weeks before the end of the war. I have done some expansion work in recent months and the article went through a GA review two months ago. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and hopefully seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Zawed. Thanks for your efforts with this. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • engagement with the enemy: probably best to avoid the word "enemy" here
  • in the infobox, shouldn't the years of service include his time in the Territorials?
  • is anything known of his parents? Did he have any siblings?
  • in the Early life section, the wording is a little repetitious: "schooling" appears in two sentences in a row
  • he joined the Territorial Force and served in the Field Engineers: probably best to clarify that the Territorial Force was part-time
  • in the second paragraph of the First World War section, I suggest clarifying that the Chateau was in the Ypres salient, to provide the reader with a little more context
  • Its Canterbury and Otago battalions attacked midday but was slowed by heavy machine-gun fire --> "attacked at midday but were"?
  • in the First World War section, I suggest that "The London Gazette" should be in italics
  • did the New Zealanders have a role during the Spring Offensive? If so, it might pay to mention briefly what his unit did during the early part of 1918
  • "won": sometimes this word draws criticism when it comes to gallantry awards. It might be best to replace it with "earned" or sometime similar
Done. @AustralianRupert: Thanks for your comments, I have dealt with them as noted above. There is one query as well. Zawed (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Henry_James_Nicholas.jpg: per the tag, you need to specify steps taken to try to ascertain authorship. Which of the rationales from that tag is believed to apply? What is the status of the work in the US?

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is in good shape. I have only a minor comment:

  • "He received the Victoria Cross for his actions during an attack on the Polderhoek Spur in early December 1917" - could the date be given as 3 December? Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese battleship Hyūga

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese battleship Hyūga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Built during World War I, Hyuga didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Hyuga's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and remnants of AmEng in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: G'day, Sturm, I started taking a look at this one, but then my fever got worse and I realised I probably shouldn't be reading something this technical in my current condition. Anyway, here are some observations from my flu addled brain. Apologies if some of it is wrong, I will try to come back when I feel a bit better: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a couple of examples of US English: "meters", "armor" and "draft"
  • inconsistent: "laid down...on 6 May 1915" (body) v. "Laid down: 16 May 1915" (infobox)
  • the infobox mentions 27 July 1945 as the date the ship ran aground, but I couldn't locate that in the body?
  • the length between perpendiculars doesn't seem to be in the body, so is uncited in the infobox
  • the standard load displacement only seems to be in the infobox
  • the infobox lists the ship's speed as 23 knots, but the body says 24 knots?
  • the infobox lists a complement of 1,198, but the body mentions 1,360 and 1,376?
  • the infobox lists 16 x 14 cm guns, but the body says twenty
  • inconsistent: "length to 215.8 metres (708 ft 0 in)" v. "Length: 216 m (708 ft 8 in)"

Comments Only a couple of minor comments:

Support Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • Rupert has picked up most of the technical things that came to my notice
  • were the secondary guns in single mounts? It says so in the infobox, but not in the body
    • Good catch.
  • suggest "According to the historian Mark Stille"
    • Howzabout "naval historian" instead?
  • the first reconstruction speed is 24.5 kn in the body, but 25 kn in the infobox
    • Good catch.
  • link Siberian Intervention and Second Sino-Japanese War in the body
    • Unless it's a really long article, I only link once per article.
  • technically you should probably spell out IJN at first mention in the body
    • Why? It's spelled out in the lede and that should suffice.
  • if there were a dozen of each aircraft, that doesn't add up to 22?
    • Correct, clarified that some of them were reserve aircraft, which may have been stowed partially dissassembled. Annoyingly, my sources aren't very clear on this.
  • once Matsuda is mentioned as being a Rear Admiral, you can drop the rank
    • Indeed.
  • Tantalus should probably be HMS, to be consistent with the USS used with the American ships
    • Good idea.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by lingzhi

[edit]

Lengerer 2009 in notes but not refs. Ditto Parshall & Tully. Whitley in refs but not notes. otherwise well done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: I've updated the publishing history to show that they were first published in 1974 thanks to a Japanese Wikipedian who looked them up for us. So we should be good now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did the earlier publication include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Why wouldn't it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Worldcat entry for the book if that helps any: [47] --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it did, we've still got an issue with that URAA tag per point one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This just keeps on getting better and better! Although I think that you mean bullet point 2. I'll ask the helpful Japanese Wikipedian to check.
I'd make the argument, though, that any copyright statement applies only to the text, as the photos were out of copyright by that date and asserting that they were is fraudulent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: As it's going to take a while to determine the true copyright status of these photos, I've replaced them so this review can be closed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Helicopter 66

[edit]
Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk)

Helicopter 66 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I hesitate to nominate this for A class review because it's a bit shorter than most here. That said, I would caveat that with the fact that this article is about a single helicopter that had a 6.5 year service history (with a notable service history of only 16 months) and a crew of four. Obviously this is unlike a battleship which might have a 30-year service life and a crew of a thousand or more so - despite 66's historical importance - there was simply never an equivalent amount of history created about which to write and I believe this article is a holistic and thorough representation of all information publicly available.

The article has just been passed to GA. I've also archived every online reference in the article to Perma.cc and added Alt tags to all images. Chetsford (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
Thanks, Lingzhi. I'm not sure what happened there; I've swapped out the source, though. Chetsford (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, interesting topic. I'm afraid aircraft aren't my forte, but I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox, "helicopter" --> "Helicopter"
  • "crashed and submerged" --> "Crashed and submerged"
  • "1968 - 1975": should be an unspaced endash rather than a hyphen
  • "Four - "the Black Knights" - was...": should be endashes rather than hyphens
  • "Yorktown - and Squadron Four - was": same as above
  • "achieving - in the words of Dwayne A. Day - the status...": same as above
  • "in the words of Dwayne A. Day": suggest clarifying who Day was here
  • in the lead, suggest wikilinking "NASA"
  • in the lead, I'm not sure about the wording of the second paragraph. I'd suggest maybe "The aircraft crashed in the Pacific Ocean in 1975 during a training exercise, and has not been recovered", or something similar.
  • the lead includes some information not in the body of the article, for instance the serial and construction number
  • if known, I'd suggest adding details about where the aircraft was constructed, and when its construction began
  • in the External links, the title should start with a capital 'T'
  • watch out for image sandwiching
  • hyphens to dashes in text and infobox
  • are there any details known about the amount of flying hours or operational sorties the aircraft undertook?
  • citation # 11: is there a page number for this?
  • citation # 16: "MANUELA - HELICOPTER U.S. NAVY 66 (SONG)" shouldn't be in all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • citation # 16 also should have some more bibliographic details such as accessdate, publisher etc.
  • was the design specifically modified SAR operations?
  • "File:Helicopter 66 Apollo 8.jpg": probably should have the date added to the date field on the image description page (I assumed 27 December 1968?)
  • "torpedos" --> "torpedoes"
Thanks very much for this for this thorough review. I've made all of these updates with the exception of its assembly location and special mods. I happen to know final assembly was at the Sikorsky facility in Stratford, Connecticut but, unfortunately, I can't cite this to a RS. As for special mods, I don't have any information that it was SAR-modified and, since it was simultaneously performing ASW missions, I think that may be the reason for the dearth of information on that point (i.e. that it was an unmodified 3D model). Chetsford (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, your changes look good. I tweaked the dashes and the only thing outstanding I think is the page number for the citation to RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (now citation # 13). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just added the page number! Chetsford (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • PD-USGov-NASA notes that use of emblems is restricted - are we following those restrictions? The text in the permissions field is concerning.
  • ""Helicopter_U.S._Navy_66".ogg exceeds the limits permitted by WP:SAMPLE and has an incomplete FUR - I don't think its use is justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria thanks much- I wasn't even aware of PD-USGov-NASA; I've removed the mission badges and sound sample (added external link in its place). Chetsford (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from CPA-5

[edit]

Good day i like the page it is an interesting page however i have some suggestions. CPA-5 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • How much is 120 knots?
  • Change historian Dwayne A. Day --> Historian Dwayne A. Day same with pilot Leo Rolek --> Pilot Leo Rolek
  • Ref 2 have an error.
  • Ref 11 have a paywall.
  • Ref 14 same as Ref 11.
  • Ref 19 |language=; is missing for German.
  • Ref 20 |language=; is wrong Flemish is not a language needs to remove and put Dutch as language.
  • Ref 21 |language=; is missing for Dutch.

continue review

  • Please add the (East Sea) next to Sea of Japan cause of disputed name.
  • German singer Manuela --> German Singer Manuela
  • Please add the job or rank of Donald S. Jones.
  • Is there page of the Anti-Submarine Air Group 59 if there is one please link it.
  • Who or what is Tom O'Hara can you link it/her/him if it's a him or her please add the job or rank.
CPA-5 - thanks very much for this. I've made all these corrections. Chetsford (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5 - I've made the second batch of edits. Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: G'day, in the interests of moving forward with this review, would you mind letting the nominator know if you are happy to support this article's promotion to A-class? Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford:,@AustralianRupert: G'day my apology for waiting so long the page looks good however this only need to change "in the words of space historian Dwayne A. Day" --> "in the words of space Historian Dwayne A. Day" if this is changed then i think the page is A. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5 - thanks so much. I'm not 100% sure "historian" is a proper noun, though? Chetsford (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: A historian is like a professor which both are high-ranked titles it's the same with a king or emporor before you say the full name. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5 I'm not going to make that edit as Day's title is not "Historian" (it's "Senior Program Officer for the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council"); the word is being invoked in this instance as a concrete noun, not a proper noun. Thanks very much for your review, however, in any case! Best - Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: May i ask you why the article call him "historian" if he is not. I mean if he isn't a "historian" then it should be removed from the article am i right. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, no problem. He is an historian, however, his title is not "Historian". Similarly, you are a human and it would be correct to say "I know the human CPA-5 edits Wikipedia". However, if I said "I know Human CPA-5 edits Wikipedia" that would indicate your official title is "Human" (which, I assume, it is not). Except in German (or maybe some other languages about which I'm not aware), the capitalization of a noun indicates it is being used as a proper noun. Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh i see, i guess its an A-class in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

I like interesting bits of history like this. Articles like this are the sort of thing we do so much better than traditional encyclopaedias. It's a nice article. Just a few comments:

  • Some context on why oceanic recovery of astronauts was necessary would be nice.
  • The phrase "took the stick again" seems a little too informal
  • What are kill marks?
  • However, recognizing the fame Helicopter 66 had achieved "However" is frowned upon on Wikipedia, perhaps excessively so but this use doesn't add much; I'd just remove the word—the sentence works fine without it.
  • repainting Helicopter 740 as Helicopter 66 for the subsequent recovery missions Strictly speaking, "later" might be more correct here than "subsequently"
  • The lead is a little short and could maybe do with another few sentences.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: in case you missed this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell - thanks very much for the ping and the review. I'll make these changes right now! Chetsford (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell - I've just made all these changes. For point 1, I added this explanation as a note. For point 3, I created a new article - victory marking - and added this as a wikilink. Let me know if I missed anything or you have any more suggestions and thanks again! Chetsford (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Neil Armstrong

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Kees08 (talk)

Neil Armstrong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 is coming up next year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, thanks for tackling such an important article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, becoming NASA's first civilian: suggest linking NASA here
  • working at the NACA's Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory: I don't think the abbreviation has been formally introduced at this point
  • this time even faster than the other engine's: the apostrophe here doesn't seem correct
  • a civilian project run by NASA: I wonder if it should be clarified here that NACA had been disolved and personnel transferred to NASA at this point?
  • the following terms appear to be overlinked: Glenn Research Center; Edwards Air Force Base; Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star; Nevada; Lockheed F-104 Starfighter; William H. Dana; Deke Slayton; Valentina Tereshkova; Gus Grissom; Ed White (astronaut); Roger B. Chaffee; Apollo Lunar Module; Lebanon, Ohio; David Scott; Gemini 8; Peter Conrad; Richard Nixon;
  • in the Notes, 288-289 should have an endash
  • in the Notes, several web citations seem to be missing accessdates, for instance # 153, 220 and 223
  • there is some inconsistency in date format, for instance January 8, 2013 v. 2013-08-27
  • citation # 129 and 215 probably need page numbers
    checkY All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Comments Support from Factotem

[edit]

Prose (nitpicky comments - treat with respect or disdain as you see fit)

  • Navy service
  • While making a low bombing run at about 350 mph (560 km/h), Armstrong's F9F Panther was hit by anti-aircraft fire. While trying to regain control... Bit of repetition with "while". Maybe start 2nd sentence with "In"?
    checkY Deleted the first "while" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Planning to eject over water and await rescue by Navy helicopters, he flew to an airfield near Pohang, but his parachute was blown back over land. There's a bit of a leap between returning to Pohang and events on bailing out here that makes it sound like he flew by parachute to Pohang. Maybe bridge the last two clauses with something like "...but after ejecting his parachute was blown back..."?
    checkY Deleted the bit about Pohang to tighten the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test pilot
  • Astronaut career : Gemini 8
  • It was later thought that damaged wiring made one of the thrusters become stuck in the on position Reads a bit clunky to me. Perhaps "It was later thought that damaged wiring resulted in one of the thrusters becoming stuck in the on position"?
    checkY Changed to "caused one of the thrusters to become stuck in the on position" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest "caused one of the thrusters to become stuck open"? That is how I would phrase it at my job. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Legacy

Sources

Personally, I have no problem with inconsistent ISBN formats. As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is to be able to locate the source, but it seems to be a thing at FAC. Factotem (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a partial review of the ISBN and OCLC links up to and including Hansen's work, and found some inconsistencies as follows:
The Worldcat entry linked to says "Publisher: New York : Griffin ; Godalming : Melia [distributor], 2009. Factotem (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
checkY My copy has a different cover; it shows Cernan on the Lunar rover. It was definitely published in 1999. Reset the iSBN/OCLC to my copy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chaikin's A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts. Penguin books. appears to have been published in 1994 according to the Worldcat record corresponding to the ISBN and OCLC given.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN link to the Worldcat entry for On the shoulders of titans : a history of project gemini shows a publication date of 2010.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general comment, is there a reason for including both ISBN and OCLC refs? It seems to generate a lot of inconsistencies, and I would have thought that ISBN refs were adequate.
    The idea of the OCLCs is to enable the readers to find copies in their local libraries. As a rule they are far more useful than the ISBNs, as not all books have them for a start, and to find other additions and locate copies it's easiest to go to WorldCat and search on the ISBN. The OCLCs suffer from lack of consistency and multiple OCLCs being allocated to the same book. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs #3 & #4 don't appear to support the statement that Armstrong had German roots.
    checkY added a source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a little concerned that ref #170 only supports the "If you shove..." quote, but not the preceding statements about refusing requests for autographs and the reasons why. Ref #171, at the end of that para, cites Hansen p. 623. I don't have access to that, and GBooks preview won't show that page for me, but it does tell me in the index that pp. 621-626 cover the issue of autographs, which is I'm guessing the source for those statements. Not sure if you want to adjust the referencing to avoid confusion about that.
    checkY Yes, that would be the correct source. I have a copy. Added a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, this one is otherwise ready to go. I wondered if you would mind checking the image licensing? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - We're discussing the use of NASA insignia in the John Glenn ACR wrt restrictions on use. Other images are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk), Hawkeye7 (talk)

John Glenn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This will be my second nomination for the John Glenn article. This first nomination was closed as no consensus, since it did not have sufficient supports to be promoted. I then nominated it for FA, which received a substantial amount of comments towards the end of the nomination I did not have time to address. I intend to add those comments into here, and address them. The article did not pass FA. I would like to get a successful A-class review to make the FA-review a little easier. Kees08 (Talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I had a look at this last time it was at ACR. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • at five paragraphs, the lead is one too many per WP:LEAD; I suggest trying to merge a paragraph or two
    • Merged the last one w/ the second to last one, let me know if that is fine. Merger seems to make sense. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Jim Betts is dab link
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, pp. 13-16": the hyphen should be an endash
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, pp. 167-169.": same as above
  • "Wolfe 1979, pp. 41-42": same as above
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, p. 111–117": should be a double p
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, p. 180–184": same as above
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, p. 204–206": same as above
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, pp. 189": should be a single p
  • Citation # 131 should have more bibliographic information, e.g. publisher, author, accessdate
  • "James Dean" --> "Dean, James"
  • " Almost Heaven: the Story..." --> " Almost Heaven: The Story..."
  • "organisation" --> "organization"
  • "and two and a half months of jet training at Cherry Point" --> "and after two and a half months of jet training at Cherry Point"
  • "specialisation" --> "specialization"
  • this needs a ref: "Metzenbaum won, 57 to 41 percent. In his 1980 reelection campaign, Glenn won by the largest margin ever for an Ohio Senator, defeating Jim Betts in 1980."
  • this seems like editorialising: "Predictably, there was some skepticism and concern about the effects of space travel on a septuagenarian, even though Glenn would not have to perform much in the way of physically or mentally exerting activities on the mission, and what would happen if he were to experience a medical emergency in orbit? NASA assured the public that Glenn was not merely being given a free seat on the Shuttle, and he would have to pass the same physical exam as the other crew members."
    • Removed that, not sure why that was there. When I glanced at that before, I thought it was part of the article, but it was not. Kees08 (Talk)
  • this needs a ref: "At the time of his death, John Glenn was the last surviving member of the Mercury Seven."

