Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2019/Promoted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Russian battleship Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Russian battleship Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Yet another in my series of ill-fated battleships, Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya served in the Black Sea during the First World War. Every time she encountered an enemy ship, they disengaged as fast as possible. Other than than she spent the war protecting smaller ships from interference by the larger Ottoman ships as they conducted mining operations and anti-shipping sweeps. The ship was supposed to be turned over the Germans by the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but she was scuttled by the Soviets instead in 1918. I'd like reviewers to focus on possible improvements to the lede as I've not been able to get it worded to my satisfaction in addition to the usual suspects like jargon, etc. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Image review

@Nikkimaria: My deletion requests have been sitting for a month. Do you know an admin on Commons who can take take of them for me?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. You could load locally under a different name if there is a continued delay. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Still no response. Deleted the image and moved the stamp picture up as a replacement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in good shape, I have a few comments:

That's all I could find to quibble about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indy beetle

[edit]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I'll do this later on, at the weekend or so. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya (Императрица Екатерина Великая (Empress Catherine the Great)) Which language is this written?
    • Please be consistent about how I should treat foreign languages. You've objected to my linking and naming the language in my recent Russian battleship articles and haven't complained when I turned off both.
  • the ex-German Ottoman battlecruiser Yavûz Sultân Selîm once Sea of blue here.
  • was renamed Svobodnaya Rossiya (Свободная Россия, Free Russia) Which language?
  • Her exact draft is not known, but she had a draft of 28 feet 7 inches (8.7 m) Little bit vague to say - first we mentioned she hasn't an exact draught but later you mentioned she had a draught? Wasn't this her exact draught?
    • No, that was her draft for her sea trials which were often not performed at normal load.
  • ammunition for the forward 130-millimeter (5.1 in) guns Metric units as the primary units here?
    • Both. Guns imported from or influenced by France were given official designations in metric measurements
  • fitted with four license-built Parsons steam turbine sets Also sea of blue.
    • Technical terminology.
  • the turbines produced 33,000 shp (25,000 kW) Unlink both links here.
    • Quite right.
  • four primary Curtis 360-kilowatt (480 hp) turbo generators and two 200-kilowatt (270 hp) auxiliary units Was it normal to use Kw instead of horsepower for generators' power?
    • Uncertain; that's how my source gives them.
  • was also fitted with three 75-millimeter (3 in) anti-aircraft guns Add "(AA)" in the sentence.
    • I don't use the abbreviation after that so no need to abbreviate.
  • and completed on 18 October 1915 --> "and completed on 18 October that same year"
  • three seaplane carriers to attack Varna, Bulgaria Pipe Bulgaria to the Kingdom of Bulgaria.
  • she was renamed Svobodnaya Rossiya (Свободная Россия, "Free Russia") Which language?
  • was scuttled on 19 June 1918 by four torpedoes fired by Remove 1918.
    • Indeed.
  • In note a All dates used in this article are New Style, maybe mention that both styles after 1900 had a 13-day difference?
  • In the infobox - why are this kind of "18 × single 130 mm (5.1 in) guns" written in millimetres?
    • See above.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

[edit]
  • I think it's standard practice to bold an alternate name in the lead
  • Any details on the construction program the ship was ordered for?
    • Added a bit
  • No full load displacement?
    • Nope. I suspect that many of her records didn't survive the civil war.
  • "at a more economical speed" - do we know what that speed was?
  • Link keel laying and launching, seaplane carrier, naval mine, Central Powers
  • "salvoes" -> "salvos"
  • Some inconsistencies in the refs - some cities get state/country and some don't, and some are abbreviated and some aren't. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2019 (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 Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

INTERFET logistics

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

INTERFET logistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Nick-D asked for this article a couple of years ago, but its taken me this long to get it done. The Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999-2000 is an interesting case of a multinational coalition not lead by a great power. The politics of the operation, the diplomacy involved in assembling the coalition, and of course the operations are all fascinating subjects, but my interest as always is in the logistics. The official history of the intervention in East Timor has yet to appear, and I'm not expecting a great deal on logistics, as the Vietnam volumes are very poor in this regard. (The US volume on logistics in Vietnam has also failed to appear.) So this article represents my best effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

[edit]

I just did the GAN, and raised a few things there which have been addressed. What remains is to identify what some of the other logistic inputs (or lack thereof) were. What about in terms of number of casualties (battle and non-battle), and the ammunition usage/wastage. Might the RAR book Duty First have something useful on battle casualties? Or articles in medical journals or Army publications on other casualties? Is there anything that can be said about salvage and construction materials? They are the only questions I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, thanks for this article. Hopefully this article will help correct the notion that "log just happens". I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • carried 9,500 tonnes of cargo and transported No convert here?
    Added a conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portugal had established a settlement on Timor in 1561, and in East Timor in 1633 This is a little bit not clear. The Portuguese arrived in 1961 on the island itself but they arrived in the eastern part in 1633, right?
    No, the Portuguese probably reached Timor in 1511, and definitely in 1515. [2] Their first settlement in East Timor was in 1633.
  • Also, pipe the Netherlands (in the next sentence) and Portugal to the Kingdom of Portugal and the Dutch Republic.
    I don't see the benefit of that. They are considered to be the same countries, and the narrative quickly moves into the 19th and 20th centuries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • proposed that East Timor become a United Nations (UN) trusteeship Unlink the UN because of common term.
    It is not on the MOS:OVERLINK list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rest will follow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I had high hopes for any article you chose to write on this topic, but this effort really knocked it out of the park (or hit it for six if you'd prefer!). I have the following comments:

  • "significant numbers of civilian storemen" - can a non-gendered term be used here? (presumably at least some were women?)
    Deleted "storemen". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10th Force Support Battalion (IFET)" - what is IFET an acronym for?
    Interim Force East Timor. Changed to "INTERFET". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To compensate for the delay in bringing Kanimbla and Manoora into service" - this appears before the sentence where the ships are linked and the problem with them explained
    Shifted it around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first priority was water" - I recall reading (but can't remember where, sorry) that the lack of deployable water purification facilities was a real dilemma during the early days of INTERFET as a surprisingly large proportion of airlift capacity was tied up in flying water in.
    I'll have another look though the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and two McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornets were kept on standby in case air defence or close air support missions were required." - as a suggestion ahead of FAC, and at the risk of scope creep, a little bit more could be said about the forces held on standby in northern Australia. These included a detachment of F-111s which were kept bombed up (with concrete bombs, from memory) at RAAF Base Tindal and a number of Leopard tanks which were held at high readiness to move.
    Will do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says both that "The heliport was found abandoned, but not burnt or seriously damaged" and "The heliport was in poor condition, and was located on low ground susceptible to flooding" which seems contradictory.
    Deleted "in poor condition". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to ATCO doesn't seem right given it's to an article on a Canadian company.
    That's the right company. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produced a report that was highly critical of the performance of Treloar and Mueller" - do the sources note any particular deficiencies?
    No, they don't. I will have another look. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support My A-class level comments are now addressed. This article really is excellent work. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Overall a fine mix of well placed and captioned images. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2019 (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) 11:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Teriitaria II

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Teriitaria II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this is an extremely influential figure in French Polynesian history. She defeated a French invasion force in the Franco-Tahitian War and indirectly secured the independence of the Leeward Islands and the French protectorate of Tahiti (instead of outright annexation) for four decades after her victory.KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Painting_of_Teriitaria_Ariipaea.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:The_Cession_of_the_District_of_Matavai_in_the_Island_of_Otaheite_to_Captain_James_Wilson_for_the_use_of_the_Missionaries_Sent_Thither_by_that_Society_in_the_Ship_Duff,_by_Robert_Smirke.jpg, File:Raveae_saves_his_life_from_the_idolaters.jpg, File:Femmes_de_L'Isle_Taïti._(Isles_de_la_Sociéte)_1._Po-maré_Vahiné,_régente._2._Téré-moémoé,_veuve_de_Po-maré_II_(cropped).jpg, File:Queen_Teriitaria,_drawing_by_H._B._Martin,_retouched.jpg, File:Edward_Gennys_Fanshawe,_Teriitaria_or_Ariapaia_(Teri’i_tari’a_II_Ari’i_paea),_Queen_of_Huahine,_Augt_30th_1849_(Society_Islands).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of these images were published in the US though except for Ellis's image which was from one of his editions published in New York. The others were made in Europe or Australia. I added {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} to these based on a similar image from a past review. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KAVEBEAR and Nikkimaria, is this finished? Векочел (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: To clarify, I believe Nikki is just saying that her image review is finished, not that the A-class review for this article is finished (as a whole process). I notice that you attempted to promote the article to A-class with this edit: [4], which I assume was based on Nikki's response? While I appreciate you were just trying to be efficient in your co-ord duties, I have reverted this closure now, as this is not the correct process to follow (and the code you used would not allow Milhistbot to process the closure anyway). For an article to pass Milhist ACR it needs at least three explicit supports, as well as successful image and source reviews per WP:MHR. At this stage, the article has only had a single image review, so there is still a long way for it to progress. If you have further queries or concerns about processing A-class reviews, please ask your fellow co-ords at WP:MHCOORD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, Kavebear, I found this difficult to review as my lack of understanding of local names caused me some difficulties keeping all the key players and locations straight in my head. Apologies if I miss anything because of this. Anyway, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab links and the ext links all work (no action required)
  • Raiatea and the temple complex of Taputapuatea marae at Opoa was considered... "were considered"?
  • Changed
  • Papeete appears to be overlinked
  • Removed excess links.
  • For ease of understanding, she will be referred to as Teriitaria throughout the article -- this sort of internal commentary probably should just go in a footnote, rather than in the body of the article
  • Changed
  • likely an unsuccessful infanticide -- suggest that this opinion/assessment be attributed in text
  • Leave as is for now since it wasn't a novel assessment
  • Pomare fell in love with her younger sister --> "Pomare fell in love with Teriitaria's younger sister"?
  • Changed
  • Changed
  • Described as an Amazon queen: suggest stating who described her as such here
  • From Teissier's "Teri'itaria, grande femme aux traits masculins, intrépide amazone..." From Martin's "being the most perfect type of an Amazon in the known world". I don't think it is necessary since it isn't a direct quote.
  • suggest linking wet nurse and baptized (piped to baptism)
  • Changed
  • However, later sources claimed they --> "However, according to Henry Adams they..."?
  • Changed. It was oral tradition of the rival clan of Teva written down by Henry Adams.
  • Her administration was seen as economically oppressive --> suggest stating who saw it as such
  • Changed
  • the British Navy officer --> "British naval officer" or "Royal Navy officer"?
  • Changed
  • I see a number of sentences that have upto four citations (for instance the sentence "She shared her name with her half-uncle, King Teriʻitaria I who was ruling Huahine when Cook brought the Tahitian explorer Omai back to the islands from Europe on his third voyage in 1777"), is it really necessary for so many citations for this?
  • Removed and bundled some for now. It is a growing project and it helps with remembering what sources goes with what at time.
  • "The succession becomes confusing at this point in history, and the exact details of the transition of power are hard to piece together": is this an assessment by the cited authors? If so, I'd suggest something like "The succession becomes confusing at this point in history, and historians have found the exact details of the transition of power hard to piece together"
  • Changed
  • I found some inconsistencies in terms of English variation, e.g. harbour (British) but unraveled, saber and neighboring (US)
  • Changed to British since it is a European/French topic.
  • the Queen — for a roof: unspaced emdash per WP:DASH or a spaced endash (same for the whole paragraph here)
  • G'day, no worries, it's a minor point and my typo above doesn't help make it clearer (apologies). I've tweaked the article for you now. Essentially, if you choose to use the longer emdash, it shouldn't have spaces around it. If you use the shorter endash, it should have a space either side. I went with the spaced endash, but please feel free to adjust if you prefer it the other way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • prowess 8c personal --> "prowess & personal"?
  • Changed

Support by Векочел

Support Comments by Maile66

  • Marriage to Pōmare II
  • under the protection of Pōmare I although he did not - probably should be a comma after "Pōmare I"
  • Change
  • saw this legacy unraveled because of internal rivalries - possibly clarify as "saw this legacy unravel" or "saw that this legacy unraveled"
  • Change
  • fled into exile to his possessions on the neighbouring island - are these possessions territory, or material items?
  • Territorial possessions
  • The union remained childless since both were followers of - clarification. The first sentence should be about the childless marriage, and the second sentence about her death.
  • Change
  • During the absence of the miss. who had gone to the - is there something missing between "miss." and the next word?
  • It is an abbreviation of missionaries since it is a quote. I won't change it.
  • Her sister Teremoemoe had three children with him - Somewhat contradictory to the explanation of the childlessness of his first marriage, but possibly due to the influence of the Christian missionaries??
  • Also Tahitian chiefs eventually have to reproduce children to take their place as successors. Membership in the Arioi seems to be temporary and not lifelong. Pomare I and his wife Itia were Arioi until Pomare II's birth. The birth of ari'i children unlike in Hawaii demotes the status of the parents which is why Pomare I abdicate symbolically to his son and why Pomare II's grandfather Teu was still living until 1802. Really more of a topic for the Arioi article or for Pomare I's expansion since the order didn't really impact Teriitaria's marriage to Pomare II.
  • Battles for Christianity
  • Described as an Amazon queen - perhaps link to Amazons, if that was your meaning.
  • Linked

Regent of Tahiti

  • British missionaries opposed this since the British had no formal treaties - could use a comma between "this" and "since"
  • Changed "since" to "because"
  • with the pork trade and ignored acts of piracy - should there be a comma after "trade"?
  • Changed
  • Ruler of Huahine
  • She wrote a letter to Queen Victoria, dated to 3 February 1847 - don't need for the word "to" in that sentence
  • Changed
  • Deposition
  • Just a question as to whether or not it is known what happened to her body after she died? Burial, entombment, cremation?
  • @Maile66: No idea. I haven't been able to find much details about her death either besides she died in Papeete by the sides of her relatives. I assume she is buried at the Pōmare Royal Cemetery, Papaʻoa, ʻArue, but that is just speculation. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this enough for promotion? @Hawkeye7 and AustralianRupert: KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, it looks like it is almost there, IMO assuming Gog is happy with your responses, but I will have to leave the decision to one of the co-ords. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • In "References" several "p." should be 'pp.', and vice versa.
  • Fixed.
  • Davies: are you sure about that ISBN? They didn't exist in 1961.
  • Fixed.
  • Is there a reason why the cite to the 1846 Evangelical Magazine and Missionary Chronicle does not give the publisher nor the publisher location?
  • Fixed.
  • Cuzent: Could you specify the language. Similarly for any other non-English language sources.
  • Fixed.
  • Moerenhout and Borden: the title of the work should be in title case. As should Mortimer. There may be others.
  • What do you mean by "title of the work should be in title case"
@Hog the Mild: Can you specify what you mean here?KAVEBEAR (talk) 15
  • 05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Newbury 1956 should be formatted 'cite thesis', not "cite journal", and use '|type=PhD thesis'.
  • Changed.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you prove significant scholarly influence? Gonschor's is the only source on a lot of these information regarding the 1850s transition unless I cite his primary sources myself. Removing it will leave giant holes in the narrative. Gonschor himself is a recently published author. His 2019 book "A Power in the World: The Hawaiian Kingdom in Oceania" cites this thesis and the thesis is also cited in "A Nation Rising: Hawaiian Movements for Life, Land, and Sovereignty" by Noelani Goodyear-Kaopua, Ikaika Hussey, Erin Kahunawaika'ala Wright[5].

Other citations:

  • "Sodomy Laws and Gender Variance in Tahiti and Hawai‘i" by Aleardo Zanghellini
  • "Remembrance of the Colonial Past in the French Islands of the Pacific: Speeches, Representations, and Commemorations" by Bruno Saura
  • "Rapanui and Chile, a debate on self-determination: a notional and legal basis for the political decolonisation of Easter Island", MA thesis by Rodrigo A. Gómez
  • "The Color of Nationality: Continuities and Discontinuities of Citizenship in Hawaiʻi", PhD thesis by Willy Daniel Kaipo Kauai.
  • Introduction to the Law of Community Care in England and Wales by Alan Robinson
  • « Négocier les interdépendances » : autonomie, action politique et identité au Henua ‘Enana by Pascal-Olivier Pereira de Grandmont??
  • https://www.epfl.ch/labs/far/wp-content/uploads/03-Governance.pdf

KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2019 (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) 03:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The final instalment of the South Australian Victoria and George Cross recipients project I've been working on. Sullivan enlisted to serve in World War I, but didn't complete training before the war ended. Instead, he sought discharge and enlisted in the British Army's North Russia Relief Force which was part of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. During operations there he saved several members of his unit, including a minor member of the nobility, during an ambush at a river crossing, and was awarded the VC. He returned to Australia and had a successful banking career before dying in an accident while a member of the Australian Coronation Contingent in London in 1937. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I'll be largely incommunicado 8-17 December, but will address any comments as soon as I get back from holidays. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this one at GAN, and not a lot stands out to me. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab, ext links all work (no action required)
  • Australian War Memorial is overliked in the Legacy section
  • on a wide sweeping approach march through the thick forest of nearly 31 miles (50 km) --> "on a wide sweeping approach march of nearly 31 miles (50 km) through the thick forest"?
  • It seems that Sullivan did not take to --> "It seems that Sullivan did not take to"
  • Due to legislative requirements, Sullivan's inquest was conducted over his coffin: I'm not quite sure what this means
    Apparently the deceased's body had to be in the court. Tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, Staunton --> Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 12?
  • in the Further reading section, "1918-20" --> endash

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5! All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Zawed

[edit]

This one is looking pretty good, just a few nitpicks:

  • Lead: "...sought his discharge from the AIF in May. On the same day he enlisted...": The "same day" lacks antecedence since you haven't mentioned the day previously
  • To Russia: "He was attracted by the prospect of a tour of active duty...": Because you refer to him being "attracted" later in this paragraph, I wonder if one of them ("attracted") should be dropped. I would suggest this one, rephrasing it to something like "He was interested in the prospect of a tour of active duty..."
  • To Russia: "Sullivan was attracted by the high pay and adventure." suggest "Sullivan was attracted by the high pay and potential for adventure."
  • Legacy: "the largest military funeral given to a private soldier." I'm think this is in relation to his rank in the ACC but this was given as a gunner and I'm not sure all readers will know this.
  • Legacy: "unveiled a plaque in Crystal Brook dedicated to its famous son". Perhaps clarify here the confusion about his place of birth for readers who have not read the note about his place of birth.

That's my comments done Zawed (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed, all addressed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, would you mind checking the image licensing on this please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

I'll be back soon! Pendright (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede:
  • Arthur Percy Sullivan, VC (27 November 1896 – 9 April 1937) was an Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to a member of the British Armed Forces.
Consider this: Arthur Percy Sullivan VC, (27 November 1896 – 9 April 1937), was an Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to a member of the British Armed Forces.
Second thoughts: why the comma after Arthur Percy Sullivan? Pendright (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sullivan immediately dived in, and rescued them all, one by one, ...
  • The comma after in seems unnecessary.
  • Because it was a "deep swamp", is dived in appropriate here?
  • Sullivan was deployed to North Russia with the relief force, and following a successful attack, was a member of the rearguard of a column withdrawing across the Sheika River.
The first clause of the sentence is fine, but the second one is unclear.

Early life:

  • Arthur Percy Sullivan was born on 27 November 1896, at Prospect, South Australia, the only child of Arthur Monks Sullivan, a storekeeper, and his wife Eliza née Dobbs of Crystal Brook in the mid-north of the state.
Why the comma after 1896?
  • ...and from 1910 at Gladstone High School where he was [the] school [football] captain.
Consider the above [additions].

To Russia:

  • Sullivan was hospitalised with gonorrhea at Bulford between 25 November 1918 and 11 March 1919, then was promoted to acting corporal on 23 March, ...
Somehow, the two topics here seem too incompatibe to be part of the same sentence?
  • The NRRF was an 8,000-strong force of two brigades which included about 150 Australians who had been awaiting repatriation in the UK ...
Replace witch with that
  • The Australians were permitted to continue wearing [the] Australian uniform, and wore the NRRF colour patch on their sleeve.
Add [the]

Dvina:

  • ... a wide sweeping approach march of nearly 31 miles (50 km) through the thick forest to be in position for the attack at 12:00 on 10 August.
Through "a" (not the) thick foest.
  • At 12:00, the D Company column, which included Sullivan's 16 Platoon, launched its assault, although without the support of the mountain guns and cavalry which had been left behind due to the difficult terrain.
Replace which with that after calvary
  • ... edge of the forest by 11:00
edge of "a" (not the) forrest
  • Thirty minutes later, [the] British artillery, the river flotilla and aircraft began bombarding Kochamika.
Add [the]
  • Sullivan waded out with a piece of broken handrail from the temporary bridge which the soldier was able to grab and be pulled to safety.
Change which to that.
  • The fusiliers returned fire from the far bank, and suppressed the Bolshevik fire.
Consider linking fusioier, if it is not already linked.
  • After the river crossing, the column partly broke up into small groups which made their way back to the British lines at Troitsa about 07:00.
Replace which with "and then"

Australian cotingent:

  • The barracks guard came to his aid and carried him to the orderly room and he was taken to hospital, but Sullivan died soon thereafter.
Following thereafter, consider adding: at the age of 41.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Pendright, I reckon I have got them all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: All comments addressed - supporting. Happy New Year! Pendright (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I have not carried out spot checks.. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of sources have been used. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2019 (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) 00:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ASV Mark III radar

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

ASV Mark III radar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the radar that won the Battle of the Atlantic, along with its ship-mounted counterparts like the Type 271. With some fortuitous timing, which included the arrival of B-24s, the new frigates with huff-duff, and the Mark III, the German U-boat force was broken in a matter of months, never to recover. Also, the whole disinformation line is fun. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Maury, overall this looks quite good and comprehensive. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • H2S radar is overlinked in the lead
Fixed. Did a link sweep over the entire article.
  • inconsistent spelling "realized" and "realised"
Urg, this is one of my pet peeves about Grammarly, which is otherwise superb and I recommend it to everyone, it gets confused about US vs. UK spelling.
  • in the body the following terms are overlinked: cathode ray tube, Eureka transpoding radar, night fighter, time base generator, lobe switching, waveguide, coaxial cable, slant range
All fixed.
  • advantage — the: should be an unspaced emdash or spaced endash depending on your chosen style
I hate both, I used the later.
  • where their higher resolution allowed them to detect small lifeboats.: needs a citation
Done.
  • a 9 inches (230 mm) cathode ray tube (CRT) --> "a 9-inch (230 mm) cathode ray tube (CRT)" - this can be achieved by adding "|adj=on" to the convert template
Added.
  • on a 6 inches (150 mm) CRT --> "on a 6-inch (150 mm) CRT"
ditto.
  • citation 21 has page numbers on the source, so it is probably best to use these in your citation - the work itself appears to have identified authors and a year of publication here: [6]:I added the page numbers but
Added.
  • citation 26 is inconsistently formatted - compare with Brown which you also only use once
  • citation 27 "Hanbury_Brown 1991, p. 311": the underscore should be a hyphen (or a space without the underscore, depending upon the answer to the next point below)
HB will be used more widely in the future.
  • in the Bibliography, Hanbury Brown should have a hyphen for consistency with the other entry (see Smith), or they should both have a space if you choose to render it that way
There is no dash etc in any reference I can find. How do I remove it from the SFN?
Removed this for you now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent caps: "notably the new "Fliege" or "Additionally, fliege..."
Fixed.
  • in the Bibliography, Campbell should appear after Bowen; Gordon should appear before Hanbury-Brown
Done. Personally, I think we need to stop demanding this. We don't read these lists looking for entries, we link to them and click, so ordering is simply not important. The wikipedia is not printed, we shouldn't slavishly follow guidelines that only make sense in that medium. But no one listens to me.
  • ISSN for the IEE proceedings journal? Can probably be located here: [7]
Can't find it.
  • which corresponds to the introduction of Naxos --> "which corresponded to the introduction of Naxos"?
Fixed.
  • Unfortunately, these loops also...: best to avoid the word "unfortunately" per WP:EDITORIAL
Removed.
  • available units. Bomber Harris: rank and full name on first mention
Fixed.
G'day AR, are you happy with Maury's responses here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of them have been addressed. The ones that remain are very minor. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • -ise vs -ize in some words which one should the article use?
ize I'm assuming as the UK spelling?
  • Both are allowed but -ise is more widely used in the UK. -ize is more part of university English.
  • 10 cm band compared to Mk. II's 1.5 m wavelength No English units and British units should be the primary units here.
Actually no, these were never measured in british units, wavelength has always been in meters since the very early days. I had a US radio from the 1940s that used inches, but the UK had switched over before this period and the US used the same units after the Tizard mission so their radars also used it. Every contemporary reference uses m and cm. "s-band" means "sentimeteric", a deliberate misspelling of the actual unit. You might think that "1.5 meter" implies something like "4 feet", but it's not like that, these bands are really just names.
  • Link MHz in the infobox.
Added, and s-band.
  • No English unit in the "Range" part in the infobox.
Someone else added?
  • Link kW and add volts too in the infobox.
Added kW. Watts measure power, volts measures, well, volts. These are not equivalent units so there's no conversion.
  • of reasons, the 1.5 m wavelength of the radar system No English unit?
  • produced microwaves at around 10 cm No English unit?
  • Link both kilowatts and microwave in the File:Original_cavity_magnetron,_1940_(9663811280).jpg image.
Overlinking?
  • I believe it is safe to add a link in an image because it is easier to click on the link instead of searching the link or searching it on Wikipedia itself same with tables. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • broadcast power from 7 to 100 kW Link kW here and add also volts here.
Again, where should the volts go here?
  • that operated on a 50 cm wavelength English unit?
  • the radar horizon being only 27 nautical miles (50 km; 31 mi) Link nautical miles here.
This is the convert tag, how do I do that?
  • the night of 1-2 March 1943 --> "the night of 1–2 March 1943" or "the night of 1/2 March 1943".
Fixed.
  • the end of the month, a full 30% of the U-boat Use per cent not % we only use it in tables and infoboxes.
Changed, but why is this?
  • while flying at 6,000 feet altitude No metric unit?
And, oddly enough, altitude is only ever measured in feet and angels. Even today.
  • detect signals in the 120 to 150 cm range No English units?
  • was sensitive between 75 and 300 cm No English units?
  • on the order of 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) Round the nought here.
How?
  • I believe it is unnecessary to use an extra nought here.
  • added antennas to detect 3 cm signals No English unit?
  • the Blind Approach Beacon System (BABS) at 173.5 MHz Link MHz.
Already linked in body.
  • Lucero was a transceiver tuned to the 1.5 m-band Remove the hyphen.
Removed.
  • Lucero's 500 W transmitter periodically Link watt.
Already linked on kW.
  • line with fixed steps indicating 1 mile (1.6 km) Use one instead of 1. Because every number below ten should be written in letters. Thus 3 should also be written in letters.
Convert tag, how do I do this?
  • and instead fixed at 1 mile range
  • This caused a -3 dB reduction What's a dB?
Linked.
  • in signal below about 40 kHz Link kHz.
Linked on first instance.
  • the 200 kW CV192 magnetron, compared to the original 40 kW version No volts?
  • would take 30 miles / 186,282 miles per second How much is that number in km/h?
It doesn't matter, it's still 0.00016 seconds.
  • submarine at 14 miles (23 km) at 1500 ft, 11 miles (18 km) at 1000 ft a number more than 999 should have a comma in each nummber.
added.
  • this significantly to 38.5 miles (62.0 km) Round the nought.
How?
  • All the refs with more than one page should be written in "pp" style not with a single "p". Also all the refs with more page numbers should have an "–".
Most of these are not page ranges, they are the format for single pages used in the reference. That is page 3 dash 4.
  • Ref 10, Remove the second 3 in the page numbers.
  • Ref 11, Switch the numbers.
  • Ref 12, Same as above.
  • Ref 16, "p. 3-4." --> "pp. 3–4."
  • Ref 26, No link of Blair?
Do you mean a link to the book? Added.
  • Ref 30, Switch the page numbers.
  • Ref 32, Same as above.
  • Ref 33, Same as above.
  • Ref 34, "p. 3-16." --> "pp. 3–16.".
  • Ref 35, "p. 3-15." --> "pp. 3–15.".
  • Ref 36, "p. 3-17." --> "pp. 3–17.".
  • Ref 43, "p. 372-375." --> "pp. 372–375.".
  • Ref 44, "p. 372-373." --> "pp. 372–373.".
  • Ref 45, "p. 3-9." --> "pp. 3–9.".
  • Ref 46, "p. 3-10." --> "pp. 3–10.".
  • Ref 47, "p. 3-11." --> "pp. 3–11.".
  • Ref 48, "p. 3-12." --> "pp. 3–12.".
  • Ref 49, "p. 3-13." --> "pp. 3–13.".

That"s anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5, are you happy with the above? Need any tweaks, have any additional points? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of my comments are adressed, but I am waiting until he addressed the rest. I'll ping him @Maury Markowitz:

Support from Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

The Battle of the Atlantic is one of the most interesting aspects of World War II, so it's great to see a high quality article on one of the most important Allied tools in this campaign. I have the following comments:

  • I'd suggest expanding the lead and the later sections to make it clear that this radar was a key element in the Allies' slaughtering German subs until the end of the war (and when the subs started using snorkels to minimise their vulnerability to radar they became largely ineffective) - the narrative sort-of stops in 1943
Indeed, expanded.
  • " becoming the first radar system to be mounted on an aircraft in a combat setting" - could this be changed to something like " becoming the first radar system to be mounted on combat aircraft"?
Fixed.
  • " However, the system was soon converted to follow the H2S model" - this is the first time H2S is mentioned in the article, and I think more information on what it is would be helpful
Indeed, expanded.
  • "Bomber Harris objected" - I'd suggest tweaking this to his proper name and position
Done.
  • "commander of Coastal Command, Philip Joubert de la Ferté" - I'd suggest adding his rank
This changed during this period and I'm not sure what it was at this point.
  • "The next night the same aircraft spotted a submarine at 7 miles (11 km) and successfully dropped depth charges on it" - does the source say which sub this was?
It does not, Lovell wasn't terribly interested in filling in details like this (which, admittedly, was somewhat out of context in his book).
  • "By May, the U-boats were being attacked continually from the moment they left port to the time they returned." - This is a bit of an over-statement. The Allies didn't operate close to German ports, and couldn't maintain contact with subs indefinitely
Improved, but it was continuous, they could encounter aircraft or hunter-killer groups anywhere from the Bay on, and this is the period where the mid-atlantic gap was covere:
  • "Even if they escaped into the Atlantic, boats were then attacked hundreds of miles from the convoys while they attempted to form up the wolfpacks. This was combined with the arrival of new frigates mounting microwave radars and huff-duff receivers, further hindering U-boat operations. Successfully forming up and pressing on to the convoys proved almost impossible" - what was the role of code breaking in this? (though, as I understand it, Huff Duff was more important). In general, the Allies sank subs when they approached convoys rather than roaming around the ocean.
It was the near simultaneous arrival of the ASV Mk III, the US versions of the same concept (ASG and DMS-1000), huff-duff, the new frigates and the enigma break of late 1943 that did it. If these had arrived peacemeal I don't think they would have been remotely as effective. Mark III was perhaps the least important of these, but that is what the article is about.
  • "one of the most effective disinformation campaigns of the war" - this doesn't seem to have been a "campaign". It was something a single quick witted officer said when interrogated. Disinformation campaigns were longer-lasting and very complex.
A better term? I used campaign simply because that's the term people use.
Something like "In spite of this early warning of a new system, German efforts were crippled by misinformation" seems more appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that they finally began to consider" - specify who "they" is here
Added.
  • " It would later become clear that the Battle of the Atlantic was won with the introduction of Mark III" - this is also an overstatement. Historians generally argue that the Battle of Atlantic decisively turned in the favour of the Allies in mid-1943 due to multiple factors which became effective at pretty much the same time (this radar, code breaking, more and better aircraft, etc)
Removed.

Support Yes, my comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, if you get a chance, could you please take a look at the image licensing on this one? I'll do the source review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

All the sources look of high quality and reliable. For verification purposes, it would be helpful to add the OCLC for the NSA archival documents, which is 122396382. The only thing I would think might be needed for FAC would (per Nick-D) be Blair's works on the Battle of the Atlantic and other less gizmo-focussed texts on the campaign covering the operational effects of the radar and Coastal Command aircraft/unit/formations that used it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Vickers_Wellington_Leigh_Light.jpg: why is this believed to be UKGov?
THis still needs to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:U-243.jpg: when/where was this first published? Why is it both UKGov and AustraliaGov?
  • Doesn't need publication date for both PD tags, but both tages are there because it is in a British government official photograph collection and was presumably taken by an Australian serviceman. Kges1901 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:FuMB-7_Naxos_and_FuMB-26_Tunis_antenna.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • It would seem based on authorship that the work would have been subject to Crown copyright, and the given tag states that in such a case copyright would have expired because the work "was first published more than 50 years ago". In order to ascertain that that is the case we would need to know when and where it was published. This detail would additionally affect its status in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is most likely to be Canadian crown copyright, and needs publication information to be able to use that license. There is also no statement in the licence about crown copyright expiration applying worldwide, so I think this has to go unless a reasonable non-free rationale can be used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not beside the point. We don't accept what other sites say about the photos they host, we have to establish a valid one for Wikipedia to host it. The most likely valid licence is Canadian crown copyright. That licence needs publication information. Without that, or a reasonable non-free use rationale, it needs to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maury, it has to meet the requirements of one of the possible licences. The Canadian crown copyright licence (the most likely one) requires publication information. If you don't have publication information, it has to go (or be replaced by a non-free version). Just pinging Nikkimaria in case I've got this wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition there is the issue of US status, which is also dependent on publication time and place in the absence of a global expiration statement (as there is for UK crown copyright, for example). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have to meet some, it has to meet all the requirements for the licence used, which in the case of the Canadian crown copyright template (PD-Canada-Crown) means having a date of publication before 31 December 1968. PD-Canada-Crown (unlike PD-AustraliaGov) doesn't say that the Canadian government has asserted that expiry of crown copyright applies worldwide, so because images are held on servers in the US, it also has to have a valid US licence as well as a Canadian one. So, you need a publication date for this image to be used, and then a valid US licence as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a valid US PD tag, assuming it isn't being claimed under Canadian crown copyright and just on being PD due to the creation before January 1, 1949. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also confused about this one. "It is a photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or" - I do not understand why we need a date and authorship if it's PD. This particular aircraft was scrapped in 1945, and the image here states it was "flying the last operational sortie of the war undertaken by Coastal Command " so it would seem clear 1945. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then replaced by a "more official" upload. I know there's a way to crop the image down in the thumbnail, anyone know the trick? On further study I'm not sure this one did get scrapped, it may or may not be the one at Hendon, which I've been on, because NS-Z had it's codes changed several times. If this is that aircraft, ML824, the flight is on 1 May as it was renamed on the 12th and didn't fly any patrols during those two weeks. It flew one more sortee on the 13th but had been repainted by that time. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the "date" section. Is that not where it should be? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at File:Short Sunderland Mk V.jpg. There is no date section on that page. Where on that page does it give the name of the photographer or your assumptions about when it was taken? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the correct image. I think you need to refresh your browser cache. The correct image is here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that one is good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury, just checking to make sure that you have noticed that a source and image review have been carried out. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not get pings for this for some reason. I do not know how to respond to any of these questions, as I am the original uploader of only one, and I have no idea how I am to get the original publication date. I should point out that the source page for that image states "Restrictions on use: Nil", so it is not clear why the date is required. If this is holding up A or FA I suppose we could simply delete them all. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury. Unless you wish to go down the track of non-free rationales, three of these need to go, the other is ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was busy IRL. Given the choice of removing images or lacking the star, I'll take lacking the star. Sorry for wasting everyone's time, but on the upside, the article has improved for the effort. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Maury, but it just doesn't work that way. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a number of people have been trying to help you get appropriate licences for these images to be used, but if you just refuse to learn how to do it or won't for whatever reason, any editor is completely within their rights to apply the site image policies and nominate them for deletion from Wikimedia Commons. And I have no doubt they will get deleted based on the current information. So if you want to use them, move them to Wikipedia instead of Commons and generate a non-free use rationale for them (or add the information that is required to the file page in the case of the Sunderland). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"refuse to learn how to do it or won't for whatever reason" - Yikes. I wrote to the Ministry of Canadian Heritage in November to clarify these issues. However, as you might have heard, we were in the midst of a rather contentious election, and the Minister is newly-appointed. I had them elevate the request within the Ministry, but I'm not sure how long that will take. In the meantime, why don't we simply remove that one image and add it back later? Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been another week so I give up hearing back from the Ministry. I removed the image. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. Does Maury's response above move the image review forward? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2019 (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) 00:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Sourton Down

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Sourton Down (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Battle of Sourton Down was a well-executed ambush by a small Parliamentarian force on a much larger Royalist one. It was another loss for Ralph Hopton, but one of his finest victories was to follow not too long after. The location of this battle is now a service station just off the A30, the main road in south-west England; one that I have stopped at many, many times, which was part of what caught my fancy about the battle. All comments gratefully received. Harrias talk 13:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review—pass

[edit]
  • I'm a bit confused by the infobox citation to Hopton. In the text the same force information is cited to Barratt. Is the same information in both sources? If so, I would suggest citing Barratt.
    Thanks Buidhe; I've finally addressed this. The information is mixed between both sources, and I've updated the referencing in the main body to reflect that. As the information is provided and cited in the body, I have removed the references from the infobox completely. Harrias talk 09:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, primary sources are used appropriately.
  • Other sources look OK.
  • No source checks done because nominator has a history of successful A-class nominations. buidhe 16:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I have made a couple of copy edits, which you will want to check.

Me neither. But the unexplained introduction of " ... the infantry ... the dragoons …" jars. (Quite a bit for me.)
Hmmm, how about something like "Hertford took the army's infantry to Wales, while Hopton sailed with their dragoons"? Harrias talk 09:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good; that works.
  • " Although Hopton typically fancied himself" "typically"?
  • "the King shared the command;" → 'the King divided the command'. I honestly read that as the King being the co-commander.(!!) I also think that the semi colon should be a colon, with the subsequent commands separated by semi colons.
  • Optional: "Hopton had removed the last Parliamentarian foothold in Cornwall" → 'Hopton had taken the last Parliamentarian outpost in Cornwall'.
  • "but the city was too strong, and Hopton's Cornish forces refused to cross the River Tamar" I submit that we don't know if "the city was too strong". The sentence also seems a little contradictory. Did the Cornishmen refuse to cross the river because (they believed) the city to be too strong? Or for some other reason? If the latter, then why mention the strength of the city? And if it is mentioned, it should, IMO, be its perceived strength.
Good. Thanks.
How about 'Reports of Parliamentarian disarray reached ... '?
Weeell. OK.


OK. Probably just me.
  • "Chudleigh avoided engaging the encamped position" I am not sure that I would describe the position as "encamped".
You're right. Tweaked to "fortified position", although this still seems to oversell it. Harrias talk 09:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Optional: Maybe just 'this position'?.
  • "he awaited reinforcements from his infantry in Okehampton" Just checking that this is correct and that you don't mean 'he awaited the reinforcement of his infantry from Okehampton'?
The first means some of the infantry; the second all of them.
Thanks, changed to the latter. Harrias talk 09:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much intelligence about the scale of the enemy they had faced" To my eye doesn't quite work. You may disagree. Perhaps 'much intelligence about the size of the enemy force they had faced'?
  • "and the cover of darkness" Is "cover of" necessary?
  • "With that in mind, along with their losses, they opted to hold their position until daybreak, when they retreated first to Bridestowe, a village about two miles (3.2 km) south-west of Sourton Down, and then later that day back to Launceston" An over ambitious sentence. Break it up perhaps?
Looks fine to me.
Yes. Better.

That's all from me. Mostly minor niggles or optional suggestions. A fine article: a reader can feel the confusion and panic. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I've finally mopped up the outstanding points, and am looking forward to the "more" which follows. Harrias talk 09:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, as always. One entirely optional and very minor suggestion above. A cracking article. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for the review. Harrias talk 12:43, 28 November 2019 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Bouvet

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

French battleship Bouvet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I'll copy Sturmvogel with an ill-fated battleship of my own: Bouvet was the most successful of the so-called "fleet of experiments", even if that was a fairly low bar – the ship is perhaps best known for sinking in dramatic fashion during the Battle of 18 March, which, along with the loss of two other British battleships that day, prompted the French and British to decide to launch the Gallipoli campaign. Which went great. As we all remember. Anyway, thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

The rest will follow in the future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • would not exceed 14,000 metric tons (14,000 long tons; 15,000 short tons) I do not believe we need short tons.
    • Fixed
  • to around 12,000 metric tons (12,000 long tons; 13,000 short tons) Same as above.
    • Fixed
  • on 20 May, and the navy awarded the contract for the ship on 8 October 1892 Navy as proper noun?
    • Done
  • Tonnes vs metric tons.
    • Fixed
  • She and her half-sisters nevertheless were disappointments Half-sisters? That's the first time I see this what do you mean by that?
    • Added a line on this
  • 31 officers and 591 enlisted men, though her as a flagship her crew grew to 41 officers and 651 enlisted men During peace- or wartimes?
    • Jordan & Caresse don't make a distinction
  • Bouvet had three vertical triple expansion engines --> "She had three vertical triple expansion engines"
    • Works for me
  • Bouvet could carry 610 t (600 long tons; 670 short tons) of coal, though additional space allowed for up to 980 t (960 long tons; 1,080 short tons) in total Remove short tons.
    • Done
  • steam for 3,000 nautical miles (5,600 km; 3,500 mi).[7][6][8] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • system consisted of four 400-ampere/80-volt dynamos --> "system consisted of four 400-ampere/(80 v) dynamos"?
    • Those aren't conversions of each other
  • consisted of two Canon de 305 mm Modèle 1893 guns No English units?
    • It's converted in the lead and Sturm would tell me to only convert it once ;)
  • aft and two Canon de 274 mm Modèle 1893 guns Same as above.
    • As above
  • Aegean coast of the Gallipoli peninsula on 1 March --> "Aegean coast of the Gallipoli Peninsula on 1 March"
    • Done

Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Parsecboy: & @Sturmvogel 66: Also another thing because some commonwealth nations used hyphens in their ranks before and during WWII. My question is do your both, sources say the ranks with hyphen even it is an American source? If it is mixed what is the most used one or is there a rule in American English that ranks shouldn't be hyphened even the sources say so? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right that's anything from me mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Let's finish this one.