I believe you on the p vs pp citations, but out of curiosity, which guideline shows how to use them properly? Kees08 (Talk) 00:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of specific guidelines, but this has something on it: Wikipedia:Citation templates. I image that the various style guides (e.g. Chicago, APA, etc) also provide something on this, and the links here probably also have something: {{Wikipedia referencing}}. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Covered all those actions, make sure you are happy with them. Have any more comments? Kees08 (Talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unaddressed comments from FAC

  • Metzenbaum's eventual victory seems better suited to the next subsection, where its relevance is clear.
  • "Late 70s and 80s campaigning" has a lot going on, but is not clear. When did he run for president?
  • Why was there tension, and why did it thaw?
    • I removed all this. The answer is there was tension because they campaigned against each other; it thawed because they both eventually won Senate seats, but I do not think it is important enough to include in the article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Why is Metzenbaum's 1988 election relevant?
    • Relevant because of bullet point above, removed though because of reason above Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Glenn introduced bills on energy policy to try to counter the energy crisis in the 70s." The trouble with politicians is that probably most senators expressed a desire to "counter the energy crisis". It's political hot air. What did the bill do to counter it? That is what is relevant.
  • " based on nuclear non-proliferation," perhaps better as "promoting nuclear non-proliferation"?
  • Also the subsection title is a bit strange: perhaps "Activities" would be more appropriate.
    • It is mostly about his committees, so I put that in there. Perhaps we can think of a better one yet. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "In 1979, another dispute Glenn had with President Carter was Glenn's stance on the SALT II treaty" Overly complex wording
  • Rather heavy use of the OSU source in that section...
  • "illegal foreign donations by China" is it possible for China to make either legal or domestic donations? Maybe better as "donations by the Chinese government to...At the time, foreign donations to political campaigns..."
    • I need to reword this better still, I have been reading about the scandal so I will be able to phrase it correctly. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Considerable acrimony existed between Glenn and committee chair Fred Thompson of Tennessee." Why?Also didn't the article just say Collins was chair?
    • Yes, that was horribly written; the chair for something else. I need to split that off into another paragraph or just add more information about both committees. Kees08 (Talk)
  • We definitely need more detail in the savings and loans scandal section; not negative information, necessarily, but for the uninformed reader to have at least some idea of what he was accused of doing wrong.
  • "Aide Greg Schneiders" Presumably Glenn's aide, but the article should say so.
  • "He received all of his degrees in full in a Mason at Sight ceremony from the Grand Master of Ohio in 1978, 14 years after petitioning his lodge" To a person such as myself who knows little to nothing of the Masons, this is incomprehensible.
  • There's a picture of Annie here, but Annie isn't actually mentioned in the personal life section.
    • Moved her information to the personal life section, makes more sense there. Kees08 (Talk)
  • I find the formatting of the awards rather strange, but I know little about military article conventions, so I won't make any suggestions here, except to say that you could combine Awards, Illness and death, and the "retirement" section into a single "Death and legacy" section with three subsections; but that's not necessary, the current structure is okay.

@Vanamonde: You are not required to participate in this discussion, but I am going to address the rest of your points I did not cover during the FAC here. I think I grabbed most or all of them. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I did not co-nominate with you because I thought you might want to add comments, but I suppose co-nominating makes more sense. You want to be co-nom on this A-class? Kees08 (Talk) 00:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I didn't comment because I wrote much of the military service section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case it looks like this is stalled, I am performing a major rewrite of the entire section on politics. I will ping reviewers again when I am finished in case they want to re-review that section. I am looking to address the comments above, which were numerous, and true. Kees08 (Talk) 07:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Hey Hawkeye, I just finished a major rewrite of his political career. I mostly added information, everything was disjointed because there was not enough written about this portion of his career. Could you give that a once-over? Also, since it was not chronological, that added to the confusion. Additionally, could you look over the Legacy and Personal life sections? I am not sure what to do with the Freemason paragraph. That should finish addressing the comments that were above. I have been trying to get everything addressed as this is nearing the bottom of the queue, and I will be unable to edit for a short period in the near future. If you do not have time to work on those sections let me know and I will try to get it done. Kees08 (Talk) 05:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've checked the diff since I last edited this. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: I rewrote his political sections, so you may want to take another look at it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Factotem

[edit]
  • Infobox. I haven't checked every detail, but there are some that are not supported by statements in the main narrative or a cite. Examples are Roth as preceding and succeeding Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Voinovich as succeeding Senator for Ohio, and the dates of tenure for these two offices. Everything that appears in the infobox must be supported by sources, either in the main narrative, or directly cited in the infobox.
  • Section "Early life and education", 2nd para. The last sentence kinda jumped out at me as irrelevant until I read the footnote. Maybe consider paraphrasing parts of that note into the main narrative instead?
    • Seem odd to have any of that in there at all, not very summary style. Removed it along with the note. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Section "World War II", 1st para. "Never called to duty". Is it just me or is that a bit too grandiose and puffy? I would have written something along the lines of "He enlisted voluntarily...".
    It's a technical term. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 2nd para. Seems odd to refer to "pre-flight training" when the previous section describes his first solo flight in a military aircraft, and to me "pre-flight" is a series of checks that a pilot makes before taking off. Does your use of the term here reflect how it's used in the sources? Would "initial flight training" be better?
    Error. Should be "flight training". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para. flew R4D transport planes. Glenn was posted to the Marine Corps Air Station El Centro in California in July 1943 and joined VMO-155, which flew the F4F Wildcat fighter. This seems to be a bit of a leap in the narrative. Was it normal to simply transfer from transports to fighters?
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para. Looking up Distinguished Flying Cross, it's awarded for "heroism or extraordinary achievement", yet there's no information about the actions for which he was twice awarded this medal, which seems odd, especially when, to my layman eyes, so few missions were flown.
    That would be one way of doing it I suppose. Or you could just fly 20 missions over enemy territory. You can read his citations here. Added the link to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 3rd para. "shortly before the Pacific War's end" -> "shortly before the end of the war in the Pacific". This gets rid of the ugly truncated wlink caused by the possessive and, I believe, "Pacific War" is not a proper name so "War" should not be capitalisied.
    Pacific War is a proper name, so war is capitalised. Changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para. Couple of nitpicky prose issues: "yet another Corsair squadron" and "He finally returned home in December 1948."
  • Section "Korean War", 1st para. I think a parenthetical clause explaining what (the rather obscure) K-3 is would be good here, rather than forcing the reader to click the link to find out. Also, it seems odd that the narrative begins with an application to fly F-86s but jumps to details about flying F9Fs without explanation.
    Chronological order; he checked out on the F-86, but was not yet seconded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 2nd para. "which was faster and better armed more heavily armed still"?
  • Section "Selection", 2nd para. NASA is already linked and abbreviated in the previous para, so you could just go with NASA here.
  • Same section, 3rd para. First mention of Shepard should be full name and linked. This is actually done 2 paras later.
  • Section "Friendship 7 flight", 2nd para, There were eleven delays during the countdown due to equipment malfunctions, improvements to equipment functioning properly and the weather. "...improvements to equipment functioning properly..." is an odd construction, and repeats the word equipment. Could this be written as "There were eleven delays during the countdown due to weather and equipment adjustments and malfunctions"?
  • Same section, 3rd para. Note b is unsourced, and 17,500mph is repeated.
  • Section "1964 Senate attempt", 1st para, ... that he run for the U.S. Senate from Ohio in 1964... for Ohio?
  • Section "1964 Senate attempt". Hyphenate "re-election" (or is hyphenless acceptable in AmEng?).
    • Looked it up, it looks like non-hyphenation is acceptable in AmEng. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Section "Awards and honors". There's a large amount of linking in the 2 paras of text. I can understand that links for awards and institutions are useful, but not so sure about linking Staten Island, Manchester, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars or Smithsonian Institution (both are detailed and linked in the article Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service), NCAA (detailed and linked from the Theodore Roosevelt Award article), Cleveland, Dayton and Seven Hills.
  • There are a large number of duplicate links, for example, World War I, Marine Corps, United States Air Force. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is your friend here.

That's all from me. Hope this helps. Factotem (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Would you mind cleaning up the military history section (and whatever sections you please)? I have added you as a co-nominator. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: I think I addressed all your points. I did a massive rewrite of his political sections, so you may want to take a look at that again. Kees08 (Talk) 01:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still some, to my mind, unnecessary linking in the Awards and honors section, which you haven't addressed either by removing them from the article or explaining their rationale here. Apart from that, looks good to me. Factotem (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a couple of overlinked terms. Not sure if that addresses your concerns, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's still to my mind some MOS:OVERLINKing. I don't see the need to link to Tokyo, for example, when the Nihon University article also provides that link, and Tokyo is in itself not relevant to this article's subject. The same goes for Staten Island, Manchester, Woodrow Wilson International Center and Cleveland. Factotem (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: Took another stab at it, let me know if it is still too much. Kees08 (Talk) 00:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CPA-5

[edit]

It is an intresting article, i hope this'll help you, goodluck. Cheers CPA-5 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the references refer to the U.S. Senate, shouldn't they remain capitalized? Kees08 (Talk) 07:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i did not realise it was a name of a kinda organisation my bad. By the way the "candidacy for the U.S. Senate" line needs to be unlinked cause there are two "U.S. Senate" in just one section. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7: Hey there, I have limited time to edit for a couple of weeks, so I want to make sure I focus it well. What do I need to specifically do to finish this up for A-class? Kees08 (Talk) 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, the article probably needs an image review. @Nikkimaria: would you mind taking a look? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • John_Glenn_Low_Res.jpg: source link is dead. Same with John_Glenn_Signature.svg, File:Carter_vp_buttons.jpg
    • Not sure the rules on John_Glenn_Low_res; it is his official Senate photo so PD. I have an email conversation ongoing with a Senate historian, they should be putting an OTRS ticket in for all of his official Senate photos and hopefully we will get some additional committee photos. Is it required that this is done though? Since it is his official Senate portrait? Kees08 (Talk)
      • Well, without a source, how do we know it's his official Senate portrait? The now-dead link is not to a Senate site... Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair, I had a similar thought when I saw the URL. I will continue discussions with the historian. Kees08 (Talk)
        • @Nikkimaria: I received word back from the historian; unfortunately, they did not express interest in using OTRS and I neglected to CC OTRS on the emails. They sent me three photos and said they were all PD. One is a black and white version of the photo in question, for some reason with the flag edited out of the background. If you would like, I can forward you the email chain, depending on the level of WP:AGF you are at with me. I can verify the image in question is PD, but can provide the additional evidence if you would like. I believe one of the other photos is not on Commons as well, so I will work to get that uploaded if that is the case. Kees08 (Talk) 08:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wonder if OTRS would be willing to accept the email chain if it was forwarded by you. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to the person I checked with, unfortunately no. Kees08 (Talk) 19:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, can you add some elaboration to the image description as to why your contact believes the image to be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • I changed the credit to be what the historian requested; the tag would remain the same though, as the historian asserts it is public domain, and that the credit goes to the U.S. Senate Historical Office (the change requested on the image page). Therefore it would be PD due to work of U.S. government as the tag states. I am trying one last ditch effort to get it OTRS confirmed (I forwarded the message back to the historian and CC'ed OTRS, asking them to confirm they are PD). I will let you know if that works (usually gets back to me in 3-4 business days). Kees08 (Talk) 01:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not positive I had to fix the signature file, since it is PD either way, but I found an archived link. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Found the source archived Kees08 (Talk)
  • Per the NASA tag, use of logos, insignias, and emblems is restricted - is this usage compatible?
  • Ohio_US_Senate_Election_Results_by_County,_1992.svg needs a source to support the data presented
  • File:Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_(ribbon).png should have the same tag as File:SpaceFltRib.gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, I believe correctly (over the previous license, which I think would be invalid). Kees08 (Talk)

@Nikkimaria: Addressed the comments, let me know if addressed well enough. Kees08 (Talk) 05:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on NASA to get back to me, let me know if we are good on the Senate image. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 08:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have not heard back from either group; how should we move forward? Kees08 (Talk) 01:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, keep the Senate portrait and ditch the insignia. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done for both this article and Neil Armstrong. Kees08 (Talk) 03:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Thomas White (Australian politician)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Thomas White (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Tommy White had a remarkable career. He was one of the first military pilots trained in Australia and saw action in World War I in the Mesopotamian campaign, during which he was captured but escaped three years later. He then became a Federal parliamentarian, resigned on the eve of World War II, and served in the RAAF before getting his second bite of the political cherry as Minister for Air in Bob Menzies' Liberal government. I took this through GAN a couple of years ago but always felt it was pretty close to A-Class standard, so have recently added some further detail to produce what I think is a comprehensive but pacy account of his life. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Ian, nice work. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab links (no action required)
  • there are a couple of duplicate links in the lead, but in the context they are used, they seem ok to me (no action required)
  • the images look correctly licensed to me (no action required)
  • one ext link appears to be dead per [48]
    • Just goes to show -- that one worked a week ago when I checked it prior to nominating here... Anyway, fixed and tks for picking it up.
  • despite the opposition of some of the Deakin family: do we know why they objected?
  • surreptitiously flew on several sorties as a second-pilot: were these combat missions? If so, do we know anything more about these?
    • Neither Hansard nor ADB give details but the introductory notes to his papers held at NLA indicate bombing missions over the Ruhr; I've been tempted to use these notes for some details such as this but since, though attributable to the NLA, they're presumably based on the content of his papers, can they be considered an impartial source?
      • No worries, fair call with this source. I've certainly heard stories about other station commanders flying operations in similar circumstances (sometimes even as air gunners!), so it is definitely plausible that they were combat missions, but I can understand why you are wary of using this as a source. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • discharge as an honorary group captain in October 1944: do we know why he was discharged?
    • Again, no detail I've found except in the notes to his papers at NLA (where it says "medical grounds") -- same query/caveat as above.
  • Campbell-Wright appears in the citations, but not in the References
    • Oops -- tks!

Appreciate you taking a look, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • suggest linking commissioned to Officer (armed forces)
    • Done.
  • suggest "who included Richard Williams, a future Chief of the Air Staff." The (Sir) seems incongruous to me at this point, but it's not a warstopper.
  • suggest linking Telegraphy, as not everyone knows what telegraph was/is these days
    • Good point -- done.
  • any info on the reason he was awarded the DFC? Citation?
    • There doesn't seem to be any info on this in the Gazette, or at AWM, or that I can find in Trove.
  • did he finish the war as a captain? Also, CMF service between 1920 and 1926?
    • I assume he finished a captain because I've seen nothing on a subsequent promotion; nothing seemed to pop up on a search in Trove for CMF activity 1920-26.
  • given he was a politician, a bit more on his electoral successes and defeats would be good, eg the margin he lost by in 1925, won Balaclava by in 1929 etc? There is no information on later elections. Also, any factors that helped those results? What faction was he in, if any?
    • I've added all his Federal election results and notable opponents; aside from the snippet about his being more a small business supporter than a big business one, and the fact that he managed to get a Liberal portfolio despite there being no love lost with Menzies, I don't think I have anything to add re. possible factions.