  • Cooper's ISSN doesn't match with its ref.
    • It does - it's just the generic entry for Proceedings - there isn't one for the specific volume (and for some reason, the one that comes up when you click the link has a starting year of 1971, but Proceedings is far older than that - but the older editions all have the same ISSN)
  • Corbett's both sources' titles don't match with their ISSNs?
    • Worldcat is frequently incomplete - they're both correct OCLC #s - actually, I know someone who works there, I ought to hassle them ;)
  • Palmer's year doesn't match with the OCLC one?
    • Same as Cooper's - it's just the starting year of publication.
  • All sources are reliable. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

  • kn→knots and link in the lead
    • Done
  • for Ottoman link Ottoman Empire
    • Done
  • suggest "amphibious assault on the Gallipoli peninsula"
    • Done
  • when the first displacement is converted in the Design section, lk=on
    • Done
  • rounding of the length, beam, draft, displacement and power between the infobox and body
    • Should be fixed
  • which crew numbers are being used in the infobox?
    • Good catch
  • " in total. aAt a cruising speed"
    • Fixed
  • the muzzle energy measurements seem inconsistent and a bit obscure, is there a link for foot-tons and kilonewtons (if used, link newton (unit))? And what is STf?
    • The problem is, I don't know what type of tons Cooper was using - I might just remove them
  • perhaps add that the Hotchkiss revolver cannon was a five-barreled job
    • Good idea
  • QF→quick-firing
    • It's explained the first time its used
  • you could put the mine capacity in the infobox
    • Done
  • is the lower belt range in the infobox right? What about the 200 mm lower edge of the main belt?
    • Fixed
  • perhaps state that Golfe-Juan is on the Côte d'Azur and link it?
    • Done
  • "one of the deck-mounted torpedo tubes"
    • Good catch
  • "and on their return to Toulon"
    • Fixed
  • "assisted the victims to recover"
    • Fixed
  • "The division had returned to France"
    • Done
  • first names for Marin-Darbel and Adam?
    • I got Marin-Darbel, but Adam is basically ungoogleable
  • "The next day, Admiral" and "sortie early the next day", perhaps "the following day" for the latter?
    • How about "the following morning"?
  • Group C?
    • Clarified
  • "...Goeben did not attempt to sortie" should probably say the Ottoman battlecruiser Yavuz Sultan Selim (formerly Goeben) as she had been transferred by then
    • How about "Goeben—which had by then been transferred to the Ottoman Navy as Yavuz Sultan Selim—"
  • on the islan of
    • Good catch
  • perhaps specify that the British battleships that attacked on 19 Feb were pre-dreadnoughts? It places the effort in better context, ie they weren't modern battleships that were being risked
    • Good idea
  • not sure about the italicisation of Hamidieh
    • Fine by me
  • "and werewas unknown to the Allies"
    • Fixed
  • "the battlecruiser Inflexible werewas damaged"
    • Done

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • I think that we can make a case that NH64442 was taken by an attaché so why isn't this one on Commons?
    • Mainly because I hate dealing with Commons, and if it's all the same to me if it's here instead of there, I'd rather just upload here. Also, I don't feel like having to argue the case in the ACR/FAC when the current setup is more or less not going to be questioned Except by you, apparently!
      • Nice to know that my efforts are appreciated!
  • On File:French battleship Charles Martel illustration.jpg I think I can make out the signature of Scott Grey or Gray. Have you searched to see if you can establish a date of death?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Nate, nice work as usual. Not a lot stood out to me. I have only a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no duplicate or dab links, and the external links work (no action required)
  • the infobox information matches the prose (no action required)
  • referencing seems sufficient for A-class (no action required)
  • the ships went to Sigri on the island of Lesbos --> "the ships sailed to Sigri on the island of Lesbos"?
    • Works for me
  • The first stage of the attack --> I wasn't sure that this was sufficiently introduced. Perhaps a sentence could be added before this briefly explaining the plan to force the straits with naval power?
  • capitalisation: "Naval Operations: To The Battle of the Falklands, December 1914" --> "Naval Operations: To the Battle of the Falklands, December 1914"?
    • Fixed
  • capitalisation: "Naval Operations: From The Battle of the Falklands to the Entry of Italy Into the War in May 1915" -- same as above
    • Fixed
  • I think the Commons link should be moved down one section per MOS:LAYOUT (links to sister projects)
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) 22:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Bombing of Obersalzberg

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Bombing of Obersalzberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Histories of RAF Bomber Command during World War II often briefly note that its final missions included an attack on Hitler's personal residence at Obersalzberg in the Alps. I've long been intrigued by this, but struggled to find much about the topic. This article is my attempt to give this unusual operation the attention it deserves. It covers a largely successful precision attack made by 359 heavy bombers against a difficult target. While Hitler's residence got off lightly, most of the other buildings in the area were flattened. German casualties were remarkably light as the 3000 people present were able to shelter in the sophisticated bunkers built for the use of the Nazi elite. The attack was celebrated at the time, but was considered somewhat embarrassing after the war and was often passed-over as a result.

This article passed a GA nomination in October. It has since been expanded, and I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are met. I think that the article might also have FA potential, and would welcome any suggestions for how it could be further improved. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Image review

  • File:Goering_House,_October_14,_1948_(5491626123).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: Sorry for the slow response here. I don't think a different tag is available for this image - presumably it was taken by Arthur Voth while in Germany on business related to the Mennonite Church (presumably linked to the US Army in some way given that it was administering Obersalzberg at the time). I could replace this with another photo if you don't think this is up to scratch. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • The bombing of Obersalzberg was an air raid carried --> "The Bombing of Obersalzberg was an air raid carried" Isn't there a German name of this incident?
  • Can you also capitalise the word bombing here?
  • The sources don't emphasise the name of the attack that way I'm afraid. There isn't a clear-cut common name for this event, and I used 'Bombing of Obersalzberg' as a generic name. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah some dictionaries do specify as archaic others don't but that's fine I guess.
  • bombers arrived in the Berchtesgaden area at 9:30 am --> "bombers arrived in the Berchtesgaden area at 09:30" Because it's a military topic here. Same with the following hours.
    • I prefer to use the more widely understood 12 hour time, and this has been uncontroversial in various military FAs I've developed. As all the action in this article takes place in the morning, there isn't a need to use 24 hour time on those grounds. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over 1,400 tons of bombs were released What kind of tons?
  • were unable to generate a smoke screen as they --> "were unable to generate a smokescreen as they"
  • and none of its population were killed or wounded --> "and none of its population was killed or wounded"
  • All cite page numbers should have an en dash.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

At the moment it goes to a disambig page. I am not sure if the MoS permits that, and if it does, is a reader supposed to guess which one of the five meanings you intend?
I've removed the link and tweaked the wording so the link to smoke screen clearly explains the concept here. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of its buildings were professionally camouflaged" Does "professionally" add anything?
  • "would suffer heavy casualties given that the area was believed to be heavily defended" "heavy ... heavily". Optional: "heavily" → strongly?
  • "senior members of the German Government and Waffen-SS units" Do you mean senior members of Waffen-SS units, or the units themselves? If the latter, it is not clear.
  • "would assemble at Berchtesgaden" Do you mean Obersalzberg? (Just checking.)
  • "The bomber crews were woken during the early hours of 25 April" I know what you mean, I think, but this phrasing gives the impression of a rushed operation, hurriedly thrown together.
    • That's what the source says. It was quite routine for Bomber Command crews to be woken up at unexpected hours and sent out on a mission (the planing of raids was, for security purposes, handled centrally and the crews were deliberately kept in the dark about their operations until shortly before the attack). The source doesn't note anything usual about this. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that Nick, but it reads to me as if it were non-routine. How about either 'The bomber crews were briefed on the mission during the early hours of 25 April', or 'As was routine, the bomber crews woke during the early hours of 25 April to be briefed on the mission' or similar?
The sources don't really support that - the source consulted here notes that the bomber crews were woken unexpectedly early, much to their displeasure! I've added some material to an earlier section on Bomber Command's day operations during the last stage of the war to provide context to this, and tweaked the wording here. Does this look OK? Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "13 British fighter squadrons" Is it known how many aircraft this represents, even approximately? Or what aircraft they were? (Did they fly from England? If so, did they escort all the way?)
    • Afraid not - all the source says is "Aircraft from 13 squadrons of RAF Fighter Command and 98 Mustangs of the US Eighth Air Force flew as escort". I'd be guessing that the fighters were Spitfires operating both from the UK and the British sector of the liberated areas of Europe. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole escort thing doesn't really hang together, but if the sources don't cover it, not a lot you can do.
  • "USAAF units attacked transport infrastructure in the Berchtesgaden area on 25 April" Was this later on the 25th? If so, it would be helpful to say so.

A fine and fascinating article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I think that I might have now addressed your comments here. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. My nit picking all addressed. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Pendright

[edit]

Thanks for this article - back soon! Pendright (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede:

  • The bombing of Obersalzberg was an air raid carried out by RAF Bomber Command on 25 April 1945 during the last days of World War II in Europe. ... Two Allied bombers were shot down with the loss of four airmen, and 31 Germans were killed.
The first sentence of the first paragraph indicates that the RAF did the bombing - but a later sentence in the paragraph indicates that the AAllied bombers suffered the losses. What am I missing?
RAF Bomber Command was a multinational force which formed part of the RAF. One of the aircraft which was shot down was from an Australian squadron (whose aircraft were British-owned, but most of its personnel were Australian by this stage of the war). Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • He and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met at the Berghof on 15 September 1938 as part of the negotiations which led to the Munich Agreement. Nazi propag
That, not which, is used when the information is essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He spent more than third of 1944 there, ...
Consider adding a before third
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RAF developed a plan to attack Obersalzberg which was designated "Hellbound".
Replace which with that
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) reconnaissance aircraft photographed the area between 16 and 20 June and the American Fifteenth Air Force prepared flight routes to attack it from bases in Allied-controlled areas of Italy.
  • Add the before United States
  • Place a comma after June to join the independent clauses
  • These aircraft struck the area after being unable a complete a mission ...
The a is probably meant to be to?
oops, fixed Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In line with this order, the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command attacked German cities which lay in the path of the Allied armies and made precision bombing raids against other targets until 25 April.
Change which to that
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planning:

  • As the war in Europe neared its end in 1945, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) became concerned over intelligence reports which indicated that senior members of the German Government as well as Waffen-SS units would assemble at Berchtesgaden to prolong the fighting from an "Alpine Fortress".
Replace which with that and replace that with the
Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

  • XV Corps captured the area on 4 May.
Add the before XV Corps
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • American and French soldiers looted the ruins of the Berghof.
This is a harsh statement - it strikes me as needing more explanation here or a footnote?
That's what the source says. Modern works tend to use pretty frank language about things like this - older sources would have referred to the Allied troops innocently taking souvenirs or similar. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: Thanks a lot for this review. I think that I've addressed all your comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: All comments addressed - supporting. Pendright (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2019 (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, 12 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

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

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

Toolbox

The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Something new? The Italians joined the party. :p

  • with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns Link to the gun?
  • She was sold to an Italian shipping firm for conversion Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
  • The Francesco Caracciolo class was the first type of super-dreadnought battleship --> "The Francesco Caracciolo class were the first type of super-dreadnought battleship"?
    • No, class in AmEng is always singular
  • with twelve 381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in) secondary guns What kind of guns?
  • The turbines were rated at 105,000 shaft horsepower (78,000 kW) Link kW.
  • limits for the Regia Marina was to be 60,000 long tons (61,000 t) Flip the units here.
  • in the infobox "8 × 450 or 533 mm (17.7 or 21.0 in)" is it possible to remove the nought?
    • Not when converting multiple measurements

Source review

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and.." Shouldn't this by hyphenated: 381-mm
  • I think it would be useful to add when the Francesco Caracciolo was broken up for scrap in the lead.
    • Good idea
  • Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, use {{lang}} for foreign language terms such as Regia Marina.
    • Huh, who knew? Seems like I have a lot of articles to fix...
  • "..and after Italy entered World War I.." It would be helpful to mention when this happened.
    • Done
  • "Ansaldo proposed converting.." Clarify who or what Ansaldo is.
    • Good idea
  • "In the ongoing negotiations Washington Naval Conference.." Feels like this is missing a word or two; "In the ongoing negotiations at the Washington Naval Conference.." maybe?
    • Fixed
  • "The other three ships had also been dismantled.." No need for "also" in there.
    • Done

Nice, neat article which only has some minor points to be addressed. Good work. Harrias talk 11:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias! Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for the prompt response; happy to support. Harrias talk 14:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned, although there is no alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Sturm, nice work. I only have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • the lead mentions a date of 1912-1913, but the body seems to imply it was 1913
  • Cannone da 152/45 is overlinked, but this is probably ok given the way the link is used
  • "Admiral Sechi" --> do we know this person's first name?
  • four new battleships, three cruisers --> suggest linking cruiser here
  • starting in the fall of 1926 --> probably best to provide the month here per MOS:SEASON
  • the proposed tonnage limits for the Regia Marina was to be 61,000 tonnes --> "the proposed tonnage limit for the Regia Marina was to be 61,000 tonnes"
  • in the References, the style for state locations is a little inconsistent. For instance, compare "Annapolis, Maryland" v. "Toledo, OH"
  • the infobox information appears to match the body (no action required)
  • coverage seems adequate given that the class was not completed (no action required)
  • the article appears to be be well referenced (no action required)
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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Libyan–Egyptian War

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Libyan–Egyptian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Libyan–Egyptian War was a short border conflict that occurred over four days in July 1977. Twas a relatively minor chapter in world and military history, but it represents the much larger fissure between Muammar Gaddafi and Anwar Sadat in the late 1970s. This just passed a GAn, and incorporates material from American, British, and Egyptian sources. Comment away. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

  • link battalion in the lead and at first mention in the body
    • Done.
  • suggest "Under significant pressure from the United States to end the attacks, and attempts from the President of Algeria, Houari Boumediène, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation leader, Yasser Arafat, to mediate a solution, Sadat suddenly declared a ceasefire."
    • Done.
  • suggest "acquiring a significant amounts of weapons"
    • Done.
  • suggest "anti-Libyan groups in neighboring Chad"
    • Done.
  • suggest "determined to occupy the Libyan capital Tripoli"
    • Done.
  • "continued to stockpiles supplies"
    • Done.
  • specify that the Su-20 and Su-7 were fighter-bombers and link, and that the Mirage 5 was a strike aircraft and link
    • Done.
  • "Libyan forces gotengaged in a drawn out firefight"
    • Done.
  • suggest "Having participated in the Yom Kippur War, Egyptian forces also had a fair amount of combat experience, maintained a high level of professionalism, and were led by a skilled group of generals."
    • Done.
  • "The Egyptians forces also struggled" or "their equipment"
    • Done.
  • Libyan Arab Republic Air Force (LARAF)
    • Done.
  • specify that the MiG-23 is a fighter aircraft and link
    • Done.
  • specify that the MiG-21 is a fighter aircraft
    • Done.
  • the composition of the force that hit the Nasser airbase is odd. The Mirages and Su-7s would have been flying the strike mission and the MiG-21s flying cover
    • Ah yes my mistake, your surmise is correct. Fixed.
  • "primary interceptor siteairbase"
    • Done.
  • the "commando battalions" airborne raids are a bit unclear, were these paradrops or helicopter-borne attacks?
    • Helicopter. I've specified.
  • same for the "Commando attacks on Libyan logistics depots"
    • The sources don't specify, but they were almost certainly also helicopter attacks.
  • specify that the G-2 Galeb and Jastreb are ground attack aircraft. Odd that the narrative doesn't mention them, were they destroyed on the ground?
    • That's what it seems, but Cooper et. al. doesn't specify how or where they were destroyed. My guess is that they were lost during the raids on Nasser Air Base.
  • who is Mayada El Gohary? historian, author etc?
    • Specified as journalist.
  • "Over the course of the border war the Palestinian Liberation Organisation leader, Yasser Arafat,"
    • Done.
  • "Shortly before the end of fighting, the Algerian President, Houari Boumediène,"
    • Done.
  • "However, several diplomatic sources" "However" seems editorialising here. Perhaps just state what sources say?
    • Removed "however".
  • "in reaching Egyptian peace with Israel"→"in Egypt achieving peace with Israel"
    • Done.
  • in Effects of the war, perhaps mention and link the Arab Cold War, as the infobox links it but it is otherwise not referred to
    • I've removed it from the infobox, as that had more to do with rivalries between the Arab republics and the Arab monarchies, and largely faded after Nasser's death.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, I made one tweak which was a miscommunication. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review

  • aldefaaalarabi—I was not able to find any information about this source. What makes it an RS?
    • @Fiamh: Aldefaaalarabi.com lists their editorial staff here, and it seems to be just another Egyptian daily newspaper. The article also shows a picture of an old Egyptian newspaper from the time of the war, which means that the author had access to those materials, and thus this is probably the source of its information. Since we have one of the probable sources of its information, and the website has listed an editorial staff (a key component to being a quality secondary news source and not, say, a blog) and no other reason to doubt its authenticity, I think its fine to use. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources are reliable. There's a good balance between news and later historical coverage.
  • No additional sources found on a search of Google Books and Google Scholar. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I've wanted to learn about this little war for some time, and am not sure how I missed that this was at ACR for a month! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "a short border war between Libya and Egypt" - I'd suggest linking border war
    • Done
  • "was the elimination of Israel, a Jewish-majority state" - does the religion of most of Israel's inhabitants need to be noted here? This suggests it's the only reason for the Arab-Israeli conflicts, when of course there are others.
    • I wasn't sure if there was really a better way to put it. Metz, who I'm using as the source, talks of "the Arab struggle against Israel", which comes close to racializing the dispute. It also fits in with the context of Gaddafi's plan to sink the boat with the Jewish tourist (the ship was British, and Metz only identifies the people as Jewish, not as Israeli, which implies that Gaddafi's reasoning for such an assault was anti-Jewish sentiment).
      • The motives for the Arab-Israeli conflict are famously complex, so nominating religious differences as being the only factor is an over-simplification. Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the mention of Jewish majority. Arab-Israeli conflict is linked to, and I think it's best left to that article to explain the reasons behind the animosity rather than hash them all out here.
  • "Though an Israeli counter-attack eliminated Egyptian territorial gains in the early stages of the war, Sadat agreed to open negotiations with Israel, seeking the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for a guarantee to not engage in further attacks on the country." - it's obviously absurdly difficult to summarise a major war and its aftermath in a sentence, but I'm not sure this quite pulls it off: while Egypt was soundly defeated, its initial successes seem to have led the Israelis to also seek peace. A second sentence might help here!
    • A second sentence explaining what, exactly?
      • On reflection, I think this is OK for A-class. For FAC, I'd suggest somehow noting that the war also made the Israelis more keen to cut a deal with Egypt (e.g., to pull out of Sinai in exchange for commitments from Egypt and the US). Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the Libyan attacks on Egyptian border guards lead to any casualties?
    • Yes, as is already stated the pre-war attacks caused the deaths of 9 border guards, according to the Egyptian government. No info on Libyan casualties.
  • "In May 1977 the Soviets told Libya and other Arab countries that they had evidence that Egypt was planning launch an invasion" - do we know what the source of this intelligence was?
    • Nope.
  • "By the early summer Egypt had completed its preparations for war, and the Egyptian Air Force transferred Su-20 and Su-7 fighter-bombers of the No. 55 Squadron and Mirage 5 strike aircraft of the No. 69 Squadron to Marsa Matruh Airbase and nearby installations in anticipation of conflict" - the 'and' here sounds odd, given that the transfer of these units would have formed part of the preparations for war
    • Broken into two sentences.
  • Note d doesn't seem to align with the text its placed with, and the apparent lack of civilian casualties should be noted in the body of the article
    • Moved to text which discusses military casualties
  • "The Security Council declined to discuss the matter" - do we know why not? Presumably one or more of the permanent members used its veto? Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason is not given. The Los Angeles Times only says "U.N. officials said no Security Council meeting on the war was planned" and obviously, one never materialised. I presume it probably had to do with the fact that the truce was in effect and world leaders thus had little interest in litigating the issue.
Hi Nick-D, do you feel in a position to give a verdict on this one yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm now happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: I reviewed this for GAN, and I believe it has been improved further since then. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2019 (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 Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A short article for a short-lived division. The 66th was formed in 1939, and disbanded the following year the 'victim' of post-Battle of France reforms that saw the motor division concept get scrapped. It has been given the once over by the GOCE, and has just passed its GAN.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • There are only two minor problems that I see here. 1) Four citations in a row for the second note. Is it possible to move these closer to the content they support? 2) In some cases, page ranges are wider than ideal, e.g. Fraser 1999, pp. 72–77. Try to keep page ranges to two pages or less for improved verifiability, especially since in this case it's only supporting a single, short sentence. Sources all appear to be reliable for what they're being used for. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 10:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 1) On reviewing the material used, it looks like Allport could be dropped as surplus to requirement. If it was just three inline citations, would that more appropriate? I ask, as otherwise, it would look something like this:
The TA was a reserve ... during the First World War).[1][2][3] First line … would also be created.[1] All TA recruits … volunteered for overseas service.)[1][2][3]
Re: 2) The inline cite from Joslen verifies that the division never left the UK. The inline cite from Fraser essentially provides the context to why: the Battle of France, the decision to not commit any more forces, and the withdrawal. Just re-glancing over the pages, there isn't much of a way to cut it down to one or two pages. In this case, would you suggest finding a different source that summarizes the event to same context?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) Three inline citations would be fine. Re 2) I would prefer that solution. It's difficult and time-consuming enough to source-verify information from single pages. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 08:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made edits based off this discussion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c French 2001, p. 53.
  2. ^ a b Simkins 2007, pp. 43–46.
  3. ^ a b Perry 1988, pp. 41–42.

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, I believe I have actioned everything you have highlighted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I'm really enjoying this series on second line British divisions. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "Instead, the division spent the majority of the time assigned to guarding vulnerable points in the United Kingdom and was briefly assigned to the initial plan to defend the country against a German invasion" - this is a bit breathless, and "the time" is unclear
    I have made a couple of tweaks here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This included the abandonment of the "motor division" concept" - it hasn't previously been stated in the lead that this was a motor division
    I have trimmed that part of the lede; the division was not a motor division, and it seemed the extra detail sidetracked from the point being made.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Formation and home defence' section doesn't describe this unit's organisation and role as a motor division. Was the role different to that of a standard division?
    Per above, I introduced (and hopefully, rectified) this confusion. The division was a regular infantry division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " As soon as the Allied troops returned from France" - not sure about this. The French troops evacuated to the UK weren't returning there given that they weren't from the UK. I guess the Canadian 1st Division returned to the UK, but this is a bit micro. I'd suggest tweaking this to " As soon as the British troops returned from France" or similar.
    Tweaked per your commentEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the problem with the motor division concept which led to its abandonment?
  • The two last sentences of the para beginning with "As a result of the Battle of France " start with "This"
    I made a change, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Defence of the United Kingdom is online at Hyperwar [10]. Map 5 (available here looks useful. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. I'd suggest including the map noted in the final comment though, given that the article doesn't include any images. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

The sole image is appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2019 (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 Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This articles covers the history of the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division, from 1920 through to 1945. It was a British Army formation, which was notable for being one of a handful to be converted into a motor division prior to the start of the Second World War. During the war, the division stayed home throughout and ended up being part of the Fortitude deception. The article has previously been worked on by the GOCE, and until recently was rated as an A-Class article. I separated the 1908-1919 history into its own article, in part as this was a stumbling block during the FA review. This new iteration of the article has just passed its GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]
  • "The division regained its third infantry brigade, and became the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division" - Maybe use a word other than "became" here, as it was previously that designation, and returned to it.
    I think this is probably an issue with the wording of the lede, using the article title in the first sentence. So: 55th (West Lancashire) Division from 1920-~1939; 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division from 39-40; 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division from 40-45 (later title chosen for the article, as it was the name of the div during the most prominent part of this section of its history). Do you have a suggestion to avoid further confusion in the future?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just made a few tweaks, does this work better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division and redirect it here
    Article and redirect createdEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Motor division
  • "the 6th Liverpool Rifles were retrained and transferred to the RE" - What's the RE? Royal Engineers, right? It needs linked/glossed
    Correct. I thought I fixed that previously, looks like I put the link in the wrong place and missed the prior abbreviation! I have fixed this now (hopefully!).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Home defence
  • The very last paragraph of this section has a lot of repetition of "the division". Eight sentences start with "the division", including four in a row. There's an instance of that phrase in almost every sentence. Is there a way to get some more variety here?
    I have made several changes in this regard, does this flow/work better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. I might have a few more comments at a FAC for this, but it's A-Class worthy right now. Hog Farm Bacon 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to pick on here at all, which isn't surprisingly, since this has largely gone through an ACR before. Hog Farm Bacon 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, i have attempted to address your points above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Looks pretty good.