That's me done, the political information is really the area I think needs some work. In all other respects a very tidy article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for reviewing PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. A pleasure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support This has already had a good going over by AR and PM above, so I really only have a few points:

  • Suggestion only: The Parliamentary career and Second World War section is quite big so I suggest breaking the Second World War content into its own section, and combine his postwar career with the Later life section.
    • Tks, I have considered subdividing one or two sections since expanding the article recently -- see what you think of my take on it...
  • Infobox: there is no reference to the Citizens Air Force
  • In combination with the above, in the article body there seems to be no transition between the CAF and RAAF (and did his medical discharge apply to both RAAF/CAF?)
    • Good point(s), I've added something to make clearer the relationship between the RAAF and the CAF.
  • "By May 1943, the Australian and New Zealand contingent at Bournemouth...": I feel the reference to the NZ contingent is not necessary since the reader doesn't know they were even there.
    • Yes, that makes sense.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for taking a look Zawed! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: your changes look good, so have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Leslie Andrew

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Leslie Andrew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article, Leslie Andrew, is the third of the New Zealand VC recipients of the First World War to be brought here for an A-Class review. In contrast to the other WWI recipients, Andrew saw action during the Second World War and has attracted some criticism for his handling of his command during the Battle of Crete. The article was the subject of a GA review back in 2013 and in recent weeks, I have done some expansion work, primarily around his WWII service. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers. Zawed (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in very good shape, and provides a well-rounded view of its subject. I have only the following comments:

  • I'd suggest noting how old Andrew was in October 1915
  • "were required to register for service with the NZEF" - this is a bit unclear, at least to Australian eyes. Were members of the Territorial Force liable for compulsory call up with the NZEF and deployment overseas?
  • "but remained in England until the end of the war" - do we know what he was doing? Given how heavy the fighting and casualties were on the Western Front in 1918, it seems surprising he wasn't sent there
  • Do we know when Andrew returned to NZ after World War I? The article implies that he stayed in the UK until the mid-1920s.
  • The battalion would have also done more than garrison duties in the UK - as I understand it, the NZEF formations were part of the strategic reserve which would have been rushed to the scene of any German landings during the Battle of Britain period, and trained pretty hard for this duty (this also helped get them ready for combat in the Middle East)
  • The source I got that tidbit from doesn't say. There is another book I can check that may say but I don't personally have a copy and it will be a few days before I can check one. Zawed (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK so I wasn't able to get the book to check this. I have asked another editor active in WPNZ who often works on political articles to see if they may be to assist on this. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Placeholder by Ian -- I reviewed at GAN a few years ago and will be interested to see progress since then so will try and stop by here again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, copyedited per my usual practice, pls Let me know any concerns; outstanding points:
    • Early life
    • First World War
      • "At the time, the VC, instituted in 1856, was the highest gallantry award that could be bestowed on a soldier of the British Empire." -- reads oddly to me; isn't it still the highest award, in which case we can safely delete "At the time"?
    • Legacy
      • "It is also recognised that the lethargic conduct of his brigade commander, James Hargest, in the early stages of the fighting on the island was a significant factor." -- I think this statement needs inline attribution; who exactly recognises it?
  • Structure and level of detail seem appropriate, though not sure it's vital to have the stolen VC episode as a separate section.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
  • Sources all look prima facie reliable.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Thanks for looking at this and no issues with your copyedits. I think I have addressed your concerns but would appreciate further comment on the VC being the highest award. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one last thing in Early life that I forgot to mention first up: like middle name, I generally expect to see mother's name (incl. maiden name) in a comprehensive bio -- is it known? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Maj_L_Andrew.jpg: source site states copyright is "unknown"

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Commissioner Government

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Commissioner Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Commissioner Government was a short-lived Serbian puppet regime that was formed by the German authorities in the occupied territory of Serbia following the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia during WWII. Its members were pro-Axis, anti-Semitic and anti-communist. It proved unable to cope with the communist-led insurgency that broke out after the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 and was quickly replaced. This article went through GA late last year, and is as comprehensive as I can make it. All comments gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]

Excellent article. I was considering doing the GA myself but feared I lacked the relevant knowledge. Some preliminary comments:

  • Perhaps instead of the government agency infobox you could use this one?
  • I didn't want to create the impression that it was more than it was.
  • "Dr. Harald Turner". Not sure what MOS says about this, but I don't think we normally recognize that someone has received a PhD through a title.
  • His was a Doctorate of Law, and he is generally referred to as Dr. in the sources, but I believe you are right per MOS:DOCTOR. Deleted.
  • "At the end of August this resulted in the resignation of the Commissioner Government". ---> This resulted in the resignation of the Commissioner Government at the end of August...
  • Much better. Done.
  • There is some inconstant italicization, namely that most foreign organisations are ital'd but Luftwaffe is not. Per MOS:ITAL proper nouns in foreign language usually are not italicized.
  • I'm working off MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, which uses the rule of thumb of only using italics for foreign words is a term is not in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which Luftwaffe is.
  • Nikola Đurić in the reshuffle table links to a professional footballer.
  • Whoops. Created new redlink.
  • "killing 26 functionaries, wounding 11 and capturing ten". ten ---> 10
  • Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I look forward to further comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • In the Background section, a map showing the partition of Yugoslavia would be nice (like this one) or some other visual.
  • Done.
  • "and he was allocated personnel to form four area commands". Typo?
  • Not sure what you are getting at?
Oh I misread that, nm.
  • "the Germans still needed to establish a public administrative body that would implement their directives. It was decided to establish a puppet government for that purpose." Establish & establish. Mix it up.
  • Fixed.
  • "Förster was subsequently transferred". Was this related to his performance as overseer of the Serb state?
  • the sources don't say, but he was given command of I. Fliegerkorps for Barbarossa, so I think it was probably because he was more suited to operational air command than occupation duties.
  • The capitalization of the ministerial portfolios is inconsistent ("Interior" vs "construction" and "agriculture").
  • Fixed the one in the lead, but the rest seem to be proper names such as Minister of the Interior
  • "The first fighting occurred at the village of Bela Crkva on 7 July, when gendarmes tried to disperse a public meeting". What was the nature of this meeting, was it political, or were all forms of public assembly restricted?
  • Added in a bit early on explaining that unauthorised public meeting were prohibited under German military law.
  • Is this photo or others suitable for the Uprising section?
  • A lot of the WWII Yugoslav pics on WP and Commons like that one have problematic copyright. Added a pic of Bela Crkva.
  • I'd actually remove that, I find it unnecessary. Cohen pp. 61–62 contains an interest opinion from Gavrilo Dožić on the government, which is more what I was getting at. Also note that he calls it the "Commissars' Administration", as do other sources. Cohen also writes on page 53 that the Aćimović government had been "preoccupied" with the creation of "Greater Serbia" and had sent a memorandum to Schroeder expressing the need "to give the Serbian people its centuries-old ethnographic borders". This source mentions that the government made an appeal to civil servants to fill their posts, and addresses more of the details concerning the administration as a polity and its functional subservience to the Germans. All in all, it has many good details that should not be left out. As it has no page numbers, you could cite it using the "loc=" parameter in the shortened footnotes and fill in "Council of Commissars", as that is the relevant section. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that, removed. I'm loath to use Dožić, as his observation is a pretty standard emigre apologia for collaboration in Yugoslavia during WWII, and I don't think it reflects fairly the role the administration had in actively supporting German policy, and in reprisals and the Judenmord in particular. Added the bit from Cohen, I thought I'd gleaned everything out of that book... Prusin is a find, thanks. I've added it and will start adding material from it tomorrow. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very good additions, but I still have a few comments:
  • Prusin does specifically note that the government's local offices were established by recalling the former Yugoslav functionaries into service and notes the important roles they filled in the administration. This should be made explicit in the article.
  • OK. It now says "Aćimović maintained the existing Yugoslav government apparatus and staff, recalling personnel to their duties, and former Yugoslav officials played important roles in the administration."
  • Seeing as the party affiliation of some of the commissioners and their deputies are known (Prusin identifies a few), could this be incorporated into the article, perhaps in the table or via footnote?
  • Already added that from Prusin: "They represented a wide spectrum of pre-war Serbian political parties: Vasiljević and Ivanić both had close links to Zbor; Pantić, Kostić and Protić being members of the centre-right People's Radical Party; and Josifović was a member of the Democratic Party. No representatives of the outlawed Communist Party and the British-backed Serbian Agrarian Party were included."
  • "Förster also ordered the resumption of production". What kind of production, industrial, agricultural?
  • the wording in the original order reproduced in Lemkin is general, appears to mean all production.
  • "Among the new faces was Perić". Faces ---> members, faces is a little too colloquial.
  • done.
  • Lastly, I'd encourage you to reconsider Gavrilo's quote concerning the government. Regardless of its collaborationist-apologist tone, he was an important Serbian figure and his opinion is certainly not irrelevant.
  • I believe it would be giving it undue weight to include it.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Indy beetle. After reading a couple of positive reviews, I decided to buy the Prusin book, so I've been able to add page numbers. I've also now added a conclusion drawn from Prusin. Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, Peacemaker. I'm supporting this now. My only suggestion would to be add some sort of subheading over the conclusion, like "Analyses", as it seems particular enough to warrant one. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks Nikkimaria, I've submitted it to the lab to see what they can do. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that suggestion, Nikkimaria. They did a great job, have substituted the retouched image. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: not a topic I know anything about, but it looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Equivalent to a U.S. Army General" (the caps for the rank here seems inconsistent with the other notes"
  • some isbns have hyphens and some don't, e.g. Lemkin's doesn't but Milazzo's does
  • the following terms are overlinked: Danube, prisoner of war, Milan Stojadinovic, Adolf Hitler, Sicherheitsdienst, Romani people,
  • in the Analysis section, I think it might be best to attribute in text early in the paragraph
  • "The Banat": is there a link that could be included for this area?

Comments Support from Factotem

[edit]

Background

  • In order to achieve this the military commander's staff was divided into military and administrative branches, and he was allocated personnel to form four area commands and about ten district commands, which reported to the chief of the administrative staff, and the military staff allocated the troops of the four local defence battalions across the area commands. Quite long and quite a lot to convey in that sentence. Maybe break it into two after "branches"?

Establishment

  • ...the current Belgrade police chief, Dragomir Jovanović, Đorđe Perić, Steven Klujić and Tanasije Dinić... Up to this point you have a string of <name>, office, <name>, office statements, which led me into thinking that the list of names after Jovanović were also Belgrade police chiefs and you had simply forgoten to pluralise that office. Maybe "...the current Belgrade police chief, Dragomir Jovanović, along with Đorđe Perić, Steven Klujić and Tanasije Dinić..." would break that up and make it read better?

Operation : Initial tasks

  • The gendarmerie were also responsible...and were therefore unpopular... I think those instances of "were" should be "was". Certainly in a preceding sentence you write "...Serbian gendarmerie, which was...", and in the next "...reliability of the gendarmerie meant that it was...".
  • ... with representation of a number of different political parties... Are you missing a "the" before "representation" here, or maybe without the definite article you should use "representation from"?

Operation : The Banat

  • ...under the control of the local Volksdeutsche under the leadership of Sepp Janko You could avoid the "under...under" repetition here by writing "...led by Sepp Janko".

Operation : Uprising

  • ...the Communist International... Is that definite article right? It doesn't read so to me.

Replacement

  • ...whilst...? I thought it was only us Brits who persist in clinging to this archaism.

Source review

  • There's a mismatch between GBooks linked and ISBN given for Haynes's In the Shadow of Hitler. The link you provide is for a 2013 edition of 344 pages. The correct Gbook link for the edition which corresponds to the ISBN and publication year you cite is https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ILRJ2ChennYC&source=gbs_navlinks_s - which has 332 pages and also has a preview. This is an issue because the different pagination may affect your page referencing.
  • Not a huge issue (the pagination is the same in both cases), but the ISBN you provide for Pavlowitch's Hitler's New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia appears to relate to an edition published by Hurst & Company of London. The Columbia University Press edition appears to have been published in 2008 with ISBN 9780231700504
  • As a point of nerdy interest, the GBooks you link to for Shepherd's Terror in the Balkans: German Armies and Partisan Warfare has a different ISBN to the one you provide. The correct Gbook link for that ISBN, however, has no preview, but the pagination is the same, so it's not an issue. But I suspect that it would be more correct to give the location for the Harvard University Press as Cambridge, Massachusetts, and not England (though it does appear to have offices in London as well).

That first GBooks issue is, I think, a problem that needs to be sorted, as is the location for Shepherd's book, but the rest of my comments are for your consideration and not anything that would preclude my support once those source issues are addressed. Factotem (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Donald Forrester Brown

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Donald Forrester Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

As we are in the last year of the WWI centenary, I have decided to attempt to have all of the articles for New Zealand's WWI VC recipients brought up to A-Class. Having started the process for Cyril Bassett, I now nominate Donald Brown for A-Class. He was the second soldier in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) of WWI to be awarded the VC, which was the first to be as a result of an action on the Western. As he was a posthumous recipient, the article is on the short side. I have done some expansion work in recent weeks and the article has just been through a GA review. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and hopefully seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Support Looks fine to me. One question: is Totara the Totara Valley? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Hawkeye. RE Totara, I'm not sure that's the one since it seems to be near Timaru. I suspect it is more likely to be the Totara redlink at this template since it is in the same region as Oamuru. Either way, I don't want to link it until I can be certain but the sources don't provide enough certainty. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Zawed, nice work as usual. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • do we know anything more about his family, for instance is father's occupation, or his mother's name, or if he had any siblings? This seems to provide some information: [49]
  • Thanks, I have added some family information from that website. I'm not sure of its reliability but it is the only one that mentions his mother's name and number of children. I was able to find some that supported the fact that his father was a draper. Zawed (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know what Brown's unit did between May and September 1916? This source might say: [50]
  • Brown, by now a sergeant, was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his actions in the Battle of Flers–Courcelette... As it took some time for the award, I'd probably not mention the VC at this point
  • Corporal J. Rodgers: suggest using his full name here as it is known. I would then just change the note slightly to read: Rodgers was later commissioned as a second lieutenant and received the Military Medal for his part in the battle. He later died of wounds on 30 July 1917 after the subsequent battle.
  • do we know where the medal was presented to his father?
  • Retrieved 2012-12-10 suggest 10 December 2012 for consistency with the other dates in the article
  • this source indicates that the medal has been displayed on loan a few times, but remains in the family's possession: [51] Might be worth mentioning the public displays?