  • What does "refounded" mean"? Suggest "reformed".
  • "division" is misspelt in the lead
  • "This process involved the break up of four-second-line territorial divisions" Suggest "This process involved breaking up four-second-line territorial divisions"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Most sources used are scholarly. Where they are not they are used judiciously and appropriately. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert

[edit]

G'day, I reviewed this before the split and believe it meets the criteria, but have the following suggestions for tweaks: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, suggest linking brigade
  • in the lead, "In 1944, it was earmarked for overseas and combat, but instead was stripped of its assets" -- however, I wasn't quite sure that this was covered in the body. It mentions the higher establishment in the first sentence of the Wind down section, but I couldn't see where it was stated that it was earmarked to be sent overseas...? Suggest potentially explaining why this changed
  • suggest adding an image in the Wind down and deception section if possible to break up the text a little
  • in the References Becke is out of alphabetical order
  • Weinberg probably doesn't need the access
  • OCLC for Coop?
  • swap the order of Hogan and Holt
  • "pp. 4-6" --> endash
  • no duplicate links, no dab links, the ext links all work (no action required)
  • all information appears to be fully referenced (no action required)
  • "brigades of 66th Division" --> " brigades of the 66th Division"? There are a few other instances where you leave off the definite article when referring to distinct units; suggest making this consistent
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) 18:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Lagos

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

Toolbox

A naval battle from the age of sail. One where Clausewitz's friction was working overtime and few things went right for either side. I am attempting to break away from late-medieval articles, so haul up your jolly rodgers and I'll stand by to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:HMS_Namur_IMG_4822.jpg and File:Battle_of_Lagos_1759_Detail.jpg: the caption on File:Battle_of_Lagos_IMG_4822.jpg has more details on the original source - suggest including those in this image's description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Apologies, but I have stared at this until I am blue in the face, and I can't see anything that isn't in the other two. Could you give me a clue? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Published 16 March 1806, chez l'Editeur Levrault? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I don't know what super power you use to see that, but I still couldn't see it here. I have added it and to the two derivative images. No - got it. I need to open the images in Media Viewer and scroll down. Now if just I knew how to edit that. Don't tell me, I shall work it out. Ah, it is already there. So, I think that that is this issue sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

  • suggest dropping naval from the first sentence, as the mention of fleets clarifies it
Done.
  • suggest "The two fleets first fought south west of the Gulf of Cádiz on 17 August, which was followed by engagements east of the small Portuguese port of Lagos on the following day."
Done.
  • is he just La Clue, La Clue-Sabran or De la Clue? I'm not familiar with the best approach to French double-barrelled names.
The sources all go with La Clue; except for one de La Clue, but Wikipedia/MilHist practice is to drop leading "de"s.
OK, then just drop the De from De la Clue in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drat! Done.
  • "Boscawen was under orders to prevent this, and to pursue and attack the French if it didif they broke out into the Atlantic."?
Done.
  • link Gibraltar at first mention and get rid of the later one
It is only linked once. As is "Strait of Gibraltar" and "HMS Gibraltar".
Sorry, I meant it isn't linked in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Now also linked in the lead.
  • "By the beginning of 1759 neither alliance had the advantage, in either the land or sea campaigns,"
Done.
  • link French Navy at first mention and get rid of the later one
Done.
  • "Meanwhile, Britain's war efforts during the first three years of the war had been a failure"
Done.
  • what role was Pitt performing at the time?
How long have you got? Good point. I have inserted the simplistic answer.
I'm not seeing this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is something going wrong with my edits today, which is a bit worrying. Now definitely done.
  • for "direct invasion of Britain" link Planned French invasion of Britain (1759). I think doubling up on the Further template is justified given it will be piped.
Done.
  • link Vannes
Done.
  • link Brest
Done.
  • perhaps say where Lorient and Rochefort are? And drop " French Atlantic port of" later for Rochefort
Done.
  • "smaller and faster than ships of the line and primarily intended for raiding"
Oops. Done.
  • comma after "After great difficulties in preparing them for sea"
Done.
  • suggest "The British fleet was surprised by the approaching Gibraltar, which was firing her guns to indicate the enemy had been sighted."

I am not at all keen on that. What is it that you don't like about the current phraseology?

  • under way→underway?
Why? See definition 2 of this.
I think a few style guides are now saying it is compounded whether used as an adverb or adjective, but if wikt says so... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When used nautically I have never seen it compounded. (It comes from "under weigh".) I have just checked my hard copy OED and Chambers and neither give "underway" as an option.
  • is it " stepping in" or "stepping-in"?
Wiktionary claims that it is only hyphenated if you are referring to women's underwear! I was checking to play safe; one steps in a mast as one would step in anything else.
  • disbursed→dispersed?
Close.
  • "but ineffectively"→"but this was ineffective"?
I have gone with "but with little effect".
  • "90-gun flagship"
Done.
  • "80-gun Océan"
Done.
  • A bit weird that Souverain is the slowest ship initially, then later one of the fastest?
Whoops. Thank you. Fixed. These French ships all look the same to me.
  • what does weather mean in "failed to weather Cape St. Vincent"?
Wiktionary has "(nautical) To pass to windward in a vessel, especially to beat 'round: to weather a cape ... " I have inserted a Wikt link.
  • "it would be illegal" I think it might be worth adding a sentence about the law that this would breach.
A reasonable suggestion. Unfortunately all of the sources take it for granted that it will be understood what is meant. A hunt through their and some other indexes doesn't reveal anything helpful looking. I could readily write the sentence, but I imagine that you would go all fussy and want sources. I will do a literature search and see what come up.
Perhaps a link to Neutral country will suffice when Portugal's neutral status is first mentioned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I have already set a research assistant to chasing this down, so I may have a little more later.
  • suggest "HMS America"
Er. I do at first mention. The other mention is "The British America", so it is not going to confuse.
It is the only America mentioned or involved, so you could probably drop the "British" then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish. It is the first mention in a new section - "The British America attacked Océan ... " - so it seemed worth reminding a reader who was doing the aggressing.
  • "Téméraire also struck her colours"
Really? OK. Done.
  • Lieutenant-General? I thought that was Vice-Amiral for the French Navy?
Nah. Click the link.
  • comma after "Souverain and Guerrier"
Removed as they have already been named.
  • Broderick→Brodrick
Good spot. Done.
  • "to be known as an annus"
Bleh! Done.
  • link Abolitionism
Done.
  • is there a citation for the Fireships in the ORBAT?
Irritatingly no. Troude just peters out here, I have changed the text to reflect this and will hunt around to see if I can find where the original editor got the specific information from.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. That was very prompt and picked up lots of things I had missed. Thanks. All addressed; some with queries, and one with a 'I'll get back to you'. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few additional suggestions, nothing too drastic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Thanks. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]
Good point. Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox still states 14, while the Order of battle section still lists 15 different ships of the line. Harrias talk 18:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-ordinator note: I am travelling away with work this week, and may not be able to get online much. I would hope to be able to provide a full review on this article, but if it attracts three supports etc in the mean time, don't hold things up on my account. Harrias talk 18:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias I know that I changed that! (It is 15.) I can only imagine that I had two many windows open and closed one without checking for unsaved edits. I am glad that at least you were paying attention. If this does fly through ACR then I am hoping to promptly nominate it for FAC. Either way, I would appreciate your looking at it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1756 what was to become known as the.." Personally, I dislike this phrasing, and would prefer "In 1756 what became known as the..", but it's no big deal.
Done.
  • "..what she saw as her main effort.." Is it encyclopaedic to refer to France as "she", it seems archaic usage to me?
Changed to 'it' and 'its'.
  • Why "..against Britain and Prussia.." but then "..against Great Britain." If anything, I would expect the fuller name on the first use, and then the shorter after. Again, no big deal, just struck me as odd.
Done.
  • "By the beginning of 1759 neither alliance had the advantage, in either the land or sea campaigns and both were having serious problems financing the war." "in either the land or sea campaigns" feels like a clause, and as such should have a comma after it.
Done.
  • "Meanwhile, Britain's war effort during the first three years of the war.." The quick repetition of "war" feels redundant. Maybe "Meanwhile, the first three years of Britain's war effort.."?
I have gone with 'Meanwhile, Britain's war effort up to early 1756 had been a failure.'
  • "The 43 French ships in home waters were split.." Again, the repetition sound awkward here. Would "in domestic service" work?
"Domestic service means something else. I assume that the objection is to "home waters"[?] Yes, it is used four times in four sentences, but it has a precise meaning and I am not sure what would be gained by coming up with three synonyms, apart from confusing a reader.
I take your point; I hadn't thought of that, but now you mention it, I can't get the image of warships with pinnies on them out of my head. I still find this whole section "In total the French had 73 ships of the line, the largest warships of the time: 30 serving abroad and 43 in home waters. The ships in home waters required an aggregate complement of about 25,000 men; they were more than 9,000 short of this.[10] The 43 French ships in home waters were split between the Atlantic port of Brest (22 ships)[11] and the Mediterranean port of Toulon, with a small number at two ports on the Bay of Biscay: Lorient and Rochefort. The British had 40 ships of the line in home waters, and a further 15 in their Mediterranean Fleet, which was based in Gibraltar." awkwardly worded. It isn't just the repetition of "home waters" but of the number "43", and I wonder if something such as this would work: "In total the French had 73 ships of the line, the largest warships of the time: 30 serving abroad and 43 in home waters. The latter were split between the Atlantic port of Brest (22 ships)[11] and the Mediterranean port of Toulon, with a small number at two ports on the Bay of Biscay: Lorient and Rochefort. These ships required an aggregate complement of about 25,000 men; they were more than 9,000 short of this.[10] The British had 40 ships of the line in home waters, and a further 15 in their Mediterranean Fleet, which was based in Gibraltar." Harrias talk 09:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to type "fine", when I realised that someone is bound to object that it is unclear whether the "These ships" refers to the "small number at two ports on the Bay of Biscay" mentioned immediately before, or all of them. So I have gone with your suggestion, which loses the clumsy double "43" and quadruple "home waters", but added 'In total' to hopefully forestall this objection. And reworded the opening "In total", to avoid having that twice.
  • The lead states that "La Clue was tasked with evading Boscawen and bringing the French Mediterranean Fleet into the Atlantic and then to the West Indies, avoiding battle if possible." but this isn't explicitly mentioned in the body, where it just says that La Clue was ordered to reinforce Bompart, and that he tried to avoid Boscawen's fleet.
I have changed "tasked with" to 'attempting to'.
  • "The approach of the Gibraltar, firing her guns to indicate the enemy had been sighted took the British by surprise." Comma after "sighted".
Done.
  • "It seems probable.." As this is an opinion, it should be mentioned inline who proposed it, otherwise it appears that Wikipedia is speculating.
You are no doubt correct, but could you point me to the relevant policy, so I know how best to work around it.
It's basically the same ones that required me to include attribution in the lead for the quote: a combination of MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Harrias talk 14:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a direct quote, so I am not sure how QUOTEPOV is applicable. But you are spot on re ATTRIBUTEPOV; now attributed.

Reviewed to the end of the Background section. Harrias talk 10:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias, many thanks for looking at this. All of your points addressed. A couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation
  • "In May 1759 the British Admiral Edward Boscawen took command of the British fleet.." It seems redundant to have "British" twice here; I'd suggest removing the first.
Good spot. Done.
Done.
  • "probably as they were overstrained by crews eager to catch the French" Again, the use of "probably" make this sound like an opinion which would need inline attribution.
I have found an additional cite which states this as a fact - "Most of the logs record sails splitting and booms breaking under the strain imposed by the eager crews" so I have removed the "probably".
  • "..before striking her colours after being battered.." I know that there is a link, but I feel that it would improve the comprehension of this article for a layperson to simply state "..before surrendering after being battered.." It just feels like unnecessary jargon to me. Given that the phrase is used twice later (as "struck their colours" and "struck her colours") I would suggest that if it is kept an explanatory footnote is added as well as the link, as this can be read on hover, without having to click through to another article.
Very fair point. I get too close and assume that everyone understands where "Nail his colours to the mast" and "With flying colours" come from. (The first paragraphs of Wikilinks can also be read on a hover - which in this case would have been sufficient. But your suggestion is better.)
  • "without any regard to the laws of neutrality" Who said this? Boscawen himself?
Yes. (According to an eyewitness.)
  • "Having observed Océan and Redoubtable.." Typo of Redoubtable / Redoutable.
Corrected.
  • "De la Clue, seriously wounded.." The article has previously referred to him as "La Clue". Interestingly, his (short) article suggests he was known as "La Clue-Sabran"; should that be adopted instead?
"De" removed. I have come across him in a fair few sources now; none add Sabren. (Other than at first mention.)
  • "But when they evaded Brodrick during a winter storm in January 1760 the French Atlantic Fleet had been destroyed at the Battle of Quiberon Bay and they returned to Toulon." This sentence confused me for a while, and I think it needs further clarfication; something like: "But by the time they evaded Brodrick during a winter storm in January 1760, the French Atlantic Fleet had been destroyed at the Battle of Quiberon Bay, and they returned to Toulon."
Nice. Gone with your variant. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Many thanks for that, appreciated. All of your comments addressed I think. I will start into your source review shortly - I am impressed that you are giving me a total service for this nomination. As with your comments here, probably in stages, and will ping you once I have finished. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Citations are consistently formatted in an appropriate style.
  • All citations appear to be to reliable sources.
  • Although they all appear to be offline or foreign language, I was able to gain access to Willis 2009 via Project MUSE to carry out accuracy and copyvio checks:
    • The article is free of copyvio or close para-phrasing from this source, and I am happy that the other sources would be the same.
    • The article states that "The fleet retired to Gibraltar, arriving on 4 August." (Tracey 2010), but Willis says that Boscawen "took some of his fleet to Salou Bay, close to Tarragona".
None of the other sources mention this, and by the 16th all 15 ships of the line were at Gibraltar. Any ships which may have been sent to Tarragona therefore either continued on to Gibraltar or were frigates or lighter. So I feel confident that "the fleet" retired to Gibraltar, whether or not some went via Tarragona, and whether or not detachments of light vessels conformed to this.
    • The article says that "fresh orders arrived, alerting Boscawen to the probability that the French Mediterranean Fleet would attempt to join up with their Atlantic Fleet, probably at Brest" However, Willis merely says "Boscawen was ordered to keep the French fleet bottled up in the Mediterranean. If the French were somehow to escape, he was to follow them wherever they went and bring them to battle.." Indeed, two pages later, he says that "It was considered just as likely that La Clue would cross the Atlantic to attack Guadeloupe as it was that he would head north and rendezvous with the Brest fleet in home waters to launch an invasion. Historians are still unsure exactly which of those destinations was intended.." Therefore, I don't think we can use Willis to support the claim that the French fleet would probably try and join the Atlantic Fleet at Brest.
We now know that the French fleet, almost certainly, was heading for the West Indies. (I make this clear later in the article.) At the time that they sent Boscawen his orders the British Admiralty didn't know this and were primarily concerned that it might be the case. I think that the full context of the two sentences you quote from Willis makes this clear: "On the third of August, however, Boscawen received fresh orders from the Admiralty. England herself was under threat. Intelligence had shown that the French were amassing huge flotillas of invasion craft in southern Brittany—preparations so vast that they had cost the French government 30 million livres on flatboats alone.5 With French war strategy now tipped towards a final desperate throw of the dice, Boscawen was ordered to keep the French fleet bottled up in the Mediterranean. If the French were somehow to escape, he was to follow them wherever they went and bring them to battle. If they could not be discovered, part of his fleet was to head at full speed to the Solent to join the Channel Fleet, leaving a smaller squadron in Gibraltar to defend English interests in the Mediterranean."
    • Is it worth including a note about dates between sources: the article says that they arrived in Gibraltar on 4 August, while Willis says that the orders came through on 3 August, which would be before, rather than during the refurbishment, though Willis states they arrived during refurbishment, therefore he presumably assumes that they arrived before 4 August.
That is odd. Good spot. I will see if I can find where they are getting their information from. If I can I will report back. If I can't I will reword.
    • "It consisted of twelve ships of the line and three frigates; the most that could be made ready for sea and adequately manned. La Clue, who was unaware of the British fleet's location," I can't find this on page 749 of Willis? (Or indeed at all.)
D'oh! That's because it's in McLynn (p 249 - I assume that the two terminal "49"s confused me, although that's a poor excuse). Now inserted. I seem to have dropped another cite too somewhere, which I will insert.
    • "..or futilely attempting to row after the fleet." As amazing as this image is, I can't see it on Willis page 750, and most of the rest of what is supported by that reference (from "Most ships sailed without their captains..") is on page 751 rather than page 750.
1. I am quite sure I have read this - as you say, it is a memorable image - but obviously not where I have indicated. I will strike it for now and reread Willis once I have worked through this to do list.
2. Apologies. That should, of course have been 751. Corrected.

I'm going to stop for the moment, and ask if you can have a scour through the rest of Willis to check that the article accurately reflects the source. Once you're happy, I'll take a further look. Harrias talk 10:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thank you for that suggestion. All Willis cites now checked. A couple of them were stinkers, which I have corrected, and which I suspect you were aware of. If you would like any pages from McLynn, Rodger or Tracey scanning and emailing to you, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay. Nice work, this is looking much better; just a couple of picky points left from me based on Willis:

  • "During the late evening of 17 August the French passed through the strait.." Willis doesn't appear to actually mention what time they went through, unless you are extrapolating that "dinner" is equivalent to late evening. Is there another source more explicit about this?
I was indeed extrapolating. It seemed a reasonable paraphrase: 'while the English officers were at dinner' seemed circumlocutory and would need a footnote explaining what time officers dined in the 18th century - to arrive at the same conclusion. Or I could add, or use instead, McLynn "He was almost through the Straits undetected, east of Cueta at nightfall".
I am happy with the current wording in the article, but if you could add McLynn as an additional supporting reference, I would be a bit happier. Harrias talk 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
McLynn added.
  • "Most ships sailed without their captains.." This isn't explicit in Willis.
" the few lieutenants that had remained in the squadron were sent from ship to ship with orders for the crews not to wait for the return of their captains" seems explicit to me, especially when backed by "but to bend their sails as quickly as possible, to weigh anchor, and to head for the open sea behind the Namur." and "For those [captains] who were lucky enough to make it aboard a ship, there was little choice about which to board."
Okay, you've sold me on it. Harrias talk 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of your changes has baffled me slightly with the wording:

  • "Boscawen ordered his ships to maintain formation, to avoid being beaten individually by the French formation." I *think* I know what it means, but I think it needs further work.
Yes. I see your point. I have changed it to 'Boscawen ordered his ships to maintain formation, to avoid his fastest ships reaching and engaging the French squadron individually and being defeated in detail.' Does that work?
Works for me, yes. Harrias talk 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias talk 21:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias: don't worry about the time. If I had got it right in the first place I wouldn't have had to wait. Thanks for the additional feedback. Your points addressed above.
I've responded on the first point, but the nomination has my support regardless. Harrias talk 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Thanks for the thorough pair of reviews and for the supports. McLynn added as suggested. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh! Eagle Eyes is here. Everyone watch out. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really a battle and not an action?
According to all of the sources, yes.
  • Some of the sentences use the word English but the crew were all Britsh right?
Yes. Me bad.
  • Link Great Britain, France and Portuguese because these are all from hundred years ago so those countries changed a lot and are different than the current countries these days.
I have held off - there is no article to link them to other than the ones on the modern states.
  • Well I mean Great Britain could be linked to the Kingdom of Great Britain, France to the Kingdom of France and Portuguese to the Kingdom of Portugal.
Done.
  • The article Jean-François de La Clue-Sabran uses him as La Clue-Sabran so should be it La Clue-Sabran or La Clue in this article?
Peacemaker raised a similar point and I replied "The sources all go with La Clue; except for one de La Clue, but Wikipedia/MilHist practice is to drop leading "de"s."
  • pitching France, Austria and Russia against Britain and Prussia Link Austria, Prussia (and pipe) Russia to the Russian Empire.
Done.
  • financing the war. In 1759 more than 60% of French revenue --> "financing the war. In 1759 more than 60 per cent of French revenue"
Done.
  • Secretary of State for the Navy link?
Done.
  • From the summer of 1757 it came under Could you please try not using seasons if possible?
Sometimes in military articles it is unavoidable; where the season is actually the important aspect, not the month. But that wasn't the case here, so changed.
  • "south-east of" vs "south east of the"?
Whoops. Corrected. Thank you.
  • I see 3 howevers maybe can remove one of them?
I don't think so. I know that I overuse this, and so check before nominating. I would be happy to consider proposals for alternate formulations for any of them.
  • I believe for every 20,000 bytes we can use a however and the second one to 40,000 bytes et Cetra. But that's the way how I think an article should be written so if you disagree then it's fine for me.
  • French Navy Was this a proper noun at the time?
Debatable. I am inclined towards saying it is - like Royal Navy. But am happy to change if you would prefer that.
I get conflicting views on this. Probably not, so the n's rendered in lower case.
  • fleet was in Gibraltar, anticipated a prompt pursuit.[20][19] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • Despite these difficulties, by 11.00 pm, within three hours of Gibraltar appearing --> "Despite these difficulties, by 11:00 pm, within three hours of Gibraltar appearing"
Nice one. Done.
  • wishing to advertise his manoeuvre to the British, omitted to do this.[24][15] Re-order the refs here.
Done.

The rest will follow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done so far, and looking forward to the rest. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part two

  • At about 6.00 am a group of large ships came into view and La Clue --> "At about 6:00 am a group of large ships came into view and La Clue"
Done.
  • signalled to his ships to "Make more speed".[29][27] Re-order the refs.
Done.
  • At 1.00 pm the French ships hoisted their battle ensigns --> "At 1:00 pm the French ships hoisted their battle ensigns"
Done.
  • At 2.30 pm the British Culloden engaged the rearmost Same as above.
Done.
  • Any bypassed French ships could, he felt, be safely left to Brodrick's squadron.[33][35][27] The tone here is a little bit oddly for an encyclopaedia article but maybe that's only in my ears and re-order the refs here.
Changed "felt" to 'believed' to be a little more formal. Cites reordered.
  • open fire and a short, sharp fight developed.[35][33] Same as above.
Done.
  • By 4.00 pm Namur was close enough to Océan --> "By 4:00 pm Namur was close enough to Océan"
Done.
  • Boscawen transferred his flag to Newark.[36][27] Same as above.
Done.
  • The badly wounded La Clue now had command How did he become wounded?
Very good point. Added earlier to where the flagships fight.
  • of abandoning ship, struck their colours.[note 1][40] Replace the note and the ref.
I assume you mean 'reverse'? Done.
  • was attacked by Warspite at 2.45 pm, but her crew refused to surrender --> "was attacked by Warspite at 2:45 pm, but her crew refused to surrender"
Done.
  • battle eventually reached Rochefort. [47] unnecessary space.
Removed.
  • fleet in Quiberon Bay in November.[51] [52] Another unnecessary space.
Removed.
  • The endemic ill feeling between France and Great Britain No hyphen in ill feeling?
Correct. No hyphen.
  • Most captains and many crew were ashore; Typo of crew?
I am not seeing your point here. Sorry. But it is a correct use of crew.
  • Shan't it be crews here because of plural situation?
I thought that that was what you were thinking. No, when used like this, the plural of crew is crew - like the plural of sheep or fish. See crew; "2 A person in a crew: 3. (nautical, plural: crew)".
  • suggests it is possible that La Clue who had been ordered to avoid --> "suggests La Clue who may have been ordered to avoid"?
Gone with 'suggests La Clue may have been ordered to avoid'. Is that OK by you? No. Hang on. That completely changes the meaning. What is the problem with the original "The naval historian Sam Willis suggests it is possible that La Clue – who had been ordered to avoid battle at all costs – knowing that the entire fleet was relatively close, and not wishing to advertise his manoeuvre to the British, omitted to do this"?
  • British were unable to offer much reply --> "British were unable to offer many replies"?
No. "Offer much reply" is a set phrase. See [11]
  • As the sun set, the six surviving French ships Merge sun set.
No. I am not referring to a 'sunset', but to the action of 'the sun setting'.
  • a broadside from short range and demanding Short rang needs a hyphen.
No it doesn't, it is not being used as an adjective. As in [12]

Okay this is done if you have addressed these then we can promote it. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks CPA-5 All of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that rereading I have gone back on one of my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Hold a second the sources of Chaline, le Moing, Monaque and Troude have all a French title maybe we should translate them and some of the ISBNs do not hyphens while others do maybe standerise them? I also replied to one of your replies. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to translate titles. The MoS states "In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation" (my emphasis) and I consistently choose not to; which so far as I am aware is fine. It is only with quotes that one has to translate: "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote."
I'm not seeing the ISBN inconsistency. Could you point it out? All 13 digit ISBNs are hyphenated after "978", no 10 figure ISBNs are hyphenated. I think.

Hi CPA-5 Thanks for the swift response. All addressed, including the links to countries from right at the top. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morning mate. A beautiful day here; what's it like where you are? Just checking in to see what I need to do to heave this over the line. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2019 (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, 25 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Italian battleship Conte di Cavour

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Italian battleship Conte di Cavour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another of my ill-fated ships, Conte di Cavour was mostly inactive during the war as the threat from submarines and mines was too high to safely operate battleships in the Adriatic World War I. She was intermittently active after the war until she was reduced to reserve in 1927. The ship was reconstructed in the mid-1930s with thicker armor, new propulsion machinery and enlarged guns. After Italy declared war on France in June 1940, Conte di Cavour participated in the Battle of Calabria the following month. After several unsuccessful attempts to intercept British convoys to Malta, the ship was torpedoed and badly damaged when British attacked Taranto in November. She was still under repair when the Germans captured her after the Italians concluded an armistice with the Allies in 1943. They made no effort to complete her repairs and Conte di Cavour sank after an Allied airstrike in 1945. Her wreck was broken up for scrap after the war. In preparation for an eventual FAC, I'd like reviewers to look for the usual suspects.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

  • the sea trial speed isn't exactly the same as the infobox speed
  • specify in the body that the secondary and anti-torpedo boat guns were single mounts
  • once you've used millimetres once, you could just go with mm thereafter
    • To tell the truth, I actually like spelling them out.
  • in the Modifications and reconstruction section, the 76.2 mm guns were reduced to 13, did that include the new ones, or was that just the ones against torpedo boat threats?
  • "which increased her overall length"
  • drop the comma from "over three decks,"
  • suggest "Italian leader Benito Mussolini" and link to Duce
    • Good idea.
  • suggest "killing 20 civilians and wounding 32" if that is right?

That is all I could find, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • ships displaced 23,088 long tons (23,458 t) at normal load, and 25,086 long tons (25,489 t) at deep load Since when did the Italians use long tons in begin 1900s?
    • AFAIK, long tons remained oddly popular even in countries that were otherwise metric.
  • No LWL in the infobox?
    • It's not really useful enough to add to the infobox, IMO.
  • The speed doesn't match with the infobox?
  • Conte di Cavour class consisted of thirteen 305-millimeter Model 1909 guns No English units?
  • and six new 76.2-millimeter anti-aircraft (AA) guns What kind of guns?
    • Not entirely sure, which is why I didn't link them.
  • her displacement to 26,140 long tons (26,560 t) at standard load and 29,100 long tons (29,600 t) at deep load Long tons as primary unit?
  • All this armor weighed a total of 3,227 long tons (3,279 t) Same as above.
  • believed that Austro-Hungarian submarines and minelayers Link Austro-Hungarian.
  • In 1919 she sailed to North America and visited ports in the United States as well as Halifax, Canada Why exactly?
    • Beats me. Could have just been a more exotic than usual training mission.
  • escorting another from Naples to Benghazi, Libya Pipe Libya to Italian Libya.
  • attempted to intercept British convoys to Malta in August and September The island Malta or the island group?
    • Nobody of any significance goes to Gozo
  • Link the Allies.
  • The infobox has a lot of long tons as primary units?
    • Yep.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over, CPA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Image review

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "with most of her hull underwater, and her repairs were not completed" The second "her" is arguably redundant.
  • "but they could be positioned in 30 different locations" Possibly insert 'also' after "could".
  • "File:ONI Drawing of Conte di Cavour-class battleship.jpg" MOS:SANDWICHes the infobox.
    • Are you sure that you mean that one? That's down in the modifications section. I can see an argument being made for File:Conte di Cavour class main weapon.svg doing that, although it is the most logical place for that image, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. I could see that there was nowhere to move "File:Conte di Cavour class main weapon.svg" to and so IARed it. On a couple of different devices "File:ONI Drawing of Conte di Cavour-class battleship.jpg" is an issue. Perhaps move it down one paragraph?
OK, but you must have some narrow screens ;-)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was worst on my 24 inch. Not sure if that counts as narrow. I set my image preferences to 800 x 600 px, the middle of the five standard choices. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around that same time she was equipped with" "that" → 'the'.
  • "Conte di Cavour bombarded the town" Now you and me know that the town in question must be Corfu, the capital of Corfu; but a casual reader may not. It may be helpful to specify, and to link to Corfu (city).
I think that you have missed my point/I wasn't clear enough. I have made some changes. Alter or delete them if you don't like them.
They're fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were part of the 1st Battle Squadron, commanded by Admiral Inigo Campioni, during which they engaged" "during which" → 'when they' (or similar).
  • "At that same time" Is this a US convention? It reads like a typo to me: I would expect 'the', not "that".
  • "when it was attacked by 21 Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers from the British aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious", along with several other warships" A possible misreading could be avoided by moving "along with several other warships" to immediately after "attacked".
  • "and incorporated some modifications based on lessons learned from the attack" Do we know the nature of these modifications?
  • "with an estimated six months work left to do on Conte di Cavour remaining" Perhaps rewrite this to flow a little better?

Very little for me to pick at. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over; see if my changes are satisfactory. I'm not entirely satisfied with my wording so suggestions would be welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The wording changes seem fine to me. At least, I can't offhand think how to improve them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2019 (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) 20:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

77th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

77th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A short article about a lesser known division of the British Army. This formation stayed within the UK, assigned to coastal defense before being turned into a training formation, disbanded, and being used for deception purposes. It has been quite a while since this article was promoted to a GA. It was the only one, out a series of articles on the higher number training divisions that was not pushed for an A-Class review following it being passed at GAN. I believe it is a few apt comments away from joining them at A-Class standard. Looking forward to some feedback and whipping this into shape.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Could you give the date of the division's establishment in the lead. Ideally in the first sentence.
    I hope the change I have made worksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was responsible for retraining soldiers who had been on medical leave. Once recruits were fully trained, and men returning from injury retrained" If it was responsible for retraining soldiers who had been on medical leave where do the "recruits" come in?
    I have reworded and expanded the lede to remove this contradiction, and better summarize the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "County Divisions" Lower case C.
    Before making this change, I would like to check. "County Division" is the title, shouldn't both letters remain capitalized?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because it is not a title the way it is used, it is a reference to a group. If you are referring to "the County Division" fine; but "the county divisions" - as in this case it is not a proper name. Ie, similar to how it might be the King, but the kings.
hopefully, address nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely static, lacking mobility" One of those pairs of words is redundant.
    Removed the latter, and made a slight rewording to the sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "counterattack any possible German landing" Optional: to me you can delete "possible", it is already covered by "any".
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowed the War Office to begin steps to better balance the army due to the large number of infantry units formed during the preceding year and a half" I don't understand what this means. I think that my problem is around the "due to".
    I have removed the latter part of the sentence, which hinted at info in the note and is not exactly relevant to the story of this division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reserve Divisions", "Higher Establishment" and "Lower Establishment". I am not sure that having them in quote marks justifies the upper case initial letters.
    I have updated to use the correct case, and drop the quote marks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the division insignia" Shouldn't that be either 'divisional' or division's'?
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soldiers who had completed their corps training" And this would be? (Reads like a typo for core to me.)
    See below on your other commentEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The infantry brigade was replaced with" "The" → 'this'.
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was replaced with the 11th Army Tank Brigade" "with" →'by'.
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and retain reinforcements until they were ready to be deployed" Has it not already been made clear that this was the division's role?
    Not quite. Basically: Reserve division: complete final training; Holding division: retain troops until they could be deployed. Joslen gives the latter role to the Army Tank Brigade while attached to the division, when it was still a training formation.
    Suggestions on improving the article text, if this is not coming across?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your other changes have adequately addressed this.
"Physique" is fine; "low physique" isn't. IMO. Your change is fine, but see my comment below.
  • "and what job or military capability would best suit them" "capability" → 'role' (or similar). And why not 'and what military job or capability would best suit them'?
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 77th Holding, and the training divisions"? Is there a missing 'other three'?
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British army" Upper case A.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to end a little in the air. Did the notional division have any men serving in it. When was it formally disbanded? Etc.
    There are only really two main sources that detail the phantom divisions. Hesketh never refers to the 77th again, after what is already mentioned in the article. Holt only briefly mentions the division, and includes this "Designation and sign retained for deception purposes; held in reserve and apparently never used." I have added an additional line in at the end of the article, cited to Holt. That appears to be all that there has been published about the deception activities of this division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But see my comment below.

Good work. A smooth little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having got down to the bottom and read the footnotes (I really dislike single character footnote indicators which are almost impossible to distinguish from citations) and see that there is an explanation for the "better balance the army due to" sentence. It could be that most of this would be better in the main text.
    I have moved the information out of the note and integrated it into the article text.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto "corps training" - for why I missed it and that it would probably work better in the main text. After all, this is not something extraneous or marginal, it is a description of what the division existed to do.
    IIRC, it was originally decided that this information would be better suited in a note. However, per your comment, I have moved it out of the note and incorporated it into the text with some additional tweaks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is really your call. But to me the names of the other two reserve divisions is a bit peripheral and it is reasonable to give this in a footnote. The two footnotes I commented on seem, to me, to be part of the division's core function, and therefore it would seem appropriate to give this information in the main text. Feel free to differ.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I have attempted to action the majority, and have left comments throughout for further review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good stuff. A few minor comments on your changes:

  • "and was potentially not used in any further deception activities than being added to the army's order of battle." Can I suggest something like 'and its deception activities were limited to it being added to the army's order of battle.'?
    I worked through AustralianRupert's suggestions first, before coming back to yours. The change made to the article, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ongoing suggestions, I have attempted to address all raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good job well done. I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Pass. No reason to suspect that any of the sources are not reliable for what they are being used for. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 10:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I have attempted to action all of your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, your changes look good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67:, as always thank you for the review. Sorry about the delay in actioning your comments and suggestions.
Great job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSuppport by Pendright

[edit]

Lede:

  • In this capacity, the division provided final tactical and field training for infantry who had already passed their initial training.
  • Add the before infantry.
  • Replace who with 'that' - who refers to people, that refers to people and things.
  • Now the 77th (Holding) Division, it was responsible for retraining [the] soldiers who had been on medical leave ...
Add [the] before soldiers
  • ... it was probably not used in any further deception activities.
If it's unknown, should' that be said? Consider this: ... it could not be determined whether or not

Background:

  • Using the recruits in this manner allowed the regular infantry divisions to be freed up from such duties, undertake training, and form an all-important reserve that could be used to counterattack possible German landings.
Consider this: Using the recruits in this manner would allow the regular infantry divisions to be free of such duties; to undertake training, and form an all-important reserve to …
  • However, the British still had to consider the threat of a German invasion due [to] the possibility that the Soviet Union ...
Add the word [to].
  • Prior to this point, the British Army had considerably increased the infantry [army] following the large intake of recruits.
[army] seems redundant?
  • These pressures, and the re-balancing of the military, resulted in seven of the nine county divisions being disbanded and only two being reformed as infantry divisions.
Why the comma after pressures?

Home defence:

  • During the war, the divisions of the British Army were classified as either higher and lower ...
Change and to or -
  • The war-establishment, the on-paper strength, of an infantry division at this time was 17,298 men.
  • Replace the comma after establishment with 'estimated that'.
  • Remove the comma after stentgh.
  • Enclose 'at this time' with commas or delete it.
<>Okay, estimated and supposed don’t seem worth further discussion. So how about this: In 1944, the war-establishment’s on-paper strength of an infantry division was 17,298 men. Now, we have a complete and uninterrupted thought. Pendright (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
War establishment is essentially the technical term for "on-paper". I think if it is to be cut down, it should just be "In 1944, the war-establishment for an infantry division was 17,298 men". Although this leads back to the issue, of what does war establishment mean, so "In 1944, it was intended an infantry division have 17,298 men"?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Let’s put the two important phrases of the sentence into context:
  • The Collins English Dictionary defines War establishment as" the full wartime compliment of men, equipment, and vehicles of a military unit".
  • The Cambridge English Dictionary defines "on paper" this way - judging something by how it has been planned rather than how it really works in practice:
So, these two definitions should be helpful in conveying what it is you wish the sentence to convey. Pendright (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based off the above definitions, and the history of this division, it would seem fair that the following would be the best approach: "In 1944, the on-paper for an infantry division was 17,298 men". Largely due to the fact this division more than likely never approached that level. Would this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Either one of these would work:
  • In 1944, the on-paper [strength] for an infantry division was 17,298 men, or:
  • In 1944, the war-establishment’s on-paper strength of an infantry division was 17,298 men.

Pendright (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 77th was assigned to [the] VIII Corps, and ...
Add [the]

Training:

  • From there, the recruit would be posted to a Corps Training Centre that specialised in the arm of the service they were joining.
  • Replace the recruit with 'a recruit' - indefinite.
  • Replace in the arm with in 'an' arm - indefinite.
  • For more specialised roles, such as signallers, it could be up to thirty weeks.
Remove the 'comma' after roles.
  • For example, as part of the change from a reserve to a holding division, the 14th Battalion, Durham Light Infantry[,] was converted from a regular infantry unit into a rehabilitation centre.
Add [comma]
  • On 30 June 1944, the 77th Holding[,] and the other three training divisions[,] had a combined total of
Remove [commas]

Deception:

  • [The] R Force, a British deception unit, seized upon this opportunity to retain the division as a phantom unit to inflate the army's order of battle.
Add [The]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I have attempted to address the majority of your comments and suggestions. I have left a few comments throughout.
I've left a comment above labled <>. Pendright (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above comment. I'm supporting this nomination. Pendright (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2019 (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) 23:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the overarching article for the Yugoslav army group that tried to defend northern Yugoslavia during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. It is part of a ten-article Good Topic that will hopefully become Featured soon. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • to the German-led Axis invasion of the Yugoslavia in April 1941 unnecessary article before Yugoslavia.
  • Germans seized bridges over the Drava river --> "Germans seized bridges over the Drava River"
  • the Royal Yugoslav Army Air Force (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Vazduhoplovstvo vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije, VVKJ) Second Serbo-Croatian link in the body.
    The template isn't letting me unlink this, I have asked at the template talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • intact bridge over the Mura river at Gornja Radgona --> "intact bridge over the Mura River at Gornja Radgona"
  • Serbian/Serbs is overlinked.
  • withdrawing to a line south of the Sava river --> "withdrawing to a line south of the Sava River"
  • from the Drava to behind the Bednja river to conform --> "from the Drava to behind the Bednja River to conform"
  • air reconnaissance assets were based.[54][33] Re-order the refs.
    Done down to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • across the Rječina river from Sušak, but the order was soon --> "across the Rječina River from Sušak, but the order was soon"
  • to the deteriorating situation in the flanking 4th Army.[60][42] Re-order the refs.
  • through the Dravinja river, Zidani Most bridge and the right bank of the Krka river --> "through the Dravinja River, Zidani Most bridge and the right bank of the Krka River"
  • towards Maribor, and crossed the Pesnica river in inflatable boats --> "towards Maribor, and crossed the Pesnica River in inflatable boats"
  • Standardise the usage of directions like I see "north-eastern" and "northwestern".
  • Triglavski fell back to the southern bank of the Krka river --> "Triglavski fell back to the southern bank of the Krka River"
  • counterattack v. counter-attack
  • on Yugoslav airfields in the 7th Army area, including Ljubljana Link Ljubljana and unlink the second Ljubljana in the body.
    Done down to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't note a have a citation.
    I'm working on this being WP:BLUE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some time later, other elements of LI Infantry Corps attacked Merge "Some time".
    No, that's not right. When some is being used as an adjective regarding time, like long time or short time, they are separate. Sometime means an indefinite or unspecified time, ie he will wash the car sometime. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • endangered units on the right wing of the 7th Army --> "endangered units on the right-wing of the 7th Army"
    This is also not right. It should only be hyphenated when acting as a compound adjective, ie right-wing politics. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • but construction of a bridge near Maribor --> "but the construction of a bridge near Maribor"
  • divebombers supported the breakout of the 14th Panzer Division Split divebombers.
  • the 27th ID numbered about 2,000 effectives when the German attack began --> "the 27th ID numbered about 2,000 effective when the German attack began"
    No, effectives is the right word here, meaning effective troops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Held up by freezing weather and snow storms Merge "snow storms".

I think I'd reviewed anything I've got. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review, CPA-5. I believe I've addressed all your points? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All images are appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

CommentsSupport by Zawed

[edit]
  • Lead: "Revolts of Croat soldiers": would "Revolts by..." read better?
  • Background: "Generals better suited to the trench warfare of World War I...": I'm not sure how generals could be better suited here? Is it mindset, training, experience etc...?
  • Formation and composition: I wonder if it would be helpful to identify the various divisions eg. 27th ID at this point, perhaps by way of a OoB infobox?
    I've struggled with this idea for a while, but decided against it because I'm trying to keep this as a higher-level summary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mobilisation and deployment plan: How was the 1st Cavalry Division to be deployed?
  • Zákány bridgehead: "some commanders began to discharge some or all of their troops, and most troops began to retreat"; suggesting rephrasing to avoid repetition of "troops"; perhaps the first instance could be personnel?
  • Barcs bridgehead and the Bjelovar rebellion: in the second paragraph, there is quite a few instances of the term "rebels" in the final few sentences, I wonder if this could be varied a little?

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Zawed. All but one done. I'll think again about an ORBAT box. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your position RE the OoB box. Happy to support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, PM, I have largely been avoiding this topic area for awhile now, but as this has been sitting here for some time, I figured I should help out. This looks pretty good to me, but I caveat that I don't know enough about the topic area to critically analyse the sources or information presented. Regardless, the content of the article seems comprehensive to me as a lay person and I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • along the Yugoslav-Hungarian border: endash?
  • had low firepower --> "had limited firepower"?
  • headquarters of 1st Army Group --> "headquarters of the 1st Army Group"?
  • with artillery and anti-aircraft artillery --> "with field and anti-aircraft artillery"?
  • deployment plan for 1st Army Group --> "the 1st Army Group"?
  • had broadcast the following message: had
  • poor response to mobilisation of both men --> "mobilisation orders for both men"?
  • Germans that the Yugoslavs would not be resisting stubbornly at the border --> "Germans that resistance at the Yugoslav border was weak"?
  • on 10 April, on the following day: probably don't need "on the following day" here
  • but were hindered --> "but was"?
  • LI Infantry Corps were tasked --> as there are so many different formations being talked about here, it might help the reader to add the nationality in front of this designation (and others) every now and then
  • Despite this, German forces along the front of the 7th Army --> "Despite this, German forces along the 7th Army front"
  • along the line Maribor—Ptuj and further --> endash rather than an emdash
  • suggest maybe combining the separate subheaders in the 10-11 April section to become "4th Army sector and the fall Varazdin" - as the sections are quite small
  • one anti-aircraft battery --> link battery
  • are there any consolidated casualty figures that might be added to the fate section?
    Sadly, there are no Yugoslav casualty figures for the April War, the aftermath was so chaotic all records were lost or destroyed. There are no casualty figures for this specific formation, but I could include the total German casualties from the invasion (which were insignificant). Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be a good addition, I believe. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the notes U.S. Army and lieutenant general are probably overlinked
  • "New York, New York" --> "New York City, New York"?
  • ISBN or OCLC for the Geografski institut JNA?
    Not that I've been able to find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if Note A shouldn't in fact just be included in the main text
    At this stage, I think I'll leave it consistent with the Army articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you having a look, AR, it is never easy reviewing in an area you don't know, but you'll have to take it on trust that my Serbo-Croat is good enough to reliably translate Terzić (a former Yugoslav general, who wrote the enormous two-volume history of the April War, which is by far and away the best source available, although it does have its own biases). The main source in English is the US Army military history publication, although it is a bit old, and frankly, a lot of those immediate post-war US campaign summaries were created with the help of captured German generals, so I use them with care. I'm pretty sure I've implemented all your suggestions except where noted, including a query. Here are my edits. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, your changes look good. In terms of languages -- best I have ever achieved was a few words of broken Pashto and Dari; I've forgotten most of it now. I think I might have accidentally asked someone for roasted shoe in Arabic once, too, when in a "chow line". Come to think of it, I got pretty sick after that meal -- so maybe it was someone's shoe (or worse). Anyway, thanks for your efforts with the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Great stuff. My Turkish is similar to your Pashto and Dari, all I can remember twenty years later is hoşgeldiniz (welcome). Added the casualty info. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Lede:

  • ... facilitated by [fifth column] elements of the Croat nationalist Ustaše. Revolts by Croat soldiers broke out in all three divisions of the 4th Army in the first few days, causing significant disruption to mobilisation and deployment. The 1st Army Group was also weakened by [fifth column] activities ...
The 2nd fifth column is linked, but it's not the 1st time mentioned.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... until the night of 7/8 April, ...
Unclear?
In what way? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>I should have said it is unclear to me, because it is not a phrase or term that has crossed my path until now. So, please set me straight. Pendright (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The time from the evening of the 7th to the morning of the 8th. Because it is clearer than "the night of 7 April". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the staffs of 1st Army Group, 4th Army and 7th Army on 11 April, the 1st Army Group effectively ...
Consider the definite article "the" before 1st Army Group
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... but were quickly brushed aside by German armour as it drove towards Sarajevo.
What is your concern? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Oops, ny apology! Pendright (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... reliance on draught animals for transport,...
I wonder if the meaning of draught animals will be understood by most readers?
Linked to working animal
  • Fifth column activity was also ...
Unllink Fifth column.
But this is the first mention in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>I stand crrected! Pendright (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formation - Mobilisation:

  • However, on the same day as the coup, Hitler issued Führer Directive 25 which called for Yugoslavia to be treated as a hostile state, and on 3 April, Führer Directive 26 was issued, detailing the plan of attack and command structure for the German-led Axis invasion, which was to commence on 6 April.
  • ... which called for > "that" called for ...
<>Not addressed! Pendright (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... treated as a hostile state, and on 3 April,
Because of the length of the sentence, consider replacing the comma with a semiclon and deleting and.
<>I withdraw the comment, but suggest that you reread the sentence for its clarity of flow. Pendright (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pause here - back soon! Pendright (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4th Army sector:

  • ... seized the intact bridge over ...
seized the bridge, in tact, over

Mura bridgehead:

  • With the deteriorating situation on the right flank of the 42nd ID, 4th Army headquarters ordered it and Detachment Ormozki to withdraw from the Drava to behind the Bednja River to conform to the line being held by the 27th ID on its immediate ...
  • Add the definite article "the" before the 4th Army...
  • Reducing the number of times (4) the word "to" is used might improve the reading quality.