Support Comments by Cinderella157

[edit]

Hi, my biggest comment is with respect to readability and sentence structure. There are many long and complex sentences which significantly reduce readability - something which, I too have been accused. The prose really does need a copy-edit to improve readability. In many cases, long sentences can often be broken at existing punctuation with minor changes to wording. Normally, I would work with you on this but ATM, I am quite time poor with RW things. My apologies but hope this is enough to indicate my cocers and how it might be improved. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: thanks for taking the time to have a look at this. I was initially a little surprised that you thought there were "many long and complex sentences" because it is a relatively short article. However, on drilling into the article into it, I did find several clumsily worded sentences so have reworked these and some of this work involved breaking sentences into two. See how it reads now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Zawed, you are certainly on the right track. I have provided a sample edit, indicative of further improvement. Normally, I would take the time to do these things myself. My apologies for not. I hope that this example is sufficient. Short sentences improve readability. Qualifying clauses can usually be rewritten in a shorter form without compromising accuracy. Hope this helps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: I disagree a little here; that may be your preference but I personally find a series of short sentences quite jarring to read. Regardless, I have gone back and revised a few more sentences. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Zawed, this is not just a matter of personal preference. Readability affects accessibility, comprehension and retention. An active voice is easier to comprehend because the relationship of (prepositional) phrases is more direct. I think the readability has benefited markedly for what been relatively minor changes. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

WAVES

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk)

WAVES (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Nominated for A-class on behalf of Pendright per [52]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks at the plight of women seeking to enter the U.S. Navy in Word War II; the difficulties they encountered along the way, and the challenges they faced once in the service of their country. On 30 July 1942, the WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service) became the Women’s reserve branch of the United States Naval Reserve. The idea of women serving in the Navy during the War was not widely supported in the Congress, or by the Navy itself. But with the manpower shortages, women were needed to replace men for sea duty. Several notable women, including Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the president, laid the groundwork for the passage of the law. It allowed women to serve in the U. S. Navy as an officer or at an enlisted level with a rank or rate consistent with that of the regular Navy. The article was promoted to GA in February 2016 without any thought, on my part, of pursuing ACR. Since then, I have changed my mind, and it has been reworked and reviewed by other editors. I welcome all comments. Pendright (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Pendright, nice work. I have a few suggestions (please see below). If there is anything you don't understand about my comments, please let me know and I will either try to clarify or help you with them. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:1939 Foreign Affairs Committee meeting.jpg": might be more visually appealing if the black border was cropped
Applying your cropping skills here would be appreciated! Thanks! Pendright (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the external links all work and there are no disambig links (no action required)
  • the article is well referenced (no action required)
  • headings: I suggest adding a level two header called "Training" and then subordinating "Training of officers" and "Training of enlisted" below that as level three headers
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • headings: "Women of the WAVES": not quite sure this heading is best. I wonder if it should be Personnel?
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • image placement: it is best to avoid sandwiching text between images, as such I think there might be one too many images in the Women of the WAVES section. I suggest maybe removing, or moving elsewhere "File:N3N female mechanic 1942 535576.jpg"
Image removed: File:N3N female mechanic 1942 535576.jpg - Pendright (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the body of the article, there are a few terms that are overlinked: Women's Army Corps, Yeoman (F), and SPARS. These should only be linked once in the body (when they are first mentioned)
Unlinked- Pendright (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Song of the WAVES section, Anchors Aweigh should be presented in italics
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the See also section shouldn't contain non linked items, so I suggest removing SPARS, USMC Women's Reserve and Women's Army Corps
Removed - Pendright (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the External links, I suggest moving the Campbell work to the Further reading section
Moved - Pendright (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for the Bureau of Naval Personnel work
Moved - Pendright (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the specific topic to which it refers is buried somewhere in a host of information and not readily accessible, requiring effort and patience on the part of a reader. For my part, removing it would not affect the article one-way or the other. Care to offer an opinion? Pendright (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, if you think it doesn't impact the article, I'm comfortable with it being removed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed - Pendright (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Further reading section, I suggest using the {{cite book}} template to format the entries as you have in the Bibliography. This will help keep the formating consistent
Done jointly - Pendright (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest slightly rewording this: During the course of the war, seven of the WAVE officers and 62 of the enlisted women.... Perhaps this might be smoother: During the course of the war, seven WAVE officers and 62 enlisted women...
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Hopefully, all the bases have been covered – if not, please let me know if there is anything further I can dol. In any case, thank you for your generous support and the courteous manner in which you do your work.Pendright (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all, happy to help. I've made a minor tweak to add some ISSNs to the journals in the Further reading section, otherwise it looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Common usage says it is acceptaibe, and that notion is suppoted by most of the references noted in the Biblography -Pendright (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest editing the poster caption for clarity
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On 18 March 2018, this image was substituted for the one I had originally posted. The helpful editor who made the improvement shared this information with us:
Hi there. I checked the image file at the Commons. The marginal text on the original version states that it is from the Radcliffe Archives, and the Schlesinger Library posted the file at Flickr in 2014, stating that there are "no known copyright restrictions". The institution itself has made the image available, so the licensing tag used when it was uploaded at the Commons in 2016 is appropriate and sufficient.
The image depicts Ada Louise Comstock in her professional capacity at Radcliffe, and is stamped with an archival ID number. Since the institution's library posted the image at Flickr, it's evident that "the institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control ... or has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions". Further discussion could take place at the Commons. Pendright (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe I have answered the questions asked and have made the suggested changes. If not, I stand ready to continue trying. Thank you for your review.Pendright (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that any change has been made to the poster caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the question you raised in your opening comments, I jumped to the conclusion that you were suggesting I change WAVE to WAVES on all image captions. Since there is only one poster, I was obviously wrong. In any case, I think we may have gotten it right this time around. Thanks for your patience! Pendright (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportOppose from Hawkeye7

I thought we went over this at GA, but I'm still not happy with this paragraph:

Little attempt was made to recruit any African-American or other women minorities until October 1944, when President Roosevelt approved of accepting African-American women into the women's reserve. He was under pressure to do so from African-American organizations. Harriet Ida Pickens and Frances Wills were the first African-American women to become WAVE officers. By September 1945, there were 72 African-American women in the WAVES and integrated.

As written, this is incorrect on several points, and misleading on others. Let's take Integration of the Armed Forces down from the self. It points out on p. 74 that the legislation that established the WAVES said nothing about the inclusion or exclusion of people of colour, so the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white. (As were the SPARS, Navy Nurse Corps and the Women Marines.) So it was not a case of "little attempt"; they were deliberately excluded. The turning point was not some decision by Roosevelt, but the death of Frank Knox in April 1944. Knox had said that black WAVES would be enlisted over his dead body, and so it proved. His successor, James V. Forrestal, immediately acted to reform the Navy's race policies. He submitted his proposal to accept WAVES on an integrated basis on 28 July 1944. But 1944 was an election year, so Roosevelt decided to hold it up until after the election, which was on 7 November. Forrestal attempted to compromise by offering segregated living quarters and mess facilities. Then Roosevelt's opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, made an election issue of it when he criticised the administration for discriminating against black women. Roosevelt immediately issued the order on 19 October 1944. The promise of segregated quarters could not be maintained; each recruit company contained 250 women, and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. It looked like this would become yet another excuse to exclude black women, but Captain McAfee appealed to Secretary Forrestal, and he dropped the segregation requirement. Some 72 African American WAVES were trained by at Hunter College Naval Training School by July 1945. While training was integrated, "black WAVES were restricted somewhat in speciality assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations".(pp. 87-88) There were only 68 black WAVES in September 1945. Those that remained in the Navy after the war were employed without discrimination; but there were only five of them by September 1946. (p. 247)

I'm willing to re-write the paragraph, but not accept it as written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite the paragraph as you see fit. Thank you. Pendright (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have rewritten it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Thanks for all of your edits and for supporting the nomination.
Pendright (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Support by JennyOz I made some minor changes to this article in March then added some queries on talk page prior to watching this assessment. My only outstanding query is the apostrophe in Jacobs but am very happy to support. Thanks Pendright for your comprehensive coverage of this important branch. JennyOz (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Jacob's to Jacobs' - thanks for your edits and support. Pendright (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Western Australian emergency of March 1944

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Western Australian emergency of March 1944 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers a little remembered, but significant, incident on the Australian home front during World War II. In March 1944 the Allied leadership became concerned that a powerful force of Japanese warships had departed Singapore to attack the Western Australian city of Perth and its port of Fremantle. In response, a large chunk of the Royal Australian Air Force was dispatched to Western Australia, and the anti-aircraft and coastal defences there were placed on high alert. This led to considerable public concern, especially when Perth's air raid sirens were briefly sounded. In reality, only a few Japanese warships were active in the Indian Ocean, and they withdrew after an ineffective raid. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the strategic situation in early 1944, and a reminder that the war was not yet won.

I started this article in 2009, and greatly expanded it in 2016. It passed a GA review in early March this year. The article has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now also met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

  • Great article. The murder of the crew of the merchant ship was a bit of a shocker. They were only imprisoned? Sheesh.
  • the only query I had was "and the resultant loss of warning caused concerns" isn't clear. What loss of warning? Do you mean inability to conduct effective air patrols caused by the cyclone?

Other than that, a great read and well done, an interesting episode in Australian WWII history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support / Chetsford
I hope my short review isn't taken as being indicative of a cursory review, however, I was simply unable to find anything in this excellent article about which to complain or suggest improvement. It is a fascinating topic that is well-presented in every possible way and I wholeheartedly support. Chetsford (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, and those kind comments. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hawkeye7 Same here. Great article, and good to see a topic like this being tackled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those comments Nick-D (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder by Ian -- I realize this has three supports but being somewhat familiar with this subject I'd like to copyedit and review; in any case I think we still need an image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

  • Nice work Nick, let me know if any concerns with my copyedit (speaking of that, "concerns"/"concerned" is pretty ubiquitous in the text so if there's one or two places you think you could reword, perhaps have a go).
    • Thinned them out, including with some use of 'alarmed', which I think is warranted given that this contributed to a worldwide redeployment of major Allied assets as well as the events in March. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only real issue I have re. the text is that the link to Indian Ocean raid (1944) in Aftermath seems to pop out of nowhere -- I think we need to introduce it earlier in the account. Also the pipe "during its operation" makes it sound like this article is about a Japanese raid when in fact it's about the Allies' perception of one...
    • That's a good point - I've moved the link to the para on the raid in the 'Japanese movements' section (the structure is the start of the raid is introduced in this section, and then what actually happened is described after the description of the Allies getting really worried and then deciding it was a false alarm - I think that this is a logical narrative flow, which helps to keep readers engaged - while also implicitly making the point that the Allied commanders weren't daft, as they were operating on the basis of limited information). Nick-D (talk)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- mostly looks appropriately licensed but I believe we should be using PD-AustraliaGov for the lead image and the Adelaide pic in place of what they have now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for spotting this. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool -- didn't look like the Adelaide image licence was changed, though, so I just did it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian - I've had a long day, and it looks like I forgot to press the save button after changing the tag! Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

  • In Kenney's list of 5 instructions, what causes the extra space between 1 and 2, or is it just my browser?
  • Based on the radar contact on 6 March, moon conditions and assumptions - moon conditions =phase? and does moon need cap M here?
  • Minister for Civil Defence - that's Alexander Panton ie not a fed min, so insert Western Australian before 'Minister'? (Interestingly, this, which mostly discusses the 1942 scare, suggests the portfolio was not official, "Panton’s role upgraded (at least in parliament and in the press if not in the official records) to take in the new portfolio of Minister for Civil Defence ".) JennyOz (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added his name, and tweaked the wording to note he was responsible for this rather than being the minister for it. Searching through Trove indicates that he was consistently called the Minister for Civil Defence throughout the war. However, his official bio on the WA state parliament says he was actually the Minister for Health and Mines! [53]. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your comments - I'll action them tomorrow Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose and JennyOz: Thanks again - I think that I've now actioned your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick, very pleased to support. JennyOz (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gordian dynasty

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Gordian dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my ongoing project to improve articles about Roman emperors, and has recently passed at GAN. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • I like the concept of a "short-lived dynasty".
  • "an uprising in the province of Africa in 238, where the people rose up" This often happens in uprisings.
  •  Fixed
  • "A delegation of centurions was sent to Rome" From where?
  •  Fixed
  • Link Sarmatians
  •  Done
  • "Invaded Africa Proconsularis" Which is "Roman Africa" referred to earlier, right?
  •  Fixed
  • A map of the empire at this point might come in handy here
  •  Done
  • "news of the rebellion reached Maximinus" What rebellion? The one in Africa?
  •  Fixed
  • And this is Maximinus Thrax right?
    Yes. Maximinus Thrax is commonly also called simply Maximinus, since Thrax basically means "of Thrace". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was he - in Parthia or Pannonia?
  •  Fixed
  • "Pupienus and Balbinus were also killed by soldiers" Which soldiers? Where was this?
  • By the Praetorian Guard (which I've added to article). They were presumably in Rome, but the sources don't actually say this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially after the marriage of Gordian and Tranquillina, Timesitheus' daughter" Whose idea was this?
    Presumably Timesitheus', but again, sources don't say that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the Sassanids invaded Rome in 241" I think you mean the Empire here
  •  Fixed
  • "after Gordian III won a great victory in Persia" What victory? You haven't said Gordian III was in the east
  • Sources don't really give a transition, likely because the primary sources don't either. Sources of the time were very sparse, confused, or contradictory, in the Crisis of the Third Century, because pretty much the entire empire was in chaos for a good half century, with emperors lasting an average of 2 years, and with the empire even splitting into three different states at one point. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several reforms were made, mostly in provincial administration, fiscal policy, and the army." Any idea what they were?
    None, per above comment on primary sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put the Infobox at the top and the Year of the Six Emperors navbox below it.
  •  Fixed
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Monstrelet

[edit]
  • Responding to invitation to review so coming at article cold. I found the lead para confusing and was only able to make sense of it by reading the article. I recognise this is partly inevitable because it was a confusing situation but I think the use of the term "co-emperor", used in the main text, would help. So Gordian I and II are co-emperors, then Pupienus and Balbinus,then Gordian III becomes third co-emperor. This is a shorthand for the concept that the Romans by this point could have joint legal emperors, which is essential to understanding this para.
     Done
  • A specific point is that Maximinus's soldiers killed him because they were frustrated. Why were they frustrated? Lack of progress, lack of rations, pay, that they wanted to be elsewhere? I don't find this clear in the main text, so I can't suggest how you might change it but I think it might be clearer. Monstrelet (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Done
Yes, thanks. Looking good Monstrelet (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Monstrelet: Do you have any further concerns or suggestions? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at present Monstrelet (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Monstrelet: Would you presently feel comfortable supporting the article being promoted to A-class, or do you feel that it does not meet the standards in some way? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems good to me. Support. Monstrelet (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Factotem

[edit]

Initial comments on prose:

  • Infobox
  • History
  • The Gordian dynasty arose in opposition to Emperor Maximinus Thrax, who had been proclaimed by the army... I'm fairly sure that should be "rose", and your use of proclaimed begs the question, "proclaimed what?" Maybe "The Gordian dynasty rose in opposition to Maximinus Thrax, who had been proclaimed Emperor by the army..."?
  •  Done
  • Numismatics
  • During the reign of Gordian III, there was significant activity among the Greek coin mints, although activity in the Aegean Sea fell sharply... I'm not sure what activity in the Aegean you're referring to here. I'm fairly sure they weren't minting coins in the sea, which is what you appear to be saying. Maybe "...there was significant activity among the Greek coin mints, although activity by those around the Aegean Sea..."?
  •  Done
  • The Tetradrachm, a coin equivalent to four drachma, was produced again, having not been minted since the reign of Elagabalus, between 218–222, where only two mints produced it, and not having been widely minted since the reign of Macrinus, between 217–218. Too complex, and doesn't make sense. First it says the coin had not been minted since Elagabalus, then says two mints produced it.
  •  Done
  • While Antioch had in past been a major minting centre only sporadically, minting more Tetradrachms than Roman denarii or antoninianus until the reign of Gordian. Something is missing here. Beginning the sentence with "While" makes me expect that the second clause is parenthetical, and there should be a third clause, but the sentence just ends with no clear meaning.
    I've removed the sentence entirely, as it is pretty much meaningless in terms of the Gordian dynasty. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gordian dynasty also reversed the brief persecution of Christians by Maximinus, which was largely focused on the prosecution of bishops and popes. Gordian III ended all persecution of Christians.... Someone can reverse a policy, but I'm not sure they can reverse a persecution. Also, "brief persecution" makes it sound like they crucified people for just a couple minutes before letting them climb down from the cross. Finally, the second sentence sort of repeats the first.
  •  Done

More to come, hopefully tomorrow. Factotem (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay

  • The article on Gordian I gives the length of his reign as 21 days, whereas here it states 36 (the former appears to be correct, according to the dates given in the Adkins' source). It also gives us Gordian's age, stating that advancing years was the reason why he associated his son with him as co-emperor, and indicates that he was somewhat reluctant to become emperor. I wonder if this info is worth bringing out in this article?
    I've said it's either 21 or 36, since sources seem to dispute, likely due to a difference in when they declared and when they were recognized. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a full source review, but what I have managed to complete is a little worrying:

  • His troops became disaffected during the unexpected siege, at which time they suffered from famine and disease. Neither of the two sources for this statement mention "unexpected" or "famine and disease". The closest is Bunson, who states only that the army was hungry; not really famine, I think.
  • The rest of the third para of the "History" section after the first sentence is sourced to Laale p. 274, but as far as I can see from the Gbooks preview, none of the assertions made there are supported by that source.
    @Factotem: I've gone through the article history, and it appears that all/most of the issues with citing are due to the fact that I had Sellars 2013 (now re-added) as a source, but removed it without checking if remaining cites did in fact cover the same material. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As displayed in the GBooks preview, the correct ISBN for Metcalf's The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage is 9780195305746, but the Worldcat listing also shows 9780199372188 as a second, valid ISBN. Not sure what's going on there. From my reading of the GBooks preview of this source, the only statement in the first sentence of the Numismatics section actually supported on p.117 of the source is that the last known coin minted in the Cyclades was dated to the reign of Gordian III. The statements about Greek and Aegean minting activity are dated to the Severan emperors, not the Gordians. GBooks preview does not show me any of the other page refs used in the article, so I can't check them.
    Believe that Sellars covers most of the material, have removed the Greek and Aegean sentence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Hebblewhite's work, following the ISBN link through to Gbooks gives me ISBNs of 9781472457592 and 9781315616018 for hardback and ebook editions respectively, not 9781317034308 that is given in the article's bibliography, so again, not sure what is going on there. More importantly, the GBook preview shows a first-published year of 2017, not 2016.
    Using "9781317034308" takes me directly to the Gbook, which shows 2016. This Worldcat ref gives the 9781317034308 ISBN and 2016 publishing date. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the publisher info printed in the GBook preview, it states 2017, but this is not a huge issue. Given that the ISBN links take us to the correct books, I'm not going to quibble about the different numbers either. Factotem (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hebblewhite specifically states on p. 35 that Gordian III switched to displaying victoria on his coinage later in his reign, so the statement immediately after ref #18 which states that he did so throughout his reign is false.
  •  Fixed
  • The rest of that paragraph is sourced to Hebblewhite p. 42, but I can see no reference in the GBook preview for that source to support any statements about invictissimus.
    Sellars covers material. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the state affairs during the late years of Gordian III were controlled by his wife, Tranquillina. The source, according to the Gbook preview, actually states "In 241, Gaius Furius Timesitheus was appointed prefect of the Praetorian Guard and assumed effective control over the young emperor. Gordian III married Timesitheus's daughter, Furia Sabina Tranquillina in the same year." No mention of Tranquillina being in control.
    Sellars covers material. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Sellars is a lulu.com self-published work, and as I understand it, its use would fail this assessment on criteria A1 (use of reputable sources). Factotem (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: I've purged all the Sellars referenced material from the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You just need to change the statement in the lead about time period in which Gordian I killed himself; it still states 36 days. Factotem (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Kees08

[edit]

One minor change in the caption and it should be good to go. Kees08 (Talk) 07:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kees, FYI, even though those sculptures are ancient in origin, because neither Italy nor France has freedom of panorama they should include an explicit licensing tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and Kees08: I have added the appropriate ({{PD-old-100-1923}}) license. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I do not work with old articles often. Thanks I will keep that in mind for next time. Kees08 (Talk) 15:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Can you confirm that images are ready to go? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Hessen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Hessen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This was the oldest battleship to see action at Jutland, but like the other German pre-dreadnoughts, she was not heavily engaged during the battle. The ship soldiered on with the post-war Reichsmarine before being converted into a target ship; in that role, she was one of the only major German warships to survive World War II, and she was taken by the Soviets as a prize. After some 55 years in service between four different navies, the ship was ultimately scrapped in 1960. Thanks to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CPA-5

[edit]

G'day another FAC another FA-classe review let we see what we have here. CPA-5 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • What was the rank or job of Franz von Hipper back then in this line. "the retreat of Franz von Hipper's battered"
    • That's a bit too much tangential detail for the lead section of the article - in fact, I think removing the names altogether is a better solution.
  • Please link this words
    • Western Front
      • Done
    • Both of the seas in this line. "Baltic and North Seas"
      • Done
    • Treaty of Versailles in this line "terms of the Treaty of Versailles"
      • Done
    • Czar in this line. "where Czar Nicholas II of Russia met the German fleet"
      • Done
    • Canberra, Australia
      • Done
  • How much is. "250 mm of armor plating"
    • That figure is converted already a line or two above.
  • "at 02:00 CET" --> "at 02:00 (CET)"
  • Please put (CET) after every time like
    • 03:00
    • 03:07
    • 03:10
    • 03:12
    • 05:06
    • 05:13
    • 06:55
      • I don't think that's necessary after the first usage.
  • How much is "five 28 cm rounds, thirty-four 17 cm shells, and twenty-four 8.8 cm rounds" in inches and "The ship's four 28 cm guns"
    • Those are all converted earlier - generally conversions are only given on the first instance.
  • Can you remove VAdm I mean there are some places where it says VAdm and other where it says Vice Admiral even it's the same?

Support by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

Support by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Looks pretty good to me, Nate. I have a couple of minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • seems inconsistent: eighteen 8.8 cm (3.45 in) SK L/35 quick-firing guns (body) v. 14 × 8.8 cm (3.5 in) SK L/35 guns (infobox)
    • Good catch, 18 is correct.
  • suggest adding a translation for the title of the Francois
    • Good idea
  • suggest linking officer and enlisted
    • Done
  • it's preserved as the... --> it is preserved as the...
    • Sometimes I forget about the contraction thing.
  • I Scouting Group is overlinked

Image review

Support from Nigel Ish

[edit]
  • " While in reserve at Brunsbüttel, Hessen was jokingly referred to as SMS "Kleinste Fahrt" (SMS "Shortest Voyage") because of a warning that had been painted on the ship's hull..." Is it known what the warning said?
    • Gröner doesn't say, and neither do Hildebrand et. al.
  • "In July, Hessen and the torpedo boat V190 visited Neufahrwasser; they were the first German warships to visit Gdansk since Germany lost control of the city to Poland after the war." - technically wasn't Danzig/Gdansk a free city and not Polish? This could do with a little clarification.
    • Technically, yes, though the city's external affairs were largely controlled by Poland
  • "She and her control ship, the ex-destroyer Blitz, were ceded..." - According to Conways 1906–21, Blitz (former T141, ex-S141) was scrapped in 1933 (i.e. before Hessen was converted to a target ship). Pfiel (ex-T139/S139) also served as a control ship and was scrapped in 1945, while Komet (ex S23) also appears to have been a control boat for Hessen and appears to be the control ship that went to the Soviet Union.
  • The infobox converts the 8.8 cm guns as 3.5 inch, while the body of the text gives the conversion as 3.45 inch - should the article be consistent in conversions?
    • Good catch, fixed.
  • Was the armament of the ship in Reichsmarine service the same as when the ship was built?
    • As far as I'm aware, yeah. I can check Dodson on this tonight to be sure.
      • Added a couple of lines to clarify the changes made to the ship after the war. Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jane's Fighting Ships 1931 gives a secondary armament of 12 6.7 inch guns and a tertiary armament of four 8.8cm low angle guns and 4 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns. Groner should say something on this - the German (1982, Vol 1) edition also gives a similar armament.
  • The German Official History Der Krieg in der Ostsee volume 3 (there's a copy somewhere on the Internet Archive) refers to Hessen in its index - it may be worth checking that Hessen didn't serve in the Baltic sometime during WW1.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Quebec Agreement

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Quebec Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

First of three articles on the treaties between the US and UK over nuclear weapons. This is the first, and best known, the wartime agreement to merge Tube Alloys with the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments:

"The Quebec Agreement was an agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States outlining the terms for the coordinated development of the basic science and advanced engineering related to nuclear energy, and, specifically nuclear weapons during World War II."
I'm not entirely sure what that statement means. Did the agreement cover only development during WWII, or is it simply saying it was agreed to during WWII? It can be read either way, and I'd like some clarity. (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The agreement was not a purely wartime one. I wanted to work World War II into the description. Moved to the second sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Quebec Agreement stipulated"... yikes, ROS. Sentance split at "and it gave"?
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Even before its report was completed" - para split here?
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"up to us."[32] Bush and Conant" - para split?
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and for producing uranium metal £1,500,000" - "and another £1,500,000 for producing uranium metal"
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"what they discussed.. Most" - double period.
checkY well spotted. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In the United States, there was a furore when the Joint Committee" - isn't that the same as the statement one sentence earlier?
checkY Yes. Deleted.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"intense pressure on Truman to drop this provision" - wasn't it already dropped in the first para?
Yes! But Congress was not informed of the 15 November 1945 agreement. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entire section could use a little TLC, I find it difficult to parse. Perhaps following chronological order as closely as possible might help.

Suggestions welcome, but the section is in strict chronological order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, nice work, Hawkeye. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Please structure the description section with c:Template:Information. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done, but I don't see any requirement on Commons to use the template, or any requirement for us to comply if there was one. I don't like making changes on Commons, and per WP:CONEXCEPT, we cannot require them here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for clarification. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the others look good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • Great job with this article. Not much to nitpick about, I have to say.
  • The Tizard Mission isn't introduced, same for the Tizard Committee. Suggest a short sentence explanation for both.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Lord Cherwell, as Frederick Lindemann was now known", as we have another Lindemann involved
    checkY Done. Charles had an obit in the New York Times, but he was only a brigadier, and does not have an entry in the ODNB. He is best known today for the Lindemann Trust Fellowships, which allow postdoctoral scientists to pursue research in the US. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Afterwards, Roosevelt and Churchill spent some time together beforehand at Roosevelt's estate in Hyde Park, New York". Afterwards and beforehand seem to contradict one another here?
    checkY I think what you mean here is that my oxymorons are mighty weak. Deleted "beforehand". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sentence that begins "Bohr was not regarded as a security risk..." seems out of place. Why was Bohr not being a security risk relevant here?
    checkY It's what most of the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire is about; you can read it on the right. Removed this bit, so it just reads "Most of this dealt with Bohr's thoughts on international control" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Jørgen Jensen (soldier)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Jørgen Jensen (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The latest in my series on South Australian Victoria Cross recipients. Jensen was a Danish-born immigrant to Australia who was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions at Noreuil, France in April 1917 while serving with the 50th Battalion. His citation for the award mentions that he pulled a grenade from his pocket and pulled out the pin with his teeth! I think I've gathered up all the material regarding him that is available. All constructive comments welcome. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, PM, looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • images seem appropriately licensed to me (no action required)
  • images lack alt text, which you might consider adding (although it isn't a requirement)
  • there are no dabs or dup links, and the ext links all work (no action required)
  • in the References, Bean could be linked, as could the Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918
  • in the References, "Daily Post" should probably be presented in italics
  • in the References, "JENSEN JORGAN CHRISTIAN" probably could be decapitalised per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • I'm not quite sure what this means: Christiane, known as Jensen, although I note this is in the ADB source also. This source seems to indicate the mother's name was Sorensen: [55]
  • entering the trenches for the first time on 28 June: do we know where they entered the line?
  • slightly repetitious: captured 70 Germans, nearly all of whom were captured by Jensen and his party --> captured 70 Germans, nearly all of whom were taken by Jensen and his party
  • suggest maybe starting a new paragraph here: In July, Jensen was temporarily promoted...
  • On 5 April, the battalion took up positions at Dernancourt: link Second Battle of Dernancourt?
  • repatriated to Australia in August: suggest adding the year here, just as a reminder. Also, I wonder if it should be mentioned that he was returned as part of a recruiting campaign? [56]

Support This is an excellent article, and easily meets the A-class criteria. My only suggestion is that the date of Jensen's VC action should probably be noted in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hawkeye! Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Sambre and Meuse

[edit]
Nominator(s): auntieruth55 (talk)

Army of Sambre and Meuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the second of the two principal French armies participating in the Rhine Campaign of 1796. It has passed GA. It should meet the qualifications for A-class. auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is my first review so please give me some leeway if it's not perfect. I was attracted to this article because the Planquette march of the same name, popular at West Point under a different name, is my second favorite.
  1. Sources: Citations are largely at the paragraph level, however, everything appears to check-out and the references are quality.
  2. Images: All correctly permissiond. Alt text on everything except those in the table, which seems reasonable.
  3. Plagiarism: Earwig shows copyvio unlikely.
  4. MOS: I didn't notice any issues. Some of the numbers are presented like this (Jourdan marched south with 30,000 men of the infantry divisions of Simon), instead of spelling out "thousand", however, that's all fine per MOS:NUMERAL. The lede is long-enough and representative of the article as per WP:LEDE.
  5. General: It would be nice to see the lineage table displayed in English, though, the words are simple enough that even the most inept reader of French should be able to comprehend them. I trust the order of battle presented in the section "Original formation" is styled in a customary way and will defer to someone else to comment if not. Maybe we could link Le Régiment de Sambre et Meuse in a "See also" section? Not a big deal. This seems like a thorough and comprehensive treatment of the subject.
  6. DAB: None needed.
Very nice! Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
auntieruth Thanks much. I was under the impression that Planquette set the poem to melody on the eve of the Franco-Prussian War as a restrospective patriotic tribute to the subject of this article's victory at Fleurus of 80 years before? No big deal either way, it was just a throwaway comment. Anyway, a very, very fine article! Chetsford (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is true. Certainly, the "regiment" fought at that battle, but not the army. They were different. auntieruth (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I didn't realize there was a co-existing regiment of the same name as the army at all, and though the use of "regiment" in the song's title was just an artistic license by Planquette to refer to the army. Thank you for the edification! Chetsford (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem at all! the regiment formed an important element of the army, and I suspect, although I could not cite it, that it was given the name because of regimental success at Fleurus. thanks for jumping into the review process! auntieruth (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by PM

[edit]
  • I reviewed this article in detail at GAN. I have one outstanding concern, regarding the caption that begins "In particular, the states involved in late 1796 included". It is way too long, and nearly all the material in it should be incorporated into the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading @Peacemaker67:. I think I've addressed your caption comment. Would you have another look? auntieruth (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]

All of the following errors would never have occurred if you had used {{sfn}} together with the various citation templates, populating the |ref= parameter. Doing so would not only make your article better, it would also save a nontrivial amount of your reviewers' time, saving them from checking each of these manually:

  • In references but not in notes: Alison, The Annual Register, Beevor,Bertaud, Bodart,Charles 'Geschichte',Charles 'Grundsätze', Cuccia, Dunn-Pattison, Durant & Durant, Ebert, Ersch, Graham, La Bédoyère,Lievyns, Lühe, Malte-Brun, McLynn, Mechel, Mechel, "Pichegru.",Philippart, Rogers, Rothenberg, Rothenberg, Schama, Sellman, Vann, Walker, Wilson.
  • In notes but not in references : i think i see Lefebvre, more later
  • In the notes, you sometimes put full references... and then these ae sometimes lastname-firstname (Rickard, J. ) but sometimes firstnam-lastname (Joachim Whaley; James Allen Vann)
  • You have a full reference for "Ramsay Weston Phipps,The Armies of the First French Republic: Volume II " listed in both the notes and the references
  • Ditto for Warfare in the Age of Napoleon
  • Volk, Helmut. "Landschaftsgeschichte
  • I see punctuation errors
  • I'm sure there are more inconsistencies etc., but I am going to bed Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lingzhi, thank you for your comments. I've used the sfn template on other articles, with your help, and, despite your help, found it cumbersome and difficult to follow, and incredibly difficult to edit. I've pulled out the additional resources listed under resources and put them in a separate section. Everything in notes and citations is (should be) listed also in references, first as they should be in footnotes/endnotes, and second as they should be in a bibliography (ln, fn).auntieruth (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lingzhi:, thank you for taking the time to read and comment. I think I've addressed your issues. Would you have another look? LeFebvre is covered. I don't see the listing in notes first time with a full reference, and subsequently as only partial as inconsistent. I've found the sfn template to be incredibly confusing to use and annoying to read. We're going to disagree on that.  :) auntieruth (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: G'day, would you mind taking a look at Ruth's changes and letting her know if there is anything outstanding? If there isn't, the review is probably ready for closure. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robinvp

[edit]

I was looking at this because I'm interested and I tried to view it as a user. It's feedback, rather than structured review per se so please feel free to ignore :)

Per Blaise Pascale 'I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead.' I continually review my articles and try to condense since shorter is better, particularly on the web. I do a lot of research and I have to constantly force myself to remove things that are interesting to me but not essential to the audience.