Barcs bridgehead and the Bjelovar ...:

  • At this point, the entire divisional sector was defended by the divisional cavalry squadron which had been transported there in requisitioned cars due to the lack of horses.
A comma is needed after squardron.
  • Headquarters 4th Army reported the presence of the rebelling units ...
Consider this: The headquarters of the 4th Atmy...

7th Army sector:

  • ... but were forced to withdraw due to German pressure.
Add the definite article "the" before German pressure.
  • After having been grounded for most of the day by poor weather, in the afternoon, Yugoslav bombers flew ...
Replace the comma following afternoon with "the".
  • XXXXIX Mountain Corps ...
Place the definite article "the" before XXXXIX
  • Over the next three days, LI Infantry Corps held the lead elements of its two divisions back to some extent while the
  • Add the definite article "the" before
LI Infantry Corps.
  • Set off "to some extent" with commas.

Fall of Zagreb:

  • Held up by freezing weather and snowstorms, on 10 April LI Infantry Corps was approaching Zagreb ...
  • Remove the comma after snowstoms and place it after April - this completes the inroductory phrase.
  • Add the definite aticle "the" before the name LI.

Barcs:

  • Units of the infantry regiment which
Change which to "that".

7th sector:

  • When it received this information, [the] 2nd Army headquarters ordered [the] LI Infantry Corps to form ...
[the]
  • About 06:00 on 11 April, [the] LI Infantry Corps
[the]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review, Pendright. You often pick up my infelicitous punctuation and grammar errors. Just one thing I am querying. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that each of us just bring different skills to the table. All comments have been addressed; I'm happy to support this nomination. All the best! Pendright (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2019 (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) 23:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Ljubljana was a bit of a bad-luck ship. Commissioned after WWII had begun, she came a cropper soon after, running aground. She was still under repair when the Italians captured her as part of the Axis invasion of her homeland in April 1941. Repairs were completed and she was refitted, and she then mainly worked the North Africa convoys under the Italian flag for six months before running aground again off Tunisia in heavy seas in April 1943. That was the end of her. She is part of a Good Topic on the ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy that I am slowly moving towards Featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Again with the refbegin and end tags?
  • Suggest author links for Michael J. Whitley, H. T. Lenton and David K. Brown
  • There is a later edition of Rohwer, although I don't think that you have access to it?
  • Ampersand for Rohwer & Hummelchen
  • Footnotes consistently formatted
  • References are RS and consistently formatted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the newer edition of Rohwer unfortunately. The rest are fixed. You wouldn't have a source for the speed that goes with the range would you, Sturm? Lenton and Whitley don't provide it, just the range (from Lenton). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. I even checked Vego's article, but nothing. Article is good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "and declared a total constructive loss." I am not sure what the word "constructive" adds.
    Good point, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the fact that three large destroyers were not going to be built, the idea that Dubrovnik might operate with a number of smaller destroyers persisted." I am struggling a little with this. Why should the cancellation of two (not "three", as the current wording might be read) large destroyers have any effect on whether the one which was built would operate with smaller destroyers?
  • "acquire three such destroyers" As both "large destroyers" and "smaller destroyers" are mentioned in the previous sentence, it is not completely clear what "such" refers to.
  • Rereading the first paragraph of the main article, I may have got my assumptions above wrong. Regardless, feel that you have may have boiled the information there down a little. Could you unpack it slightly?
    Tried to make it clearer that the flotilla leader concept had two possible permutations, and they ended up going for the second one. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if I was being picky there. (It is always difficult when you already understand the point being explained, to decide if it is clear enough explication for a reader who doesn't.) But I am now reassured that I wasn't. Much clearer IMO. Thanks.
OK. If we don't have it, we don't have it. Not an issue at GAN I suppose.
I had a look and couldn't find a speed for the range figure either, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking, Nate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very tactful Sturm: "Not exactly" as in 'not at all'? Well, I think that you are both wrong and right. I was remembering MOS:DATERANGE, but misremembering that when it says "Two-digit ending years (1881–82...) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years ... " there is a "may", so as you were and apologies. (MOS:NUMRANGE is only referring to non-date ranges, but very confusingly uses "pp. 1902–1911" as an example. Is one allowed to simply change that?)

Good stuff. Just the trivia above for me to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! See what you think of my changes to the Background section. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on IMO. Supporting, but can I leave you with the suggestion that you link "bore" in the footnote to Gauge (firearms). Gog the Mild (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look, CPA-5! See if my edits suffice. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "..by the Dutch firm of Hazemayer." No need for "of".
  • "Only one of the crew died, and the captain was arrested pending an investigation." I'm not keen on the use of "only" here; maybe rephrase as "One crewmember died, and the captain.."
  • Do we know what the result of the investigation was?
    Not that I can find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentions "..between Italy and the Aegean and North Africa." The Aegean is not mention in the body though.
  • "Freivogel, Zvonimir (2014)" is out of order in the references, and could do with an ISSN. I can't access the PDF, is it English language?
It opens for me. It is in English, Freivogel is/was a professor at the Coburg University of Applied Sciences in Germany, but Voennyi Sbornik is published in Russia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The ISSN is 2409-1707, if you would prefer that to the OCLC. Harrias talk 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very good article with little for me to complain about, nice work. Harrias talk 11:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Harrias. I reckon I've addressed your comments. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, happy to support. Harrias talk 09:33, 13 November 2019 (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, 11 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Liberté-class battleship

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

As a bit of a break from the German warships I've been doing lately, here's another French one. These ships had interesting careers; the first one blew up in 1911 and the other three saw action in World War I and two of them got involved in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1919. Thanks to everyone who reviews the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Happy to see you again Nate. I hope you had a great holiday. :]

It was pretty good - my wife ran the Chicago Marathon on Sunday
  • Great to hear, my holiday would start from 26 to 30 October. We're going to Paris in la France.
  • In 1916, the ships were sent to Greece to put pressure Pipe Greece to the Kingdom of Greece.
    • Done
  • were sent to the Black Sea to monitor German forces Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done, but linked in the first para instead
  • were sold for scrap in 1921 and broken up in Italy Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • in the Fleet Law of 1900, which called for No link for the Fleet Law of 1900?
    • No, unfortunately - articles on the French Navy are poorly developed at this point (hopefully we'll fix that eventually!)
  • The law was a reaction to the German 1898 Naval Law Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • battleship displacing 13,600 metric tons (13,400 long tons) Link for both tonnes?
    • Done
  • Link full load.
    • Done
  • the arrangement proved to have several problems --> "proved to have several problems one of them was the conning tower was"?
    • I'm not sure I follow your suggested wording
  • their crews were increased to 44 officers and 765 enlisted men to include an admiral's staff Why were they increased?
    • The admiral's staff
  • with six electric generators; two 500-amp generators Shouldn't it be "with six electric generators; two 500-ampere generators"
    • I suppose on first usage, yeah
  • It extended from .5 m (1 ft 8 in) below Americanised ".5 m" usage.
    • Fixed
  • with a 216 mm (8.5 in)-thick rear wall Remove hyphen.
    • Done
  • tube that was 200 mm-thick protected Same as above.
    • Done
  • in the western Mediterranean and Atlantic Link Mediterranean.
    • Done
  • the battleships of the fleet withdrew to Corfu and Malta Island or the Crown Colony of Malta?
    • Eventually I'll fix these beforehand, like the ".0"s and "0 in"s ;)
  • At the outbreak of war in August 1914 Pipe "outbreak of war" to WWI.
    • Linked directly
  • Dardanelles Division fighting in the last stages of the Gallipoli Campaign --> "Dardanelles Division fighting in the last stages of the Gallipoli campaign"
    • Done
  • Capitalise and link "Greek army"
    • Done
  • were sent into the Black Sea to oversee the demilitarization of Russian warships To where?
    • Jordan & Dumas aren't specific, unfortunately - presumably Sevastopol, though I know the Germans seized Imperator Aleksandr III in Novorossiysk (though the Brits took control of her, not the French - the point being there were other ports with Russian warships.
  • including visits to Spain, Monaco, and Italy Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

Lead
  • suggest "The Liberté class consisted of four pre-dreadnought battleships"
    • Works for me
  • suggest "In 1909, Liberté, Justice, and Vérité visited the United States" as "three of the ships" is redundant
    • Done
  • suggest "Vérité was briefly deployed to the Dardanelles in September 1914" if that is right?
    • Yep
  • "where itthey saw little activity"
    • Fixed
  • link Toulon
    • Done
Body
  • suggest "France's primary enemy"→"France's principal potential opponent" as they weren't exactly enemies, just potential ones
    • Fair enough, but I wager if you asked your average Frenchman in 1913 who their enemy was...
  • lk=on for the first displacement conversion in the Design section
    • It is linked in the second para
  • "draft was limited atto 8.4 m (28 ft)"
    • Done
  • you could put lk=on for the displacement in the infobox
    • Done
  • suggest putting a note in the infobox about the variation in boilers for Justice
    • Done
  • suggest adding the range to the infobox
    • Done
  • where were the secondary guns located?
    • Added a description
  • "their propellant charges before ammunition"?
    • The turrets had a storage capacity of 12 shells and their associated propellant charges (each divided into three bagged charges) - does adding a comma at "...charges, before..." make it clearer?
  • I take it all the tertiary battery guns were in open mounts in the superstructure? Is there any information about their location that could be added?
    • Added details on this
  • suggest putting the lower belt range in the infobox
    • Added
  • is there a link for cemented steel?
    • There is, and it's there
  • "metropolitan France"→"Metropolitan France" and link
    • Done
  • no damage from the collision between Justice and Démocratie?
    • Added a bit on that

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • "File:Liberté class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1906.jpg" needs a US PD tag.
    • Added
  • Alt text?
  • Maybe left justify the image of Justice?
    • There's not room to do that (at least not on the size monitors I have access to) but I can move the one below to the left side.
That works for me. Thanks.

Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Nate, nice work. Not a lot stood out to me for A-class. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab or duplicate links (no action required)
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • everything in the infobox is mentioned and referenced in the body (no action required)
  • in the lead, Liberté was destroyed by an accidental explosion of unstable propellant charges in 1911 -- maybe mention this happened in Toulon here, as it is implied in the last paragraph of the lead
    • Good idea
  • Though earlier French battleships had carried a mix of several types of shells, including armor-piercing (APC), semi-armor-piercing (SAPC), cast iron, high-explosive, and shrapnel shells, the Libertés standardized on a load-out of just APC and SAPC shells --> "Though earlier French battleships had carried a mix of several types of shells, including armor-piercing (APC), semi-armor-piercing (SAPC), cast iron, high-explosive, and shrapnel shells, the Libertés standardized on a load-out of just APC and SAPC shells"
    • Done
  • Early on 25 September, Liberté was destroyed by an accidental magazine explosion that killed nearly three hundred of her crew. --> "Early on 25 September, while at Toulon, Liberté was destroyed by an accidental magazine explosion that killed nearly three hundred of her crew"?
    • Works for me
  • followed, and in later August --> "followed, and later that month"?
    • Done
  • 2nd Squadron ships then were --> "2nd Squadron ships were then"
    • Done
  • Justice was involved in a mutiny of war-weary sailors in April 1919 --> "Justice's war weary crew were involved in a mutiny in April 1919"?
    • Works for me
  • in the References, is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Wells source (United States Naval Institute Proceedings)?
    • Added an ISSN
  • in the References, is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Windsor source (Popular Mechanics)?
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) 22:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Kges1901 (talk)

Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Soobrazitelny was completed for the Black Sea Fleet days before the Germans invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. She was very active in the first two years of the war, participating in the Raid on Constanta, bombarding Axis troops and escorting supply ships during the Sieges of Odessa and Sevastopol and providing fire support during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in 1942 and the amphibious landings at Novorossiysk in early 1943. After three destroyers were lost to German air attacks in October 1943, Stalin banned further operations in the Black Sea except with his permission and the ship was mostly inactive for the rest of the war. Afterwards she was converted to a rescue and decontamination ship and was the last surviving ship of her class when she was scrapped in the late 1960s. The article is bound for an eventual FAC and we'd like reviewers to keep that in mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
  • In the background, it would useful to explain why the USSR was ordering more destroyers. Was it part of a general naval expansion program? Was the country in need of more escorts, etc? Also, why does it say she was ordered under the "2nd Five-Year Plan" in the infobox? No explanatory info is offered in the article for this.
  • Her first combat operation was the Raid on Constanța, I think its best if the subsections start with the ship's name before using pronouns.
  • Done
  • A brief mention of Operation Barbarossa, thus explaining that the USSR and the Axis being at war, would be useful.\
  • Done
  • Soobrazitelny expended 203 main-gun shells and drove off an approaching torpedo boat with 76 mm fire, being erroneously reported by partisans to have sunk a submarine in Yalta harbor. This could use some revision, as I'm not quite sure if the dependent clause is referring to the torpedo boat or the destroyer.
  • Done
  • Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946 is listed under Further Reading. Is there any information in that book that belongs here?
  • According to this source, Soobrazitelny was originally going to be named Prozorlwyi, as it was intended that all of the Black Sea boats would be given P names, but this idea was scrapped.
  • Already stated in the article using the Romanization Prozorlivny.

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soobrazitelny (Russian: Сообразительный, lit. 'Astute') was Unlink Russian because of common term.
  • the German invasion of the Soviet Union Link Soviet Union.
  • participated in several raids on the Romanian coast Pipe Romanian to the Kingdom of Romania.
  • would exceed the 37-knot (69 km/h; 43 mph) speed of the Project 7s Link knots.
  • Anti-aircraft (AA) defense/AA gun is overlinked.
  • as well as four 12.7-millimeter (0.50 in) DK or DShK machine guns Unaccasary extra nought after the 5.
  • They were fitted with a set of Mars hydrophones for anti-submarine work No link for Mars?
  • Pipe German to Nazi Germany.
  • operation was the Raid on Constanța, which aimed to disrupt Axis supply lines Link Axis.
  • After leaving Sevastopol on the night of 25–26 June --> "After leaving Sevastopol on the night of 25/26 June"?
  • of the besieged port, under fire from Romanian artillery, on the night of 30–31 August --> "of the besieged port, under fire from Romanian artillery, on the night of 30/31 August" Also pipe Romanian to the Kingdom of Romania.
  • Having expended 364 130 mm, 80 76 mm, and 327 45 mm shells in Odessa Try to avoid two separate numbers next to each other.
  • the ship departed the port for Feodosia on the night of 2–3 September --> "the ship departed the port for Feodosia on the night of 2/3 September"?
  • Feodosia is overlinked.
  • Five bombardments were conducted on New Years' Day 1942 Typo at New Year's Day.
  • the ship expended 283 130 mm, 144 76 mm, and 146 45 mm shells Try to avoid two separate numbers next to each other.
  • she expended 67 76 mm and 100 45 mm shells Same as above.
  • the destroyer expended 36 130 mm, 121 76 mm, and 212 45 mm shells Same as above.
  • Soobrazitelny fired a total of 345 130 mm shells Same as above.
  • Soobrazitelny expended 196 130 mm and 11 76 mm shells Same as above.
  • expended a total of 605 130 mm shells in bombardments Same as above.
  • Stalin is overlinked.
  • expending 2,863 main-gun, 1,215 76 mm, 1,623 45 mm, and 478 37 mm rounds Try to avoid two separate numbers next to each other.
  • Question, is it normal that the "External image" is closed?
  • Probably. External links normally don't fully display unless you add text after a pipe--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the numbers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Other sources look good.
  • Consistent citation style used.

Image review

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I reviewed at GAN, so haven't got much to add here:

  • could something be added that explains why ships of this class were built? In terms of how they fitted into Soviet Navy doctrine/planning?
  • suggest in support of the landing at nearby Yuzhnaya Ozereyka

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over, PM--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 4 November 2019 (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) 13:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Arthur Blackburn

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Arthur Blackburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Blackburn is the latest in my series on South Australian Victoria Cross recipients. He is arguably the state's most famous soldier, having won the VC at Pozières in WWI, then commanded a machine-gun battalion against the Vichy French, then an ad hoc brigade-sized force in Java against the Japanese. Captured, he spent the rest of the war being shipped from one place to another with a group of senior Allied POWs, and was liberated in Manchuria, of all places. I recently finished reading Andrew Faulkner's excellent (but huge) 2008 biography of Blackburn, which resulted in a significant expansion over several months. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, PM, nice work, as always. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • the infobox years of service start date is 1914, but it should probably be 1911
  • suggest maybe moving the link for Gallipoli Campaign to earlier in the Gallipoli section (in the body of the article)
  • "Outer Harbour" --> "Outer Harbor" as a proper noun?
  • Blackburn returned to legal practice: rough date for this? Probably "In early 1917" would do
  • contentious period in the organisation --> "contentious period in the organisation's history"?
  • his words were chosen well and delivered with authority: suggest attributing this to Faulkner in text
  • labour in a industrial dispute --> "labour in an industrial dispute"
  • With the amalgamation of light horse regiments --> "Following the amalgamation of light horse regiments..."?
  • On 14 January, in --> suggest adding the year here, and removing it from "On 1 February 1942"
  • the Orcades armoury --> "the Orcades' armoury"
  • Melbourne is overlinked, as is Java, Boys anti tank rifle, Bandung, and Roy Inwood
  • "File:Football match between South Australian and Tasmanian members.JPG": probably should have a PD-AustraliaGov licence
  • I'm not sure about the use of the grenade image -- seems out of place in a bio, but it isn't a major concern if you don't agree
    G'day AustralianRupert, all done. Here are my edits. I reckon the Mills bomb is an iconic weapon of the Pozieres fighting Blackburn was involved in, and unfortunately there are no good pics of the aftermath of the battle that I could find on the AWM website, so decided on it as a reasonable illustration of the fighting and hopefully interesting for the general reader. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, looks good. I always find myself wondering how Robin and Blackburn must have felt out there alone around the Third Ridge, and what their horizon looked like at their defining moment. I came across the story on a plaque in a hallway what seems a lifetime ago when I was posted to a unit that was co-located with AUR and found it quite compelling. Must have been like being cast adrift and yet somehow they made it through. I always regret reading about Robin's fate; reminds me of so many others who were lucky, and then ran out of luck. Anyway, sorry for the ramble. Fascinating life story. Thanks for your work on it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody scary I would reckon. No wonder they high-tailed it back to the rest of the battalion. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • As I can tell it has almost 4 million people and I watched some YouTube videos with non-Australians who talk about Melbourne.
  • Oh never mind that.

Part 2

  • May I ask you why not?
  • May I ask you why not?
  • "Undercover" has a different meaning from "under cover". "Undercover" means "secret work within a community or organization", "under cover" means being under the cover of something, hiding behind a physical feature or moving under covering fire, for example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review, CPA-5! Just a couple I'm not sure about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Abstain Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "..and along with the rest of the 10th Battalion, landed at Anzac Cove.." No need for the comma after Battalion.
  • "During his term as his articled clerk, on one occasion Hardy was being assaulted by two men.." I had to read this a couple of times to make sense of it, as the repetition of "his" caught me out. I can't think of an ideal solution, my own preference introduces more repetition: "During his term as Hardy's articled clerk, Hardy was assaulted by two men.." I don't know.
    These two done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1911, compulsory military training had been introduced, and Arthur had joined the.." No need for "had".
    I think it is needed, as we are talking about the past, given the narrative has already got to 1913. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..at Morphettville, South Australia, before embarking on the SS Ascanius at Outer Harbor.." I wonder if it is worth mentioning that Morphettville and Outer Harbor are both in and around Adelaide, something that isn't clear from the text at the moment?
  • "By mid-September, the 10th Battalion had suffered a total of 711 casualties, 150 of whom had been killed." and then two sentences later: "The battalion lost 207 dead during the campaign." I don't think the repetition is needed so close together; maybe remove the first instance and add to the second: "The 10th Battalion suffered over 700 casualties during the campaign, 207 of whom had been killed"?
  • "The 10th Battalion was committed to.." and two sentences later "In the early hours of 23 July, the 10th Battalion was committed to.." Avoid the repetition.
  • "..which they were able to break down, and using bombs, they were able to push the Germans back." Repetition of "were able to"; possibly swap the second to "they pushed the Germans back." Or similar.
  • "Motorised infantry units, the machine gun battalions were equipped with.." I'm afraid I'm a bit lost with this sentence? Should it start with "As"?
    Done down to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..with Blackburn invariably marching.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
  • "..with Blackburn driving.." And again.
  • "It took up positions.." "It" singular and "positions" plural jar to me, though I can understand why. Maybe "The force took up positions..", or just "It took up position.."?
  • "..a battalion of British infantry arrived and, under covering fire from the machine-gunners attacked and captured.." Needs another comma after "machine-gunners".
  • "..with the 25-pounders knocking out.." Noun plus-ing again.
  • "Meantime, the.." Hmm, I thought this should be "Meanwhile.." or "In the meantime.." but Google suggest they can be used interchangeably, so no matter. It sounds odd to me, though. (No change required, apparently!)
  • "..with Blackburn's machine-gunners supporting.. Noun plus-ing again.
  • Is there a more commonly understood word that can be used in place of "internecine"?