  • I think the lead paragraph contains detail relevant in the body of the article but when placed in the lead paragraph invite more questions.
  • ...brief but celebrated existence... for an army, I don't think three years (1794-1797) can really be described as 'brief' while 'celebrated' is a value judgement (I'm a military historian; I know the song, not the army but I have heard of the Cannonade of Valmy, for example).
  • ...Rhineland campaigns of 1795 and 1796. During 1796... Given that statement, jumping straight into 1796 doesn't seem to make sense; what happened in 1795?
  • During 1796, commanded by Jean-Baptiste Jourdan , the army crossed the Rhine...the date should be more precise ie May? June? I can't find the month lower down in Section 5;
  • added date....
  • On 29 September 1797, the Army of Sambre and Meuse... ditto, what happened in 1797?
  • armistice, explained in last paragraph....
  • Jean Victor Moreau crossed the southern Rhine... as written, it isn't clear this is another army;
  • ok, should be cleared up....
  • by the end of July, he had conquered most of the southern states of the Holy Roman Empire, forcing them into an armistice profitable for the French Republic; again, this raises more questions than it answers eg who were the 'southern states' etc but more importantly, the Armistice (why was it profitable?) doesn't seem to appear anywhere else in the article (I might well be wrong ::).
  • profitable in that it (1) disarmed over 25,000 men (rough estimate) and (2) allowed the French to plunder.
  • This is how I'd rewrite it - not a suggestion :) it's purely to show what I mean, sometimes more helpful

The French Revolutionary Army of Sambre and Meuse (French: Armée de Sambre-et-Meuse) under Jean-Baptiste Jourdan was formed on 29 June 1794 and played a key role in the Rhineland campaigns of 1795 and 1796.

After an inconclusive campaign in 1795, the French planned a co-ordinated offensive in 1796 using Jourdan's Army of the Sambre et Meuse and the Rhine and Moselle Army under Jean Victor Moreau. The first part of the operation called for Jourdan to cross the Rhine north of Mannheim and divert the Austrians while the Army of the Moselle crossed the southern Rhine at Kehl and Huningen. This was successful and by July 1796 a series of victories forced the Austrians to retreat but internal disputes between Moreau and Jourdan and commanders within the Army of the Sambre and Meuse prevented the two armies linking up. This gave the Austrian commander Archduke Charles time to reform his own forces, driving Jourdan to the northwest and eventually back across the Rhine. On 29 September 1797, the Army of Sambre and Meuse merged with the Army of the Rhine and Moselle to become the Army of Germany.

  • As a general point, I think the descriptions of the campaigns are overly detailed (ie too many numbers). That matters because it makes it hard to pick out the strategy - its almost overwhelming. For example;

Marshaling the divisions of Hotze, Sztáray, Kray, Johann Sigismund Riesch, Johann I Joseph, Prince of Liechtenstein and Wartensleben, the Austrians won the Battle of Würzburg on 3 September, forcing the French to retreat to the Lahn river. Charles lost 1,500 casualties out of 44,000 troops against 2,000 French casualties.[31] Another authority gave French losses as 2,000 killed and wounded plus 1,000 men and seven guns captured, while Austrian losses numbered 1,200 killed and wounded and 300 captured.

That can be summarised as; The Austrian victory at Würzburg on 3 September forced the French to retreat to the Lahn river.'

And the numbers are not different enough to need two estimates eg Tacitus claims 80,000 dead while modern archaeologists estimate 100-250 max - that's worth knowing but not 1,200 v 1,500 Austrians.

I do a job where I get feedback from total strangers twice a week so I'm used to getting as well as giving :) I have a tendency to overwrite sentences and I found it really helpful when a couple of editors pointed that out so I hope this is useful.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11: Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. I think I've addressed your questions. Will you have a look? Cheers! auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Robinvp11: G'day, Robin, would you mind taking a look at Ruth's changes and letting her know if there is anything outstanding? If there isn't, the review is probably ready for closure. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay - I found it a lot easier to follow now so that means it should work for others :). Couple of things I was curious about which might be worth considering;

- On the geography; pre-industrial campaigns make a lot more sense when you understand the importance of water-borne transport and its role in keeping armies supplied, as well trade routes. I'm not sure the role of the Rhine as barrier and transport hub really comes across.

- Politics; no argument with the details but I'm not sure it needs this amount of detail;

Otherwise, looks good!

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: looks very good, Ruth. I made a few minor tweaks and have some other comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the first paragraph in the Background section needs a reference, otherwise the article is very well referenced
  • fixed.
  • unless I missed it, I couldn't find the date of 29 June 1794 mentioned in the article (outside of the lead); suggest adding this to the body of the article, and potentially the infobox
  • I've added it to the info box, but it doesn't show up. Active dates showup. I've added it to the text.
  • creating deep defiles in the mountains: suggest linking Defile (geography) here
  • Location map depicts distribution of Army --> Location map depicts distribution of the Army
  • Thank you! Fixed!
  • ext links all work, and there are no dabs or duplicate links (no action required)
Thank's for having a look! auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Phillip Davey

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Phillip Davey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Phillip Davey was a South Australian soldier who was awarded both the Victoria Cross and the Military Medal for his gallantry during World War I. The article includes all information from all unique sources I have been able to locate, including the Australian Dictionary of Biography and his battalion history. It successfully went through GAN last year. He is the second South Australian VC recipient I have brought to ACR, with the eventual aim of getting all of them to FA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Zawed

  • Perhps it is a style thing for you, but no specific battles listed in the infobox, just World War I?
  • Added campaigns, didn't want to make it a shopping list.
  • Lead: the first sentence of the 2nd para has two "re-", which I find a little jarring. Perhaps the second could be replaced with "returned"?
  • Done.
  • Given the overall length of the article, I wonder if the lead could be made a little more succinct; perhaps the mention of joining the battlion 2 weeks before Gallipoli and covering force could be removed along with the 2nd sentence of the 2nd para removed?
  • Done.
  • Can something about the presentation ceremony for the VC be added? I found this link at Trove, but there is probably a more informative one that could be found.
  • Nice find, added. I couldn't find anything more detailed.
  • Wow - three brothers getting the MM!
  • ISBN or OCLC number for the Burness ref?
  • It is the online version.
  • Image tags look OK to me (not that I'm an expert, mind)

That's my nitpicks done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Zawed! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: good luck with improving all of the South Australian VC recipient bios, a very worthy project, indeed! In regards to this article I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest mentioning Davey's siblings in the Early life section: he had at least three brothers, I believe (per Les Carlyon's The Great War, pp. 635-636), all of whom enlisted.
  • four brothers in fact, added.
  • I wonder if it is know where Davey did his basic training before embarkation?
  • Given the dates, from my own knowledge I'd say almost certainly Morphettville (where the original 10th Battalion trained) then the last couple of months at the Mitcham camp, but his records don't specify.
  • regarding the part where Davey embarks for France, I wonder if it should be clarified here that the AIF's infantry divisions had been transferred to the European front after the end of the Gallipoli campaign?
  • Done.
  • the body of the article doesn't seem to specify any named battles that he fought in while on the Western Front
  • Added.
  • seems a litle repetitious: "...his unit was in a reserve area, returning to his unit..." (his unit x 2)
  • Done.
  • "detached to Tidworth in England as an instructor": do we know what he was instructing, or who (e.g infantry reinforcements)?
  • I imagine so, his records say "Overseas Training Brigade", I know that there was a training battalion in the UK for each infantry brigade at one point, but they are usually numbered. I've never come across this brigade before.
  • slightly inconsistent: "World War I" and "First World War"
  • Fixed.
  • "File:Daveyvc.jpg" might need a freedom of panorama tag ({{FoP-Australia}})
        • Not quite - since the engravings are not covered by FOP, we need to include an explicit tag indicating that they are out of copyright due to age. In theory we could quibble over whether the photographer has any copyright claim at all, but I'm not too fussed about that piece. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 15 March 1917, Davey was accidentally wounded by a hand grenade...": I think this probably would have been around Ypres just following the German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line?
  • Added some info.
  • "and in October he was gassed...": would most likely have been during the prelude to the Battle of Broodseinde
  • pulled some detail out of Lock.
  • the action around Merris was a peaceful penetration action in the lull between the defeat of the German Spring Offensive and the Allied Hundred Days offensive (see Les Carlyon, The Great War, p. 635 - I can add this for you if you would like)
  • added link to peaceful penetration.

Support Comments from Ian

  • Nicely done but it does seem a little brief compared to some other A-Class bios on VCs... Did we check Macklin's Bravest or Staunton's Victoria Cross to see if there was further detail?
  • Have ordered them to check.
  • Well you can only go with what's available -- if you've checked them as well as the other sources you've employed then I think you've done as much as can be expected. I note that the article is almost 1kb larger than when I first looked anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise pretty happy with prose after copyediting, but let me know any concerns there.
  • All good.
  • Concur with Zawed that image licensing seems problem-free.
  • Sources look okay reliability-wise (have to admit I'm not sure entirely sure about Lock at first glance but it's not being used to cite anything controversial); the formatting of some refs looks a bit odd to me though, and I might just have a go at them myself.
  • Despite its age, Lock is still the go-to history of the 10th. Esp for bios of important characters and day-by-day movements of the battalion.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the formatting isn’t so odd when I see we’re using Harv... ;-) I think that’s probably better restricted to citing books, where your identifier is author and year of publication – it does seem a bit strange to be citing websites and newspapers with titles in standard case, when those same titles are (correctly) in italics in the References section, and with years of publication when those mean very little in the ever-evolving online world. I wouldn't withhold support over this but presentation-wise and for ease of access (click once) I think it’d be preferable to use the news and web citation templates inline, and just retain Harv cites for the book refs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using this sfn/harvid combination for sources for years, including plenty of FAs, and no-one has ever mentioned it before. With websites the short citation indicates when the website was accessed without having to look at the long citation. I've italicised the newspaper citation, which was an oversight. Thanks for taking a look, Ian! I'll update this when I lay eyes on Macklin and Staunton. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

For my first nomination of 2018, I am nominating an aviation regiment of the Soviet Air Defense Forces that saw service in World War II and the Korean War over its 68-year career. I believe this meets the A-class criteria, and am hoping to eventually get it to FA. Kges1901 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, nice work. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox: "Fighter Aviation regiment" --> "Fighter aviation regiment"
  • in the lead, "spent World War II providing air defense for Moscow in the early stage of the Eastern Front" --> "spent World War II" implies the whole war, but "early stage of the Eastern Front" implies only part. Suggest clarify this and rewording
  • in the first paragraph of the World War II section, suggest providing just a little more context, i.e. mention the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the advance towards Moscow
  • "Moscow-Warsaw road": should have an endash, rather than a hyphen
  • "pilots were seen as combat ready" --> "pilots were assessed as combat ready"?
  • "22 in combat and eleven non-combat" --> "22 in combat and 11 non-combat"
  • "Turning its aircraft over to the replacement...": suggest that this should be a new paragraph
  • "Turning its aircraft over to the replacemen...": suggest adding a topic sentence here along the lines of: "On X, the regiment's combat tour came to an end. Turning its..."
  • in the Cold War after return from China section, suggest clarifying what the regiment's mission was while based at Lodeynoye Pole. I assume it was air defence against NATO aircraft?
  • in the Cold War section, suggest mentioning that the regiment was retained within the Russian military after the collapse of the Soviet Union
  • the lead mentions the "Soviet Air Defense Forces" and "Russian Air Defence Forces", but this does not appear in the body of the article
  • mixture of spelling "defence" and "defense"
  • in the Bibliography, move the link for Oxford to first mention; also suppress "United Kingdom", as you haven't used it for any of the other mentions
  • "File:MiG-15s curving to attack B-29s over Korea c1951.jpg": source links are dead
  • "File:Usaf-korea-map.jpg": source link is dead

Comments by Ian -- with the caveat that I can't claim expertise re. Soviet/Russian units; I edit a lot of air force unit histories, but pretty well all RAAF...

  • Prose-wise, it reads quite well -- pls let me know any concerns with my copyedit.
  • Structure is straightforward/logical, and I think the depth of coverage is reasonable -- the level of detail tapers off after the Korean War but that's not unusual for unit histories during periods when there's no combat.
  • Image licensing looks okay to me.
  • No obvious reference formatting issues; reliability-wise, I am a bit dubious about Seidov & Britton, having previously looked through the book in relation to the RAAF in the Korean War -- I think I'd prefer to see any details of combat that they record replaced or at least corroborated by the Osprey books.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review. As for Seidov and Britton, I realize that Seidov is nationalistic and attempts to increase the amount of Soviet kill claims by including aircraft written off after landings as victories, but I only phrased victories as certain when Seidov wrote that they were specifically acknowledged in American records. Kges1901 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks, you know the sort of thing I'm talking about then... ;-) Yes, I wasn't worried about the places where Seidov's combat reports are corroborated by other sources but it looks to me that footnotes 20–24 inclusive rely solely on his book... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I attempted to phrase this in away so that it doesn't state what Seidov presumably quoted from Soviet documents as fact. Most of this is not covered in the Osprey book, though Krylov and Tepsurkaev state that the B-29 was intercepted. This differs from Seidov in that he states it was an RB-29 and that the Soviets claimed to have downed it. Krylov and Tepsurkaev agree that this was the only UN aircraft encountered in early January. Kges1901 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks PM, and AR for a second reminder -- thought I'd left a comment between the two pings but obviously didn't complete it... I'm still concerned about the statements that rely solely on Seidov. I can see that the sentences cited to FNs 20, 21 and 23 are fairly equivocal but those cited to FNs 22 and 24 contain some definite statements about downings rather than mere claims. On a different matter, we say "around 226" somewhere, which looks odd -- how can we be "around" an exact figure? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: I rephrased the sentences around FN 24 to "claimed to have downed" so that it is clear that it is a Soviet claim. I cross checked what Seidov claimed in his book with KORWALD and found that the only Jacobs' loss was attributed to a wingtip tank coming loose. As a result, I changed it to a more general Soviets 'credited' with the victories. As for the two F-80 losses on January 20, the names of the pilots are listed in KORWALD as lost on 20 February. I have modified FN 22 to stick to the accounts of Soviet pilots quoted; it seems Seidov was engaging in some modification of claims. Kges1901 (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for your efforts to deal with my concerns -- checking the source myself I think that in the previous version you probably weren't too far off what I'd consider a reasonably conservative reporting of the accounts given in Seidov, pls see what you think of my tweaks. Re. my other outstanding point though, "about 226" sounds just as curious to me as "around 226" -- I couldn't view the source page(s) so I still don't know why we're calling an exact figure an approximate one... Once that's resolved, I don't think I can offer unqualified support, but I wouldn't have an objection to promotion if no-one else does. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, now I get it -- it did seem that perhaps you were extrapolating from another figure. In that case I think perhaps we should just say "half of the 452 sorties flown by the division", because my gut instinct (and perhaps yours) suggests that it's unlikely it was exactly half the number and therefore it's best to report it the same way the source does... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]

Support by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

I was the GAN reviewer, so I'm not sure much I can catch on this go-around.

  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • Add the Russian name and abbreviation for the Air Defense Forces in the lede.

Support / Chestford

[edit]

A very well-written and informative article. None of the other articles classed under Fighter regiments of the Soviet Air Defence Forces have even received a GA, which makes this doubly interesting and useful. It's too bad that 60 year's of the regiment's history - spanning 1951 to 2009 - is covered in six sentences, however, since its last operational combat deployment was in '51 that's probably not surprising and this seems to represent the entirety of published information about it on the basis of which I feel like this is an accurate and holistic, encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Having recently passed GA, all the functional issues look just fine. Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tetricus I

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Tetricus I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my ongoing process to improve all the Roman/Byzantine Emperor articles, and I believe it meets the requirements. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. Unfortunately, it isn't a topic I know anything about, but I have a few minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, from the Roman Empire from which the Gallic Empire split off --> from the Roman Empire off which the Gallic Empire had split?
  •  Done
  • in the lead, Emperor Aurelian of the Roman empire --> Roman emperor Aurelian?
  •  Done
  • in the lead, in which Tetricus surrendered, although...: suggest splitting the sentence here before "although" and deleting that word
  •  Done
  • in the lead, link Praeses
  •  Done
  • in the History section, Empire, from whom the Gallic Empire had split off --> Empire off which the Gallic Empire had split?
  •  Done
  • in the History section, link Rhine
  •  Done
  • in the History section, mostly he would withdraw troops and abandon forts, allowing the territory to be pillaged: do we know why?
    I wasn't able to find a clear answer to this. Presumably he didn't have the forces to fight them, but the book doesn't say this directly enough that I'm comfortable saying that wouldn't be OR on my part. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Numismatics section, move the link from reverses to obverse
  •  Done
  • in the Primary sources subsection, the punctuation for the Zonaras entry probably needs adjustment. Suggest adding a comma after "History", and then italics for "Compendium..."
  •  Done
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Commons template should appear at the beginning of the last section of the article (so it should be moved up to the top of the References section
  •  Done
  • there are a few hyphens in the Bibliography that should probably be endashes
  •  Done
  • some entries in the Bibliography have publisher locations, and some don't (best to be consistent here)
  •  Done

Comments from Factotem

[edit]
  • Infobox:
  • Is there any reason why the Died parameter isn't "Lucania", as per the main narrative, instead of "Italia"?
  •  Done
  • The regnal name is not supported by any statement in the main narrative or directly cited.
  •  Done
  • Lead:
  • Per MOS:DATERANGE, it should be "from 271 to 274 AD"
  •  Done
  • "...raised to emperor..." -> "...became emperor..."?
  •  Done
  • ...emperor in 271 after the murder of Emperor Victorinus, by the influence of Victorinus' mother, Victoria tripped me. It reads as if Victorinus's murder was influenced by his mother. Maybe "He was originally the Praeses (governor) of Gallia Aquitania, and became emperor after the murder of Emperor Victorinus in 271, having received the support of Victorinus's mother, Victoria."
  •  Done
  • Note also that per MOS:POSS, singular possessives ending in 's' take 'apostrophe s', thus "Victorinus's murder", etc.
  •  Done
  • During his reign, he faced external pressure both from Germanic raiders pillaging the eastern and northern parts of his empire, and from the Roman Empire off which the Gallic Empire had split I understand the issue with all the "froms", but "off which" sounds even worse to me. Maybe "During his reign, he faced external pressure from Germanic raiders, who pillaged the eastern and northern parts of his empire, and the Roman Empire, from which the Gallic Empire had split."?
  •  Done
  • Couple of real nitpicks, treat them with respect or contempt as you wish:
  • Tetricus was spared by Aurelian, and even made a... -> "Aurelian spared Tetricus, and even made him a..."
  •  Done
  • A few years after 274, he died of natural causes. -> "He died of natural causes a few years after 274."
  •  Done
  • History:
  • Gaius Pius Esuvius Tetricus, commonly referred to as Tetricus I, was born on an unknown date. It is believed, based upon his name, that he was born in Gaul. Another nitpick. "was born on an unknown date" came across a little awkwardly to me. Maybe "Commonly referred to as Tetricus I, Gaius Pius Esuvius Tetricus is believed, based upon his name, to have been born in Gaul, though the date is not known."? Also, it isn't obvious how his name betrays his origin. Is there any info on that, and do you think it's worth adding if there is?
  •  Done My guess is from the fact that a part of his name matches the name of the Esuvii tribe, but I haven't found a source that says the same. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 273 he had his son, Tetricus II, elevated to caesar, in order to increase his support.. Is there any reason why you can't just say "He elevated his son, Tetricus II, to caesar in 273 to increase his support."? Is there a need for the "had his" construction? This amendment also avoids starting two consecutive sentences with "In <year/>...", and "in order to" is apparently not regarded as the best of prose
  •  Done.
  • During his reign, the Gallic Empire was pressured both internally by dissent in the army and government, and externally by Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire, Empire off which the Gallic Empire had split. -> "During his reign, the Gallic Empire was subject to internal and external pressures. There was dissent within the army and the government, and it was threatened by the Roman Empire, from which the Gallic Empire had split, and Germanic tribes."?
  •  Done
  • There are two accounts of the occurrences there. One, which is believed to have been created by Roman imperial propaganda some time after the actual occurrence, holds that Tetricus offered surrender... -> "There are two accounts of the occurrences events there. One, which is believed to have been created by Roman imperial propaganda some time after the actual occurrence event, holds states that Tetricus offered to surrender..."?
  •  Done
  • Numismatics:
  • I can understand the need to differentiate the two Tetricuses when they occur together, but do you need to do so for the two times when you only refer to Tetricus I? The numeral looks like the a capital letter 'i', which I found a bit awkward.
  •  Done

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: I believe I have done all you have asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more minor points:

  • "Died" in the infobox now shows a redlinked Lucania et Bruttii, whereas the narrative simply says Lucania, which is linked to an existing article. Wouldn't it be better to use the linked name? Either way, I think it should be consistent between narrative and infobox.
  •  Done
  • In the last sentence, I think MOS:FRAC 'requires' us to write "three-quarter" rather than "3/4th". If there's a reason why numerals must be used, they should not be suffixed with the ordinal "th". Factotem (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done

Support Factotem (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cinderella157

[edit]

You will notice that I have made a couple of copy edits. The thing that stands out to me is the writing style. Specifically, long and complex sentence structures are the norm. While these may "appear" scholarly, they significantly reduce readability. It is a stylistic "foible" among academic writers (mea culpa too). This was pointed out to me as a novice WP editor. It is something I have tried to embrace and promote. Many long sentences can be simply split without compromising accuracy or meaning and with, at most, a minor tweak in wording. A semi-colon is frequently used where separate sentences might better serve. There are two instance I have observed. I would hope that you might embrace this comment broadly and not just to these two sentences.

Per the primary sources section, a brief statement might be made by way of explanation: that these are Roman era chronicles drawn on by modern scholars (or similar).

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much worth pondering. I am uncertain about the brief statement, as I cannot find any source that says this, so it would have to be uncited, which I am wary of. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if it is correct to say that Tetricus was "crowned". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to coronated. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A coronation is a crowning ceromony? "Invested" or perhaps,"confered", might be better, unless there is a better "historical term". As to the primary sources, the text was a suggestion of what might be used. "Available to" might be better (or something else). This is outside the body of the article and therefore, not subject to "rigorous citation" (IMO), provided the statement is not one which is likely to be reasonably challenged (per WP policy on citations). I do think it needs something, as it caused me to scratch my head a little. Per the style issue I have raised, I might do a copy edit run along these lines, if you are happy for me to do so. It is not a long article so it shouldn't take much effort. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "officially proclaimed", as I think it is the best option. I've added a short bit to primary sources per your suggestion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: Is that all of your suggestions, or do you have further? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - the only image should include an explicit copyright tag for the coin, not only the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Edward the Elder

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

Edward the Elder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Edward the Elder was the son and successor of Alfred the Great. He built on his father's achievements to defeat the Vikings in southern England, and united Mercia and East Anglia with Wessex into one southern kingdom. He has been described as perhaps the most neglected of English kings. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • It might be best to leave the wikilink to Ælfweard of Wessex simply as that and leave the questions over whether he ever reigned on his respective page.
  • "East Anglians were forced to buy peace". Never heard that expression before. Do you mean sue for peace?
  • Yes, that will work.
  • "Edward sent a combined West Saxon and Mercian army which harassed the Northumbria]]n Danes, and seized the bones of the Northumbrian royal saint Oswald from Bardney Abbey in [[Lincolnshire". Incomplete wikilinks?

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much knowledge on the subject, but all my comments have been addressed and I see no problems with the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Serial Number 54129

[edit]

So far, so insubstantial as to not really constitute a review, but

  • marriagable > marriageable
  • Surrrey > Surrey

And that's it for now  :) looks good, I must say. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • After literally an hour's ceaseless searching, I can't find anything technically wrong with this, so am pleased to support its passage through to the place it must now be. Normally I'd like a specialist in the period to pipe up; but it seesm that that in this particular case, that is, in fact, the author  :) 05:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

[edit]
  • "Mercian leades": ?
  • Corrected to leaders
  • You changed "and laid down that jurisdiction belonged to the king and his officers" to "and asserted that jurisdiction belonged to the king and his officers". I have changed again to "and his legislation established that jurisdiction belonged to the king and his officers", which better reflects the meaning of the source.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, this one looks close to closure. If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at the images? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • 13-century should be hyphenated in lead caption
  • File:Will_of_Alfred_the_Great_(New_Minster_Liber_Vitae)_-_BL_Stowe_MS_944,_f_30v.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Coin_of_King_Edward_the_Elder.JPG: I'm a bit unclear on the licensing here. Do the given tags apply to the coin itself, the plate, or both? If one of the latter two, what was the author's date of death?
  • The author died in 1926, but I do not know whether he was the photographer. I have changed the licence to PD-old-70-1923, the same as File:Athelstan 924-939 coin.jpg. This is in Æthelstan, so not queried when this went through FAC. Is it OK?
  • Can you advise what it should be please?
  • Thanks again Nikki. I have changed to PD-Old-100-1923. I do not understand about the photographer's copyright. Do you mean the permission field? This is not completed on almost all photos I have looked at, including photos I have uploaded. The upload wizard does not provide for completion of this field, so far as I know. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki. Please advise. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any further thoughts on the last query Nikkimaria? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, the current tags on the image page - life+100, published before 1923 - both apply to the object itself. However, since this is a three-dimensional object, the photographer would also receive a copyright for creating the photo. As it is claimed as own work by uploader, it would have been up to the uploader to decide under what license they wanted to release the photo - and it would appear they did not do so. The problem of course is that it appears they are no longer active to ask about this. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. I see now. Does that mean I cannot use the photo? Dudley Miles (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technically yes, although I don't know whether Commons has provisions for cases where uploader didn't include a license for own work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, could you please advise which of these you are happy with and which are still outstanding? Looks good to go other than the image review. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like, with the images now in the article, the one thing outstanding is an author date of death for File:Coin_of_King_Edward_the_Elder.JPG. Is the plate credited anywhere in the source? If no, perhaps PD-EU-no_author_disclosure would be a better fit? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki. I put author unknown assuming this referred to the moneyer. Herbert Grueber was responsible for the illustrations and he died in 1927. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have asked you Nikki - what should I change the author field to? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so in that case I would have both - coin unknown, illustration Grueber (d. 1927) - and in that case the current tag works. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi

[edit]
  • Inconsistent use of Location parameter (37 with; 7 without)
  • P/PP error: Yorke 2001, p. 25, 29–30; P/PP error: Davidson 2001, p. 206–07.
  • This is a genuine question, not a leading question or a hint: Does AEthelhelm fall before Abels in the sort order customary for this field?

Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are all online sources which do not show a location. I am not clear what location means for online sources. Is it the HQ of the company hosting the website? Presumably the publisher would not see any need to advertise this or tell readers if it moved. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, sorry to trouble you. I was actually whipping through the list again and missed the fact that I had mentioned this earlier... Websites often have locations, but I never use web resources, so I am not 100% sure where that info might be found on the page... I can try to look for a couple good examples..or we can ask @Mike Christie:. Actually, location is optional, but consistency is required. Your easiest bet might be to delete all the ther locations, though some people believe that location is necessary information. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that location is optional but I have always shown it since a reviewer recommended it on an FAC. I have never had a query before to showing it on print sources only, and I have understood that consistency does not apply in this case, although as you say Mike should be able to advise. Some academic books show location and not publisher in the bibliography. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact I'm not really an expert on source formatting -- I always get something wrong. I believe location is not required for websites, but Brianboulton or Nikkimaria would be much more reliable on this than I am. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Location is not required for websites. It usually isn't published at all. Most companies use a bureau service, and don't even know themselves where the servers are located. Locations are useful for books, and should always be included for book sources. The five you cite are from the ODNB. In this case, {{cite odnb}} is used, and no location is necessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Hawkeye7 Dudley Miles (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hiyo's first airstrike was a failure and her second and last was a disaster. The ship had a peculiar history as she rarely conducted operations with her aircraft aboard as the IJN adopted a policy of flying carrier air groups from land-bases to minimize the risk to its carriers in 1943–44. She missed the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands because of an generator fire and survived one torpedo attack before being sunk by another during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. As usual, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unlinked or unexplained jargon before I sent it to FAC. I've massively expanded this article since it passed GAN 7(!) years ago and believe that it meets the A-class criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Lingzhi, could you please indicate your support or otherwise. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • if possible, I'd suggest adding another image further down the page somewhere
    • Added one and moved an existing one further down the page.
  • "she was designed to be converted to an aircraft carrier" --> "she was designed to be converted to an aircraft carrier in the event of war"?
  • "vapor" --> "vapour"
  • "armor" --> "armour"
  • "1909-1945": should have an endash
  • I couldn't see the way number in the body of the article
    • Slipway in the first para of the Construction and career section.
  • seems inconsistent: "Early warning was provided by two Type 2, Mark 2, Model 1 early-warning radars" v. "1 × Type 2, Mark 2, Model 1 air search radar" (infobox)
    • Built with one, another was added later in the year.
  • "At this time, the 652 Naval Air Group consisted 81 Zeros..." --> "At this time, the 652 Naval Air Group consisted of 81 Zeros..."
  • "a large explosion occurred when leaking gasoline vapor ignited and it knocked out all power on the ship" --> " a large explosion occurred when leaking gasoline vapor ignited and it knocked out all power on the ship"?
  • in the Further reading section, "1922-1946" should have an endash
  • "File:Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyo.jpg": source link doesn't seem to be working, or seems to redirect to the Yahoo Small Business site?
    • Definitely a dead link, but the generous Japanese copyright law means that the source is basically irrelevant since it could only have been taken during the war.

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, this one looks like it is almost ready for closing. Would you mind taking a look at the images? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her aircraft were disembarked several times and used from land bases in several battles in the South West Pacific." 2 x "several. Delete the second?
  • "Hiyō's flight deck was 210.3 metres (690 ft 0 in) long and had a maximum width of 27.3 metres (89 ft 7 in)." Do we have a minimum width?
    • Don't think so, but even if I did, I'd save that for the class article.
  • "The air group was intended to consist of 12 Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" fighters, plus four in storage, 18 Aichi D3A "Val" dive bombers, plus two in reserve". What is the difference between "in storage" and "in reserve"?
    • None.
  • "Zero fighters and three in storage for the A5Ms by the time the ship commissioned in 1942". "was commissioned"?
    • I've gone with it, but I really don't see the need for a helping verb.
  • The second paragraph of "Construction and career" seems long to me.
    • Moved the last two sentences to the next para.
  • "The ship was under repair at Yokosuka until 15 September, which included additional 2.5 cm Type 96 AA guns and Sumikawa was relieved by Captain Tamotsu Furukawa on 1 September." I would be inclined to split this sentence, but that is highly optional. More relevant - "which included installing additional..."?
    • Good catch.
  • "Her air group rejoined her on 2 March, albeit without aircraft." Am I missing something here? Just what rejoined?
    • Rephrased
  • "The new base was closer to the oil wells in Borneo on which the Navy relied and also..." It may seem obvious, but consider "on which the Navy relied for fuel" or similar.
    • Good idea.
  • "The carriers began launching their first air strike of 26 bomb-carrying A6M2 Zeros, 7 B6Ns and 16 A6M5 Zeros as escort around 09:30." "as escorts" or "as an escort".

Support. A fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support Just a few minor comments from me...