Reviewed to the end of the Syria-Lebanon Campaign section, and I'm going to have to take a break, and come back to this later. Harrias talk 13:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Harrias. Done down to here. Here are my edits so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
  • "Also on the Orcades were the 2/2nd Pioneer Battalion, engineers of the 2/6th Field Company, elements of the 2/2nd Anti-Aircraft Regiment and 2/1st Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, the 105th General Transport Company, 2/2nd Casualty Clearing Station, and sundry others. The ship, rated for 2,000 passengers, was loaded with 3,400." This is a long article, and there are a few places, such as this, when I feel the article goes into excessive detail. There were a few instances earlier in the article too, when stopovers on journeys are mentioned and things like that. I would suggest having a scan through the whole article and asking yourself whether each fact adds to the readers understanding of Blackburn. Of course, sometimes the minutiae helps to provide context, but at points this article gets distracted from Blackburn to go into detail about a slightly tertiary subject.
    This becomes important when they get to Java, as they are not infantry, but are required to fight as such. I will go through and check if there are any things that could be trimmed, though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, it would seem more appropriate to highlight it at that point, rather than this one. Even so, to a layperson, they aren't going to pick up on the fact that none of these are infantry. Harrias talk 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..as senior officer on board, was appointed as the officer commanding.." The repetition of "officer" seems avoidable.
  • "..were kept busy with physical training, air raid and lifeboat drills and lectures." To avoid the "and xx and yy", maybe swap this around to "..were kept busy with air raid and lifeboat drills, physical training and lectures."
    Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..did not even have any.." Remove "even".
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In disgraceful scenes, Australian looters and deserters.." Remove "In disgraceful scenes", not encyclopaedic language.
    Quite. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..into a killing ground and annihilated them." I'm not sure "annihilated" is encyclopaedic language here.
    OK. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and sought medical advice on the idea of continuing resistance in the hills." Why medical advice?
    They were worried about how long they'd last with tropical and other diseases etc. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..only weighed 88 pounds (40 kg)." Could you make this consistent with previous weights, which are in the format "x stone y pounds (aa kg; bb lb)"
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's me done. I will be going away tomorrow for the weekend, so I may well be slow to reply to any further comments; I would hope to do so on Sunday if I don't manage to get to them before that. Harrias talk 08:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thorough and perceptive review, Harrias. I will also go through and see what can be trimmed, although I am a bit of an inclusionist. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. A few examples of things that could be trimmed out or at least mentioned in less detail:
  • "Sailing via Fremantle and Colombo in Ceylon, the ship arrived at Alexandria, Egypt, on 6 December, and the troops disembarked. They then boarded trains for Cairo where they made camp at Mena near the Great Pyramid of Giza on the following day, along with the rest of the AIF.[9] They remained at Mena undergoing training until 28 February 1915, when they entrained for Alexandria. They embarked on the SS Ionian on 1 March, and a few days later arrived at the port of Mudros on the Greek island of Lemnos in the northeastern Aegean Sea, where they remained aboard for the next seven weeks." I appreciate the value of "setting the scene" for the reader to give greater understanding, but an explanation that it was a drawn out journey by various modes of transport could be put more succinctly.
  • "On 10 February, the ship departed Columbo, escorted by the British heavy cruiser HMS Dorsetshire, which was soon replaced by the Australian light cruiser HMAS Hobart." Which ships provided the escort is superfluous to an understanding of Blackburn.
  • "The Orcades was escorted across the Sunda Strait to Java by the British destroyers Encounter and Tenedos." And again. Harrias talk 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the A-class criteria says "..and does not go into unnecessary detail.", not "..and does not go into unnecessary detail, except to link to other articles the author is interested in." Harrias talk 06:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not articles I am interested in, so your thesis fails. And I don't consider them unnecessary detail, and no doubt opinions will be divided on that score. They are just links to other articles that may be of interest to readers or other editors who might then add the information to the target article, which is how a wiki works. The fact that they may be of no interest to you is immaterial. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that they were not of interest to me, I said that they are superfluous to an understanding of Blackburn, and therefore unnecessary detail. Blackburn was on the Orcades, and a link to that ship is clearly warranted. The ships were providing an escort to the Orcades, and absolutely should be included and linked in the article about the Orcades. The interlinking effect of the wiki still occurs, but without every article needing to go into too much detail to wedge in links to other articles. Harrias talk 06:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing co-ordinator: while I can not give my support to this nomination due to my concerns about it going into excessive detail, I am nowhere near directly opposing its promotion. This is a very well-written article which clearly meets four of the five criteria, and probably four-fifths of the remaining point. Harrias talk 07:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Harrias, following additional feedback from another reviewer, they and I have done some trimming of detail, some of which you had identified. Here are those edits. Let me know if you consider there is additional material that could be removed so it can meet the criteria? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I've been away with the family over the weekend, but I've seen this, and will take a look over it properly as soon as I can. Harrias talk 07:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work on this. There is probably more that I would look to trim out, but that is personal preference from this point. I am happy that in this form the article meets the criteria. Harrias talk 10:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harrias. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - images are appropriately licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Given the lack of additional interest and the length of time this has been in the pool, I am interested in the views of @AustralianRupert and CPA-5: regarding the "excessive detail" identified by Harrias, and which seems to be the reason Harrias is withholding support. Can either or both of you advise on your views regarding the specifics? If the consensus is that I have overstepped the mark regarding detail, I am happy to step it back if that is what is needed for promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, unfortunately I often have trouble seeing if there is too much detail in these sorts of articles as the topic is of interest to me. That said, at 9,300-odd words of readable prose potentially the level of detail may scare readers/reviewers away from this article. Part of the issue, potentially, is the level of coverage that the subject has achieved in multiple sources. The most recent work, I believe is quite detailed. Anyway, I did a little copy editing to see if I could tighten some areas a little, and I took a look at a couple of sentences to see if maybe they could be reduced without impacting understanding. I have some suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackburn was one of the battalion scouts, and one of the first ashore, landing from Prince of Wales --> probably don't need to mention the ship here, as it is already clear from earlier in the paragraph;
  • On 10 February, the ship departed Colombo, escorted by the British heavy cruiser HMS Dorsetshire, which was soon replaced by the Australian light cruiser HMAS Hobart. --> potentially, this could be reduced to "On 10 February, the ship departed Columbo, escorted by British, and later, Australian warships". It probably doesn't lose too much in doing this, from the perspective of a biography;
  • five Japanese light tanks of the 2nd Reconnaissance Tank Regiment arrived at the destroyed bridge and were promptly engaged by the pioneers using Boys anti-tank rifles --> potentially, it probably isn't necessary in this biography to identify the unit, or the weapons involved. It would be excellent detail for the article on the battle, though;
  • Organised as motorised infantry, the machine gun battalions were equipped with wheeled motor vehicles, motorcycles and sometimes tracked carriers,[82] and were formed to provide a greater level of fire support than that which was organically available within ordinary infantry battalions. --> This sentence potentially isn't necessary for a biography. It is good detail to include in the article about the unit, though;
  • About the time that Blackburn had been appointed to command Blackforce, he had received a staff paper on Japanese tactics written by two senior Australian officers, Major General Arthur "Tubby" Allen and Brigadier Frank Berryman, based on the debrief of a British officer who had escaped from Singapore. The paper concluded that static defence was futile against the Japanese, and mobility was crucial to success in fighting them. Blackburn immediately adopted mobility, counter-flanking movements and defence-in-depth as his maxims for Blackforce --> Potentially this could be reduced to "Based on lessons learnt from the fighting in Singapore that highlighted the futility of static defence, Blackburn adopted mobility, counter-flanking movements and defence-in-depth as his maxims for Blackforce".
  • Thanks for your light c/e and suggestions, AR. As much as it pains me, I have trimmed as you've suggested. It is now almost exactly the same size as Raymond Leane which is Featured. You are right that Faulkner's comprehensive biography has added considerable weight to this article, but Blackburn's long military career across two wars along with his civilian career have naturally meant this is larger than most other VC bios. Thanks for taking another look, and for your suggestions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 2 November 2019 (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, 30 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Babylon Hill

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Babylon Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Battle of Babylon Hill of little more than an early skirmish of the First English Civil War. Both sides were inexperienced and still learning the art of war. As such, the description of this engagement as "more muddle than battle" is fitting. Ralph Hopton was considered one of the more able of the Royalist leaders, and yet here he found himself needlessly ambushed by the enemy. All comments gratefully received. Harrias talk 08:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • A Parliamentarian army of between 3,500 and 7,000, led by the Earl of Bedford Maybe add the name of the Earl here.
  • culminating in a reported 800 on the night of 5–6 September --> "culminating in a reported 800 on the night of 5/6 September"
  • the first led by Captain Edward Stowell, and the second (Hopton's troop) Link Captain.
  • Stowell rode to meet the challenge, and after Balfour shot his pistol from distance, Stowell held his fire until he was close enough to make the shot, and struck him on the breast before completing the kill with his sword This looks for me more a romance text than an encyclopaedia text. I could be wrong but it looks like that.
  • and in the darkness the entire Royalist detachment was able to make good its retreat For me it looks like it should be used "were" and "their" could be wrong because we're talking about a detachment?
  • Shouldn't note a have a citation?

I think these are anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: All addressed, thanks for your review. Harrias talk 17:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harrias: In have one comment left. In note b we have no citation It is likely that Morris conflated Balfour with either his father or one of his brothers who also fought in the war. at the end. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
Lead
[edit]
  • "more muddle than battle" The MoS requires that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" This is certainly an opinion and so should be attributed in line.
    • It is, but the quotation is attributed inline, in the body of the article: "The historian Richard Brooks described the ensuing fight as "more muddle than battle." If you feel it is absolutely necessary, I can add it here too, but personally I'm not convinced that it is necessary. Harrias talk 21:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's late. I shall return to this.
I remember when I first encountered this, on the other side of the discussion. I was not happy. I made a very similar point to yours. But - the MoS is clear" "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Actually it is clearer: "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" emphasis in the original. I cannot off hand think of any other cases where the MoS emphasises its requirements. So, sorry, remove, paraphrase or attribute as you have in the article; but you can't have a quote which iis an opinion not directly attached to an in line attribution. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, irritatingly, you appear to be right. It's a nasty habit you're developing! Amended accordingly. Harrias talk 17:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The next time you catch me in a complete howler, I shall claim that I did it deliberately in order to make you feel better. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Somerset predominantly favoured the Parliamentarians" It is not clear on first reading that this refers to a geographical area, and not a person. Eg the Duke of Somerset, who is mentioned in the same sentence; yes, I realise that he didn't become Duke for another 40 years, but still. (Or Edward Somerset who raised cavalry for the King (in Wales).)
  • "Somerset predominantly favoured the Parliamentarians, and the Royalist forces which initially mustered at Wells under the Marquees of Hertford were harried out of the county, retreating to Sherborne in northwest Dorset, an area more sympathetic to the Royalist cause." Optional: Rather a lot happening in that long sentence. Consider breaking it.
  • "Hertford's garrison was besieged" Is this the same force as "the Royalist forces which initially mustered at Wells" Is a reader to take it that "retreating to Sherborne" means 'retreating to Sherborne and garrisoning it'.
  • "Besieged" is not synonymous with 'blockaded'. I think that you need to decide which it was.
    • @Gog the Mild: Genuine question, not an argument: Our article Siege states "A siege is a military blockade of a city, or fortress.." The dictionary definition of siege is given as "a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender", while a blockade is "an act or means of sealing off a place to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving". While I accept that not all blockades are sieges, my own understanding here is that a typical siege is a blockade, making the two terms synonymous in particular cases? Harrias talk 19:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a - genuinely - interesting argument. Proposing that sieges are sub-sets of blockades. I had always understood a siege to be a close investment, while a blockade was a more distant interdiction; but even if that is correct, and I concede that it may not be, it does not entirely rule out your suggestion. I am rather suspicious of the definition of siege you provide above, Eg, see Wiktionary "siege: ... with the intent of conquering by force or attrition"; "blockade: The physical blocking or surrounding of a place, especially a port, in order to prevent commerce and traffic in or out."
Fascinating stuff. You make a very sound argument, which IMO is all that is needed on Wikipedia. I withdraw my objection to your mixing of besieged and blockade. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Feel entirely free to argue with me. I don't mind, so long as you are polite. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I am always polite. Blunt, but polite. Harrias talk 21:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have only found you to be polite. I look forward to discovering the bluntness.
  • "Hertford's garrison was besieged in early September, but the blockade only lasted four days as the Parliamentarian army suffered significant desertions and withdrew to nearby Yeovil." Was "the Parliamentarian army" the garrison or the besiegers/blockaders?
  • As you may have guessed, I found the second paragraph of the lead a bit confusing.
Much better, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article
[edit]
  • "Somerset was generally more sympathetic..." As above. (Person or place.)
  • "their superior cavalry and leadership granted them victory" IMO "granted them victory" is not encyclopedic.
  • "but in the country" "country" in this sense doesn't always travel well. Consider 'in the more rural areas', or similar.
  • "unable to prevent the Parliamentarian bombardment" Optional: "the" → 'a'.
  • "Hopton set his musketeers and dragoons along the approaches to the summit" Delete "his". (Which implies 'all of his'.)
  • This is picky, but lead: "to no effect"; article: "with little effect".
  • "Stowell succeeded in breaking the enemy approach, but his inexperienced cavalry were outnumbered and routed" I don't understand tis. What does "breaking the enemy approach" mean? Colour change to remind me not to overlook it.
    • Okay, so I've read the source back, because frankly, I didn't have a clue what this travesty of a sentence meant. I'm just going to quote the source here, because I am really, really struggling to come up with an alternative which doesn't sound pretty much as awful as my first attempt: "Stawell charged the parliamentarians and initially routed them but his men being untrained and outnumbered was in turn routed" (No offence to the author either, but that text isn't getting through FAC anytime soon...) Put this here as (a) somewhere to summarise the thought and (b) a vain hope that someone else can suggest better wording for the article. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gog the Mild: Query on this point: would "Stowell's cavalry troop routed the approaching enemy, but they were inexperienced and outnumbered, and themselves routed, ..." be any better? I'm a bit concerned about whether it paraphrases the source a little too closely? Harrias talk 08:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. That reads fine to me. Except it leaves me wanting to know who routed Stowell's force, if they had just routed "the approaching enemy".
2. Maybe 'Stowell's cavalry charge was initially successful, but his inexperienced troopers fell into confusion [or 'became disorganised'] and were routed' or similar would be a tad clearer and avoid close paraphrasing. (And even if its not in the source, can you think of any cavalry charge ever that didn't fall into confusion?) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with your suggested wording is that it suggests that "the approaching enemy" won that phase of the battle, and therefore gained the summit, which doesn't appear to have been the case. While I was going through all the sources, it is pretty clear that everyone has based this on Hopton's description: "Capt. Stowell charg'd verie gallantly and routed the enemy, but withall (his troope consisting of new horse, and the Enemy being more in number) was rowted himselfe" I've just discovered that the Thomason Tracts, a collection of contemporary pamphlets is on archive.org, so I should hopefully be able to find the Parliamentarian side of the story there to see if that helps. (But it is 932 pages long, and accurate spelling was definitely considered 'optional'. Harrias talk 17:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing that they routed "the Enemy" at which they charged, probably the leading horse, got carried away in pursuit and either ran straight into the following infantry - oops - or were scattered across the field on blown horses and counter-charged by a fresh force. Obviously a bit ORy. If you don't find anything, or despair, how about 'Stowell's charge was initially successful, but his troops were inexperienced and outnumbered and the Parlimentarians routed them'? Or '... drove them off in rout'? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With some new information, I have reworked this quite significantly. Harrias talk 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
wiktionary:duel:
1. Arranged, regular combat between two private persons, often over a matter of honor.
2. Historically, the wager of battle (judicial combat)
3. Any struggle between two contending persons, groups or ideas."
It just about sneaks into the third definition, but for me it overwhelmingly brings the first to mind; to a lesser extent the second; marginally the first and last parts of the third; and I really had to strain to realise that you weren't flat wrong. Optional, as technically it is an (barely IMO) allowable usage; but I don't see why we need to put a casual reader through all of that mental effort.
OK. I don't recall ever coming across that phraseology. I assumed it to be a typo. But if you prefer it, fine.
  • "Hopton chose to withdraw his foot again, covering their flight with the cavalry and musketeers" Were the "musketeers" not part of the "foot"? (Or do you mean dragoons?)
    • Well, this is irritating. This is a very good point that I can't currently see an answer to. I have followed the source (Brooks) without really thinking about this. I will need to delve through the other sources to see if any more clarity is provided. I would guess that yes, those musketeers were dragoons: it makes sense given their ability to provide cover and then ride away at speed, but unless I can find it somewhere, that is just speculation. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Morris states that the foot were covered by the horse and dragoons for the initial withdrawal, but for the second only mentions that they were able to retreat in the darkness. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hate it when you can clearly visualise the obvious military manoeuvre, but the source hasn't spelt it out; almost certainly because it is so obvious. Grrr!

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, lots of good points in there. I have done some work on the article, but still need to have a look at a couple of the points in more detail tomorrow. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few notes here, but none have resolved issues. Delving through the sources to find resolutions to these issues, I've found a few contradictions between the sources that I haven't addressed, and I'm worried that I might have editorialised the article unintentionally. I'm going to have a thorough read between them at some point to see whether it is just a couple of minor points, or if this is endemic across the whole article, in which case I will withdraw this nomination for the moment. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I feel guilty. But I suppose that it will result in a stronger article. And it's what I get paid my munificent reviewer's remuneration for. Good luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it wasn't as bad as I worried it might be. I have made a few tweaks and clarifications which have reconciled a few contradictions. Hopefully my changes have mostly resolved your issues with the exception of one that I have responded to above, regarding my awful phrasing. Harrias talk 10:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you have done looks good on a skim. Two comments from me above for you. Once you say that the article is more or less stable I will have another more thorough reread. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'm happy that this article better balances the sources now, so hopefully it should remain stable now. I've re-written most of the battle description since the initial review, so expecting a whole host of new issues now! ;) Harrias talk 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take 2
[edit]

I hope that you realise that I shall be invoicing you twice for this review.

That's much better. A nicely flowing read now. However.

  • I am still not a fan of the "successful in routing the approaching enemy" sentence, but I understand your difficulties and this won't stand in the way of my support.
  • The lead: It is relatively long for the size of the article (but acceptably so) and gives two and a half paragraphs to the background and prelude, half a paragraph to the actual battle, and no detail on the aftermath. A lead is required to give casualties. I think that you need to lose virtually all of the second paragraph and add a short concluding one.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A lead is required to give casualties." Where does it say this? It isn't in the content guide. Harrias talk 13:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. Good question. And poor phraseology from me. What I was ineptly getting at was that leads should "summarize the most important points" (MOS:LEAD) and that I consider (and I believe that it is more widely considered) that in the leads of military conflicts (skirmishes, battles, sieges, campaigns, wars etc) the outcome and both side's casualties are automatically considered "important". As ever, I am open to being persuaded otherwise. You are of course correct that the MilHist guide does not specifically require casualties, but I would suggest that "What was its outcome or significance" is a hefty nudge in that direction. Specifically, are you content that the lead of this article covers "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" (MOS:INTRO), especially with regards to "What was its outcome or significance"? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To clarify, I was always going to redo the lead, and Parsecboy's review below has also highlighted this, and given some further guidance. I did not intend to suggest that I shouldn't put the casualties in, but rather that as you had phrased it, it sounded like an MOS/content guide requirement. As I had not seen such a thing, I was worried there might be a whole page somewhere that I had missed. Like I said above, my own phraseology can be blunt at times. Harrias talk 15:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blunt can be good. And it was entirely appropriate. Of course, I only used that misleading phraseology in order to make you feel better when you found me out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revised lead

Looks fine to me. Except:

  • "Neither side suffered heavy casualties; although both sides claimed they had killed sixty or more, modern estimates are that the Royalists lost around twenty, and the Parliamentarians five." I would use either a semi colon or a fullstop after "more".

But this is a minor issue and I am happy to support. Fine work.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

[edit]

You've been generous with reviews, so I ought to repay the favor, eh?

  • The lead section doesn't work for me - it seems odd to have what amounts to a summary of the battle and its background in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, and then a summary of that in the 1st paragraph. I'd leave the first sentence mostly as is, and then use the rest of the first para to explain the context (another problem with the lead is that it assumes too much on the reader's behalf - where is Sherborne, for instance?) - for instance, you might say "The Battle of Babylon Hill was a skirmish that took place between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in [southern England, South West England, whatever you want to identify the general location] on 7 September 1642, during the early stages of the First English Civil War. The action came after a failed Parliamentarian siege of a Royalist garrison at Sherborne in Dorset earlier that month. After the Parliamentarians withdrew to nearby Yoevil, the Royalist commander in Sherborne, the Marquees of Hertford, sent a small force under Sir Ralph Hopton to reconnoitre their positions." You could then have what is now the 3rd paragraph moved up to the 2nd paragraph, and then I'd think a new 3rd paragraph should be added that covers the aftermath and significance of the battle. I would probably drop the Brooks quote from the lead, since it's repeated in the body.
  • Sherborne is linked twice in the lead
  • Link Parliament, Somerset, pipe MP to Member of parliament, move the link to cavalry up to its first use, musketeer, rout, Wales, Devon, Cornwall. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The intro looks much better now, nice work, Harrias! Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • A little surprised at the age of some of the sources, but this is a pretty obscure skirmish, so most likely not much choice.
  • Batten, Junr, John What is this, Junior? I'm more used to seeing it formatted in bibliographies as Batten, John, Jr. Is this some sort of BritEng thing, or more a Victorian thing? I've asked how to format suffixes over at the Cite book template page and will relay the answer I get there.