  • In the infobox:
  • The deck armour is not supported by any statement in the main narrative and is therefore unsourced;
  • Don't know how that one slipped through.
  • I'm probably getting confused by the "as built" in the General characteristics section of the infobox, but by my count of the main narrative in the "Flight deck arrangements" section:
  • The ship was designed to accommodate up to 54 aircraft, only reduced to 53 when the Zeros replaced the Claudes;
  • The minimum number was 42 aircraft (21xZeros, 12xD3A & 9xB5N).
  • I've dropped the lower number as the size of the hangar never changed, only the size of the aircraft that could be fit within.
  • Section "Construction and career", 3rd para. If I understand correctly, the ship had 21xZeros in October (figure from section "Flight deck arrangements"). One crash landed, three transferred to the sister ship, leaving 17, but you state that 16 remained when they were flown to Rabaul. Then you state that "18 Zeros from Hiyō..." - did they return to the ship? The earlier section also states 12xD3As on board, but this section states that one transferred to the sister ship and 17xD3As flew to Rabaul.
    • I'd overly compressed the changes in the air group so it should be a little clearer now. Rephrased things to clarify that the fighters belonged to Hiyo, not that they'd flown from her.
  • Same section, 4th and 5th paras. Similar ambiguity with numbers of Zeros. The 4th para states "24 Zeros from Hiyō..." with one Zero shot down, though not clear whether it was one of Hiyō's, then the 5th para states "...together with Hiyō's 21 fighters...". Maybe if you amended this to say "together with 21 fighters from Hiyō" it would eliminate the implication that Hiyō's total compliment of fighters numbered 21?
    • The initial complement of Zeros is stated to be 27, so I don't see a problem here as it seems pretty obvious that not all of her fighters would not necessarily be committed to a single mission.
      • I think "Hiyō's 21 fighters" can be interpreted to mean that that was the total compliment of fighters, but I'm probably being way too obsessive, and anyway it's an insignificant quibble on my part.
  • Same section, 6th para, Now the flagship of the Second Carrier Division under Rear Admiral Munetaka Sakamaki, Hiyō and Junyō departed Yokosuka on 7 June en route for Truk. Maybe "Now the flagship of the Second Carrier Division under Rear Admiral Munetaka Sakamaki, Hiyō departed Yokosuka with Junyō on 7 June en route for Truk." would make it absolutely clear which ship became the flagship?
  • Section "Battle of the Philippine Sea", 2nd para, A pair of Zeros and six D4Ys bound for Rota spotted the carriers Wasp and Bunker Hill en route and failed to inflict any damage on them... -> "A pair of Zeros and six D4Ys bound for Rota spotted the carriers Wasp and Bunker Hill en route, but failed to inflict any damage on them..."?

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the stuff about the changes to the air group. See how my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]
  • "The Americans failed to locate Ozawa's ships that day and the Japanese turned south to maintain a constant distance between them and the American carriers as Ozawa had decided on launching his air strikes early the following morning.": Too much for one sentence I think, with different time frames and the shift in the frame of reference.
    • I struggled a bit on how to rephrase it and came up with: "The Americans, however, failed to detect the Japanese ships that day. Ozawa decided to launch his air strikes early the following morning so the Japanese turned south to maintain a constant distance between them and the American carriers." What do you think?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Erin

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

HMS Erin was one of the two battleships being built for the Ottomans when World War I began and was seized by the British, which probably contributed to the Turkish decision to enter the war. Like almost all of the British dreadnoughts she had an uneventful war; even more so than the others as she was the only British dreadnought not to fire her main armament during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. After the war Erin became a training ship before she was sold in 1922. As usual I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and any unexplained or unlinked nautical jargon before I send this up to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Fix the seized date in the infobox.
    • Done.
  • According to Fromkin, the seizure was illegal, since Britain was not yet at war - don't know if this merits being included
    • Comment: According to Hough, Richard (1967). The Great Dreadnought: The Strange Story of H.M.S. Agincourt: The Mightiest Battleship of World War I. New York: Harper & Row. OCLC 914101. on page 121 the seizure was allowed for in the building contract, per the HMS Agincourt (1913) article. Probably worth investigating further. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hough is simply mistaken, which is not surprising given the age of the book. Fromkin goes into great detail on the lengths to which the British sought legal avenues to acquire the ships, and failing to do so, seized them anyway. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, very well then, it's been a while since I read Fromkin. Might be worth mentioning the anti-British sentiment the seizures caused. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not actually clear what the impact was as Hough's pretty unreliable due to age, although Fromkin speculates that the Turks used the ships as bargaining chips to get the Germans to sign an alliance that obligated them to defend the Turks, even though they already knew that the Brits were going to seize them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did the boilers burn?
    • Good catch
  • I don't think the dreadnoughtproject.org qualifies as an RS.
  • Commons category link needs to be updated.

Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - all images appear to be correctly licensed, with working source links. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]

Just pining your support as a formality @Lingzhi. Please ping to respond. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments
  • Should "Vickers company" be "Vickers Company"?
  • "The main gun turret were 11 inches (279 mm) thick" turrets?
  • "honor" should be "honour"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Sturm, looks pretty good to me. I have the following observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • slightly inconsistent: "25,280 long tons (25,690 t) at deep load" in the body v. "25,250 long tons (25,660 t) (deep load)" (in the infobox)
  • inconsistent: "She was laid down at the Vickers shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness on 6 December 1911" (body) v. "Laid down: 1 August 1911"
  • the seized date of 31 July 1914 does not appear outside of the infobox
    • It's not spelled out, but to detain the ships on 29 July and prevent Ottoman naval personnel from boarding them; two days later, British sailors formally seized them
  • "When Stanley was promoted to Rear-Admiral..." --> "rear-admiral" per WP:MILTERMS
  • there are no dabs, and the ext links all work (no action required)
  • most of the images lack alt text and while it isn't a requirement, you may consider adding it: [57]
  • in the Citations, # 26 has a typo in the title: "&c"
  • same as above for Citations # 27, 38 & 40
  • in the Citations, "p. 695–6" --> "pp. 695–6"
    • That's the enumeration used in the source. Probably because the Navy List used specific pages for various sections and when the data for one exceeded the space available they used these sorts of interpolated page numbers.
  • In the References section, is there a page range that could be added for Preston's chapter in Gray?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Australian Air Corps

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Australian Air Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Allow me to present a neglected formation of the Australian military (so neglected it hasn't even had an article on WP till recently)... The Australian Flying Corps of World War I and the Royal Australian Air Force formed in 1921 are quite well known but between the disbandment of one and the establishment of the other, Australia's military air personnel needed a home, and that was provided by the short-lived AAC. It turned out to be a pretty successful venture though -- rather than simply remain in a holding pattern, its personnel undertook some pioneering flights, and laid the foundations of a permanent air force. Not a long article but I think comprehensive given the subject’s brief existence. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: tidy little article, Ian. (Hoping that you might one day fix the hack job I did on the AFC article...) I have the following review comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • ext links work, there are no dab links and no duplicate links (no action required)
  • all images have alt text (no action required)
  • the article is adequately referenced and uses a consistent referencing style (no action required)
  • "Two biplanes in a field surrounded by a crown"--> "Two biplanes in a field surrounded by a crowd"?
    • Oops...
  • suggest cropping the border from "File:Cadets inspecting the planes of Lieutenant Colonel R. Williams and Major L.J. Wackett in July 1920, Duntroon, Canberra (6173962056).jpg"
    • Can do, though I have to admit a fondness for the antique picture-postcard look of the image as is... ;-)
  • suggest maybe splitting this sentence: "The Australian Air Force was formed on 31 March, inheriting Point Cook and most of its initial personnel and equipment from the AAC (the "Royal" prefix was added to "Australian Air Force" that August)"
    • Okay.
  • some ranks are hyphenated, and some aren't, for instance "Lieutenant Colonel" but "Major-General" and "Rear-Admiral"
    • Damn, I went through and thought I made consistent throughout but guess I only caught some -- will do.
  • if there was an iconic image, I'd suggest adding it to the infobox
    • Yes, this is probably the first article I've created or heavily expanded that doesn't have an ibox image, but I haven't seen what I'd consider an iconic image. Of course as a temporary organisation it not only had no distinct uniform but presumably no crest or ensign either -- but if something shows up I'll put it in.
  • "Warrant officers and sergeants of the AAC, including Arthur Murphy": as the caption appears before the first mention in text, I suggest potentially adding a link to the caption or explaining who Murphy was here
    • Yes, a link'd make sense.
    • Tks for review and support Rupert -- and AFC is no hack job, I've always been impressed with it, and took account of the sections/headers you'd used when I was structuring the AAC article. When/if I have more time I'd be happy to collaborate on getting it to ACR/FAC, though I expect the bulk of the finished product would still be what's already there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Ian, kind of you to say so. Yes, I'd be keen to work with you on the AFC article when you are ready. I would need to order a few books, though, so if you let me know a few weeks in advance, I can order them through the work library. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very well developed article on an interesting topic. I'd like to offer the following comments and suggestions:

  • "Raised in January 1920, the AAC was commanded by Major William Anderson, a former AFC pilot; many of the AAC's members were from the AFC and would go on to join the RAAF. " - I think that there's a bit too much going on in this sentence. I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences (perhaps a second sentence on the personnel, also noting the size of the force?)
  • I'd suggest explaining why the AFC was disbanded - presumably this was part of the disbandment of the AIF?
    • Oddly enough it's very difficult to find even an exact date for the AFC's disbandment -- that's why based on my research I felt I could only say that its' "remnants" were dissolved in December 1919, rather than the corps as a distinct entity -- let alone the official reason for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the role of the AAC envisioned as maintaining only the AFC's physical assets, or was it also intended to maintain the knowledge and experience gained in the war?
    • This too is a bit problematic -- Stephens in his one-volume history of the RAAF and Molenkin in Fire in the Sky suggest it, but Legge as quoted in Coulthard-Clark (who offers the most detailed account of the AAC) apparently never mentioned it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para of the 'Establishment and control' section is a little bit unclear on what the ultimate intentions for the air service were when the AAC was established. Had it been decided at this time to follow the UK in establishing an independent air force, or was this still under consideration? (which the text currently implies was the case)
    • Heh, I used language like "a [or "any"] permanent air force" because there was so much to-ing and fro-ing that the whole thing could've been scuppered almost up until it actually happened. That aside, I think we can say that an independent air force was considered the way to go by January 1919, and will add a sentence or two around that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there a large number of applications from AFC personnel to join the AAC? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed: nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:P07016.001ImperialGiftSE5.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:Cadets_inspecting_the_planes_of_Lieutenant_Colonel_R._Williams_and_Major_L.J._Wackett_in_July_1920,_Duntroon,_Canberra_(6173962056).jpg: any more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nikki, have to admit that in both cases I just grabbed the image from Commons without altering the licensing. I think the first should really be PD-AustraliaGov, and have updated accordingly. Perhaps the second should be as well as it's held by the National Library of Australia? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The copyright status for the second image is 'out of copyright' on the NLA's catalogue [[58]] so PD-Australia would also be appropriate given it doesn't seem to have been an official government photo, but rather one donated to the NLA. It's a great photo! It looks to be taken from the modern lake bed of Lake Burley Griffin. Nick-D (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tks Nick -- yes, for Australia, PD-Australia is fine because the image was taken before 1955, but we also need it to be tagged PD worldwide and whereas a while back we would've added PD-1996 for pre-1946 images (i.e. out of copyright in the home country more than 50 years before 1996), PD-1996 depends on knowing the date it was first published as opposed to simply the creation date, and publishing date is something we rarely know for sure. So we've started using PD-AustraliaGov where appropriate as it applies worldwide. Is that a fair rendition of the rationale, Nikki...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Zawed

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

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Cyril Bassett

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Cyril Bassett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Cyril Basset was the first soldier in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) of WWI to be awarded the VC, which also was the only one awarded to a serving member of the NZEF for the Gallipoli Campaign. The article went through a GA review back in 2014, and I have managed to expand it a little since then. I look forward to the feedback of reviewers and, all going well, seeing this article be promoted to A-Class. Zawed (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chetsford

[edit]

There's not a lot to say on this in terms of content or grammar as it's passed GA with very limited intervening edits. That said, it appears - from my review - that:

  • Images are correctly licensed and have ALT tags; no DAB or external link issues; I checked JSTOR, Google Books, and newspaperarchive.com and could find nothing of substance about Bassett that is not already contained in the article (see three possible exceptions, below)
  • Possible issue: cite 4 is returning a 404 error for me ... with that in mind would it be possible to archive all the web sources?
  • Fixed the cite error. Have archived the links the wayback machine would allow me. The NZ Herald website doesn't allow archiving from the looks and the London Gazette and NZDB web cites use templates that don't appear to display the archive link. Zawed (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible issue: this section in the lead - "the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces" - isn't supported by a source in the lede ... obviously this is correct, though, and it is a well-known enough fact that it might be covered by common knowledge
  • Possible issue: the Akaroa Mail And Banks Peninsula Advertiser from 12 May 1916 contains a several paragraphs long, first-person account by Bassett of the scene of action ... given the age of newspaper, the proximity of the date of report to the date of action, and the fact it is an unfiltered account, this might be a case of WP:PRIMARY, though a few lines of Bassett's observation might add some color
  • Possible issue: apparently the New Zealand Post issued (or is issuing) a commemorative coin showing Bassett in action [59] ... would this be appropriate for a "legacy" section?
  • Possible issue: there's apparently an annual event sponsored by the GoNZ called the "Cyril Bassett VC Speech Competition" [60] ... would a one sentence mention of its existence be appropriate for a "legacy" section?

What a fantastic and well-written article about an important subject! Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert

[edit]

G'day, Zawed, nice work. I have a few minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the infobox mentions he was born in Mount Eden, but this isn't mentioned in the body
  • In 1909, he joined what later became the Territorial Force: might be best to clarify this was a part-time organisation?
  • if possible, I suggest trying to expand the coverage of his service on the Western Front. For instance, are there any more details that could be included about the actions that led to his nomination for the Military Cross?
  • do we know what year he married Ruth Grant?
  • A speech competition...: is this an annual competition?
  • suggest removing the embeded external link for North Shore Memorial Park and replacing it with a proper wikilink (even if it is a redlink)
  • as "It just wasn't done": suggest decapitalising "It" here
  • corporal in the Corps of Signals --> corporal in the Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals as there are a number of corps that have similar names
  • Retrieved 2015-11-22 --> Retrieved 22 November 2015 for consistency of style
  • in the References, some ISBNs are hyphenated but one isn't: this should be consistent (although it is a very minor point of style)

AustralianRupert, thanks for the feedback, I have made a number of edits as a result of your review. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:VCCyrilRoystonGuytonBassett.jpg: it's not clear to me from the provided description why the image would be CC licensed. Is anything known about its earlier provenance?
  • Unfortunately I don't know the exact source of the image. It was uploaded in 2004, well before I started editing Wikipedia. I suspect that it is one in a series of studio photographs taken to celebrate the award of his VC, there are others that show him wearing the bandolier and VC, including this one [File:Cyril Bassett VC (15792094849).jpg] on Commons. Zawed (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

[edit]

Well, conditional upon any image issues being resolved of course. Pls let me know any probs with my copyedit -- I don't have outstanding prose or comprehensiveness concerns, and didn't see any red lights in terms of source reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good with the edits, thanks for the review and support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Like Ian, I made a minor copyedit. [61] All looks good to me. Some readers might find it odd that a signaller is described as a sapper; this is because the Signal Corps was merged with the engineers before the war, based on the notion that in the future signals would be electrical and mechanical. It turned out though that signals is more complicated than they thought, and the Signal Corps was re-established after the war. Not suggesting adding this to the article though. All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review (and edit). Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Germanicus Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British logistics in the Normandy Campaign Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Royal Naval Division War Memorial Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Brilliant Pebbles Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Wettin Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Elsass Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Halmyros Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landings at Cape Torokina Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z32 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z51 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Avenue Range Station massacre Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Peter Drummond (RAF officer) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Type 1934-class destroyer Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Royal Gloucestershire Hussars Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Petropavlovsk-class battleship Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z31 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Param Vir Chakra Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Vanguard (1909) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sam Manekshaw Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/New Britain campaign Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Air Board (Australia) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lawrence Weathers Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Bougainville counterattack Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Red Banner Army

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2018/Promoted&oldid=875959009"