Thanks Sturmvogel 66, minor query relating to the "Junr" issue. Harrias talk 09:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will be travelling away from home with work this week, and while I hope to get online and resolve remaining issues, I may not be able to get back to this until the end of the week. Harrias talk 18:24, 20 October 2019 (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, 24 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese battleship Kawachi

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

The short-lived Kawachi fell victim to a magazine explosion only six years after she was completed in 1912. In between these dates, her only significant activity was bombarding German defenses during the Siege of Tsingtao during World War I. I've overhauled this article significantly since it was promoted to GA in 2013 and would like reviewers to look for the usual things in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

  • given they were the first dreadnoughts, suggest stating that Aki was a semi-dreadnought
  • lk=in for knots at first mention in the body
  • "Eight 40-caliber quick-firing (QF) 4.7-inch (119 mm) 41st Year Type guns.,"
  • suggest putting the armour range for the barbettes and conning tower in the infobox
  • the deck armour measurements don't match (rounding?)

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Sources

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • under the 1907 Warship Supplement Program after the Russo-Japanese War as Japan's first dreadnoughts Link for the 1907 Warship Supplement Program? Pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan. Also add the years of the war to make the reader clear that the war occurred three/two years ago.
  • Their design was based on the semi-dreadnought Aki with a uniform 12-inch (305 mm) main battery This is really odd to me, why is there a "was" when the person or object are plurals? I'd say "Their design were" instead of "Their design was" but correct me if I am wrong.
    • Design is almost always singular.
  • Yes I know but that the design was based on multiple ships got me in confusion. I thought because of the design was from multiple ships, it should be plural due it came from multiple ships. But never mind that. Cheers.
  • Her crew numbered 999 officers and enlisted men as completed During peace times or wartime?
    • That's all I know
  • propeller, using steam from 16 Miyabara water-tube boilers No link for Miyabara?
    • Nope.
  • and a dozen 40-caliber QF 3-inch (76 mm) 41st Year Type guns A dozen? Doesn't the source say that?
    • What do you mean? I didn't want to spell out twelve.
  • I forgot at that moment that a "dozen" also means twelve like a dozen of eggs. Cheers.
  • She was assigned to the First Squadron of the First Fleet on 15 August 1915 and began 1915 isn't necessary.
  • inch casemate guns for three-inch anti-aircraft guns Do we know what kind of guns?
    • Probably the same type of gun on a high-angle mount, but not specified.
  • Magazine is overlinked.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Why the cite in the lead?
    • Was trying to stretch the size of the lede by explaining her name.
  • "although cost considerations prevented all the guns from having the same barrel length" a couple of queries spring to mind: 1. Which was cheaper?2. How much was saved? 3. Why were all the guns not the cheaper version then? In what way(s) did this effect their performances?
    • That discussion is going to be worth a paragraph or more in the class article where the answers to your questions will eventually be found, so best to elide right past it in the ship articles.
  • "¥11,130,000" Any idea what this was or is in "real" money?
    • Nope.
  • Is it appropriate to use the term "private ship" for a non-RN vessel?
    • I don't see why not as it exactly describes what happened. Nobody else, AFAIK, used the term, but it's just too handy to ignore.
  • "She was assigned to the First Squadron of the First Fleet on 15 August and began a lengthy refit on 1 December 1916" It seems strange to have events over 16 months apart casually mixed in a single sentence.
    • I have no details on what the ship did during that time. Happy to rephrase if you've got suggestions.
Suggest "She was assigned to the First Squadron of the First Fleet on 15 August. On 1 December 1916 she began a lengthy refit."
  • "that were successfully adopted by the navy" What does "successfully" add to this?
    • Nothing exploded for the next 20+ years, but that's not really relevant for this article, so deleted.
  • "would delay the construction of one battlecruiser by over a year" Why/how?
Perhaps "but decided not to as the diversion of resources would have delayed the construction of one battlecruiser by over a year."? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See if my changes are satisfactory and thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on two points; the rest are fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting - I have no idea how you maintain both quality and quantity; impressive. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2019 (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) 19:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Niobe

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), Peacemaker67 (talk)

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

Toolbox

This article is a joint effort by Peacemaker and me - Niobe had a fairly colorful career, serving under, depending on who you ask, five or six flags with three or four names during two world wars. Curiously, her career was bookended under German flags, and it was under Nazi control in 1943 that she ran aground and was then torpedoed and destroyed by British motor torpedo boats. This article is part of my German light cruiser topic and Peacemaker's Royal Yugoslav Navy topic. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]

Apparently was used as a communications platform when in service as a shore-based command ship by Hipper in 1915...this was a new tactic? ... there was also another Niobe, a cadet sail training frigate, that Hipper served on as well ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)~[reply]

I don't know how common it was in other navies, but the Germans did it frequently with a number of ships throughout the war. As for the other Niobe, it was this one. Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • of light cruisers that were built for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • when she was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia Pipe Italians to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • She was then seized by the German occupiers of Italy Pipe German to Nazi Germany.
    • Done
  • the Construction Department of the Reichsmarineamt (Imperial Navy Office) prepared Is Construction Department a proper noun?
    • Yes
  • all of the light cruisers built by the German fleet to the last official designs prepared in 1914 Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • for a top speed of 21.5 knots (39.8 km/h; 24.7 mph) Unlink km/h and mph.
    • Fixed
  • She had a crew of 14 officers and 243 enlisted men During peacetime or during war times?
    • I don't know that it changed - those are the only figures Groener gives (and Hildebrand et. al. simply states a crew of 257 (which jives with Groener's total).
  • Niobe was again tasked with escorting Wilhelm II in Hohenzollern, this time to meet with Russian Tsar Nicholas II from 11 to 13 September To where?
    • Niobe's chapter in Hildebrand didn't say, but coincidentally, I just rewrote the article on her sister Nymphe, which included the detail that the meeting was in Germany at a naval review held for Cousin Nicky's visit
  • she joined the cruisers of I Scouting Group for a trip to Norway --> "she joined the cruisers of I Scouting Group for her second trip to Norway"
    • Works for me
  • The ship cruised Chinese and Japanese waters for the next three years Pipe both Chinese and Japanese to the Qing Dynasty and the Empire of Japan.
    • Done
  • Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia is overlinked.
    • Fixed
  • Link the 1925 Germany to the Weimar Republic.
    • Done
  • several training cruises in the Mediterranean, and during Link Mediterranean.
    • Done
  • In April 1941, during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia Link Axis.
    • Done
  • the ship was captured by the Italians in Kotor on 25 April Pipe Italians to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • She returned to German service in September 1943 Pipe German to Nazi Germany.
    • Done
  • Italy surrendered to the Allies Link Allies.
    • Done
  • Link Adriatic.
    • Done
  • The KIngdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) had initially been Typo in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
    • Fixed
  • with consideration given to Zenta or Novara --> "with consideration is given to Zenta or Novara"
    • I don't think that's right
  • Dalmacija remained in harbor and did not see action --> "Dalmacija remained in the harbor and did not see action"
    • Switched "harbor" to "Kotor" to be more specific

Part Two

  • sold to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).[10][8] Re-order the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) had initially I do not think we should add "(later Yugoslavia)" because at the end of the "World War I" section and this sentence is at the begin of the "Yugoslav service and World War II" section. To me, it is clear that Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes would become Yugoslavia later in time and this is more an unnecessary reminder to me.
    • Fixed
  • in September 1943 after Italy surrendered to the Allies Wrong link it should be WWII not WWI.
    • Whoops, good catch!

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Consider adding alt text.
  • Could we have a bit more detail on the source of "File:SMS Niobe (1899) 2.jpg"? Ideally a volume and page number, but at least which issue.
    • I asked the uploader on Commons, but I'm not optimistic - I don't generally remember where I found images from a decade ago ;) But either way, we have the publication year, so it should be fine to use. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a little research, it seems that Weltrundschau zu Reclams Universum was only published once in 1902. So while a page or plate number would be nice, I can live with it as it is. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Niobe at her launching" Optional: → 'Niobe at her launch'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Minor comment here, but I always saw the lead as a summary of the article, not its introduction; thus the first paragraph of the body could do a better job starting off with the fact that the German navy was buidling the ship. Following the construction of the protected cruiser Gefion and the aviso Hela, the Construction Department of the Reichsmarineamt (Imperial Navy Office) prepared a design for a new small cruiser that combined the best attributes of both vessels. This statement, for example, makes for an odd opener without first mentioning Germany and/or the German navy.
    • Added "for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)" to the first sentence
  • Dalmacija remained in Kotor and did not see action. Some forty years old by that time, the ship was kept in port as a harbor defense vessel, since her relatively heavy anti-aircraft armament could be used to defend against air attacks. Was Kotor attacked by Axis aircraft during the Yugoslav campaign?
    • The port was apparently attacked by Italian aircraft, though there's no record of Dalmacija's activities during the attack. Peacemaker has better access to Yugoslav stuff, so he may be able to provide more details on this.
  • In 31 July 1942, the cruiser was attacked by the British submarine HMS Traveller south of Premantura but all of the torpedoes missed. Is it known what the ship was doing out there at the time?
    • No, unfortunately
  • According to Philbin, Hipper was tasked with bringing the ship "into full service". I'm thinking this is in the context of bringing the ship out of drydock, and seems like it should be mentioned that this is what he was doing.
    • What Philbin says seems to indicate that Hipper was Niobe's first commander, doing things like completing sea trials, initial work up, and such, but this is not the case.
  • According to this self-published source the ship was scuttled by the Italians before falling into German hands (they apparently had to refloat it). I'm generally not a fan of this book series, as it's self-published and often dubious, and I'd absolutely defer to Dobson, but it does raise the question, are there any reliable sources that contend the Italians resisted her seizure?
    • Not that I've seen - and yes, it's often questionably accurate - it describes the other Italian cruisers both as a "heavy cruiser", when they were the 3700-ton Capitani Romani class, which were barely larger than the heavier destroyers of the period.
  • Not sure how notable this is, but according to this source the ship was, while in Italian service, one of the Regia Marina's largest gunboats.
    • I don't really see that as worth mentioning.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Indy. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm supporting promotion now. If there's any more info on Kotor than that should be added, but other than that the article is good to go. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "..but as she was one of the six cruisers permitted.." Could be trimmed to "..but as one of six cruisers permitted.."
    • Good idea
  • "..with the Reichsmarine, and in 1925, Germany sold.." Should be either "..with the Reichsmarine and, in 1925, Germany sold.." or "..with the Reichsmarine, and in 1925 Germany sold.."
    • Fixed
  • "..and broken up for scrap in 1947–1949." Personally, I'd prefer "..and broken up for scrap between 1947 and 1949." Either way, this needs reconciling with the text of the article, which says that salvage operations began in 1947, and she was broken up for scrap by 1952.
    • Corrected - probably the 1949 date is from an old version of the article and I forgot to update it.
  • In the infobox, the two types of armament are until 1919 and 1916 respectively. I assume the uncertainty about what armament it received is part of the reason for this, but it currently gives the impression that it simply didn't have any after 1919. I would recommend either finding some way to convey this in the infobox, or just remove all information about armament from here.
    • I'm just going to remove the parenthetical years - the standard for infoboxes is the original configuration
  • "After Niobe returned to active service in April 1902, she returned to duty with.." Repetition of "returned" in awkward.
    • Fixed
  • "..briefly used Niobe as a headquarters ship.." Link headquarters ship again, as in the lead.
  • Following on from the infobox query about the armament, in the body it states "In 1917, she was disarmed so her guns could be used to reinforce the defenses of Wilhelmshaven." This 1917 date doesn't match either of those in the infobox. But it also then goes on to say: "Her old 10.5 cm SK L/40 guns were replaced with newer SK L/45 guns.." But if she had been disarmed, surely there weren't guns to replace? This has all got me a bit confused.
    • The point of the latter sentence is that the guns were installed in place of her old armament, i.e., on a one-for-one basis in the same locations
  • Agree with CPA-5 above that "(later Yugoslavia)" doesn't need repeating at the start of the Yugoslav service and World War II section.
    • Done
  • Mixed units: according to Comway, "..8.5 cm (3.35 in)..", but then according to Lenton "..3.4 in (8.6 cm)..".
    • Corrected
  • And then, "..carried six 8.3 cm.." followed by "..six 8.3 mm guns..".
    • Fixed
  • Why doesn't "..four 47 mm guns.." get converted?
    • It probably was converted elsewhere but it got removed during a rewrite?
  • "..which significantly reducing the warships operating in the Adriatic Sea." Doesn't make sense; either remove "which", change to "reduced", or rework.
    • Fixed
  • "..8.4 cm (3.3 in) AA guns, four 4.7 cm AA guns, four 20 mm Oerlikon AA guns, and twenty-six 20 mm Breda AA guns.." Only the first measurement is converted?
    • Fixed 4.7cm -> 47mm, but the rest are already converted elsewhere
  • "..the first taking place of 13 November.." "on", not "of".
    • Good catch

Generally a very good, interesting article. My points are mostly nit picks, nice work. Harrias talk 23:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One very minor point highlighted above, but regardless I'm happy that this article meets the criteria. Harrias talk 10:15, 18 October 2019 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Soviet cruiser Kalinin

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Soviet cruiser Kalinin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Sturmvogel 66 and I bring you this article about a Soviet World War II-era light cruiser, an old GA recently updated with details from Russian sources. As a Pacific Fleet cruiser, Kalinin had an uneventful and relatively brief career. Kges1901 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Kalinin (Russian: Калинин) was a Kirov-class cruiser Unlink "Russian" because of common term and merge the "Kirov-class" and "cruiser" links.
  • Draft vs draught.
  • derived from the Italian Duca d'Aosta-class light cruisers Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy but try to avoid sea of blue here.
  • See some British "tonnes" what kind of style should the article use?
  • "anti-aircraft" is overlinked.
  • Done
  • which the Soviets called Drakon-132 Link Soviets.
  • Link the first "Kirov-class" while the second (and the current) link should be unlinked.
  • it had been surrounded by the Germans and her propeller shafts Pipe Germans to Nazi Germany.
  • and six 12.7-millimeter (0.50 in) machine guns Round the "0.50 in" to "0.5 in".
  • The cruiser joined the Pacific Fleet on 31 December 1942 after completing Remove "1942".
  • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5 could you look this over and see if all your comments have been addressed? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. A few from me:

  • italicise Kalinin in the first sentence
  • Done
  • isn't the Kirov-class the whole of Project 26? Perhaps this needs to be reworded to make it clearer that Kalinin was part of a sub-class of the Kirov-class, if that is right?
  • "the earlier ships"? Is this a reference to another subclass? Perhaps Project 26bis? If so, is there a link to this earlier class? Or perhaps "the earlier ships of the class". Whichever way, it needs to be better explained.
  • added (AA) after anti-aircraft at first mention
  • not sure about using the 1945 speed in the infobox, I would have thought that given you're using the sea trials power output then the sea trials speed would be the one to go with?
  • the conversion of the power output has a rounding issue between the body and infobox
  • the range uses 18 kn in the body and 17 kn in the infobox
  • "Unlike her earlier half-sisters" if that is right?
  • if we are going with "as built", the heavy AA battery in the infobox needs to match the body ie 76.2 mm not 85 mm
  • not sure if the aircraft-related stuff should be in the infobox if she is "as built"
  • "officially entered service exactly a month" to avoid needing to give the actual date if that is the aim?
  • Done
  • suggest "She was scheduled for departure on 25 June. During May, extensive preparations were made for the voyage at Shipyard No. 202, which included the installation of special propellers with removable blades and the strengthening of her hull to withstand ice pressure."
  • Done
  • "and Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov"
  • Done
  • the sources appear to be of high quality and reliable.

That's all I could find, nice job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, PM--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image has an adequate NFUR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this image copyrighted? Soviet photos taken in 1945 should be PD if I recall right, is it the publishing date forcing us to use fair use? Kees08 (Talk) 05:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to know Russian copyright laws well, but even though the image may have been taken in 1945, the publication is 2003 and we don't have an author to check if they died before 1 January 1945. Is another PD license applicable other than PD-Russia? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, believe I was mistaken. I know that Sputnik images and from then on space race images are coming into PD soon, so I presumed this would as well, but you are right about the publish date. If we could find that it was published around the time it was taken, per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia/en#Durations, specifically The work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym between January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1946, and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication. could apply. However, for now nothing to see here, apologies for the interruption. Kees08 (Talk) 06:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to step on your toes, Peacemaker, but there's a problem with the NFUR - the non-free criteria require that the image cannot be replaced, and there are this, this, and this. Even recognition drawings like this or this would invalidate the NFUR, since the claim rests on the premise of needing to illustrate the ship.

On the other hand, any of those can be uploaded for the article (and the other members of the class). Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Later today I intend to replace the image in question with [15] as two of the images linked are Soviet press photos which are also still copyrighted and I think a recognition drawing is inferior for the infobox. Have replaced this with a USN photo. Kges1901 (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, looks like it meets the criteria to me. I have a few minor queries/comments, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab links (no action required)
  • propeller is overlinked
  • Done
  • ASDIC or Asdic?
  • It is indeed all caps
  • late deliveries from western factories -- does western here mean British and US, or factories in the western part of the Soviet Union?
  • Clarified
  • radar had superseded their primary -- does "their" relate to the aircraft here?
  • Clarified

Source review - pass

[edit]

The sources used are all reliable. I have not carried out any spot checks. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • In the infobox, why does the displacement have standard inside two pair of brackets?
  • Done
  • "..had a draught between 5.88 to 6.3 m (19 ft 3 in to 20 ft 8 in)." This might be an ENGVAR thing, but "between x to y" sounds odd to me.
  • Done
  • "Kalinin was declared best ship in the Pacific Fleet.." This would sound better as "was declared the best ship.."
  • Done
  • "..on 14 March of that year, she was struck from the fleet on 12 April 1963,[14][15] before being transferred to Sovetskaya Gavan for scrapping on 10 August of that year." Close repetition of "of that year".
  • Done

Honestly, these are all such minor nit-picks that I'm happy to straight up support this, nice work. Harrias talk 14:01, 11 October 2019 (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) 15:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Knyaz Suvorov was the flagship of the Second Pacific Squadron which was sent to the Far East during the Russo-Japanese War to replace the ships that had been sunk by the Japanese. After an epic journey halfway around the world, the ship and two of her sisters were sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905 off the Korean coast. I'd like for reviewers to look for the usual suspects in preparation for an eventual FAC. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

As always I claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • after her completion to break the Japanese blockade of Port Arthur Pipe Japanese to the Empire of Japan.
  • Strange that the lwl of the ships isn't in the infobox?
    • I often don't put the waterline length in the infobox unless it's the only measurement that I have.
  • The speed isn't the same in both the infobox and the body?
    • The designed speed is given in both. I didn't use her builder's trials speed because that was usually different than her service trials' speed. In this case Knyaz Suvorov didn't have time to run the latter trials.
  • General-Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy No need for an hyphen.
    • That's how it's given in my source
  • of Nosy Be off the north-west coast of French Madagascar British north-west.
  • Shortly afterwards, Rozhestvensky was knocked unconscious by a splinter British afterwards.
    • Not identified as BritEng in my dictionary.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5, are you happy with the responses here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Some refs have state or country (sometimes abbreviated, sometimes not) and others don't - I'd standardize one way or the other
  • I wonder if you ought to include the original publication year for Corbett?
  • Does the Taras book in further reading have an ISBN/OCLC?
    • Added

Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

Placeholder. I'll wait till the above are addressed before dipping my oar in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • minor rounding issue with the infobox o/a length
  • displacement doesn't match
  • the deck plan caption should probably state that Slava was a sister
  • rounding for the power
  • perhaps state that the secondary guns were on each broadside (assuming I'm reading the deck plan right)
  • a sentence explaining that the Russo-Japanese War was underway when she was sailed for Port Arthur is needed
  • some sort of lead up sentence for the Battle of Tsushima is needed, along with the date
  • what was the name of the flotilla leader?
  • drop the comma from "the Russian destroyer Buinyi,"

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the images are all appropriately licensed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Jason - nice work. I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • referencing looks good - all information appears to be cited and works appear to be reliable
  • there are no duplicate links or dab links (no action required)
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • slightly inconsistent: "Pleshkov" v. "Pleshakov"
  • program "for the needs of the Far East" of concentrating ten --> " program "for the needs of the Far East" to concentrate ten..."?
  • 928 crewmen during the Battle of Tsushima: suggest linking the battle here
  • the infobox says displacement was 14,151 long tons, but the body seems to say 14,415
  • consisted of four 12-inch (305 mm) Pattern 1895 guns were mounted: appears to be missing a word
  • set sail for Port Arthur from Libau along with the other vessels of the squadron: suggest maybe mentioning the war they were being sent to here
  • Rozhestvensky had received numerous: not sure if he has been introduced in the body at this point
  • another image to break up the service section would be great if it existed (suggestion only)
  • During the Battle of Tsushima, Knyaz Suvorov was the lead ship: date for the battle?
  • the helmsman being killed is mentioned in the lead, but I wasn't sure that it was mentioned in the body
  • slightly inconsistent: "Second Pacific Squadron" or "2nd Pacific Squadron"? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "..during the Battle of Tsushima on 27 May 1905. During the battle.." Can we avoid the repetition of "during the battle"? (Especially as the text goes on to use the word battle again seven words later.)
  • "..other than the 20 wounded officers evacuated by a destroyer, there were no survivors." I think this would work better without "the".
  • "The battleships also fired upon and damaged the cruisers Aurora and Dmitrii Donskoi." It might be worth clarifying in the text that this was a friendly-fire incident.
  • "..and caused the ship make nearly a full circle.." Missing a word.
  • "Shortly afterwards, Rozhestvensky was knocked unconscious by a splinter in the skull and flames made the conning tower.." Add a comma after skull, or possibly even split this into two sentences, as they are unrelated facts.
  • "..was down by the bow with a heavy list to port and was a mass of thick gray smoke from forecastle to mainmast." What does "down by the bow" mean? The latter end of the sentence could do with some work too: the ship was not literally a miss of thick gray smoke, so maybe "was covered by thick gray smoke" or similar?
  • In the introduction to this review, you include some nice context not in the article: that it was sent to "replace the ships that had been sunk by the Japanese", and that "two of her sisters were sunk" during the battle. I think a short aftermath for the battle would be worth including in the article too, just a sentence or two about how decisive the Japanese victory was, and perhaps the fact that (from the battle's article) "The destruction of the Russian navy caused a bitter reaction from the Russian public, which induced a peace treaty in September 1905 without any further battles."
    • I think that that'd be venturing a bit outside of the article's remit. I think that it ends very strongly with Corbett's epitaph.
I take your point. I guess my concern here is that reading this article, the impression you get of the battle is that the Japanese fleet just laid into the Knyaz Suvorov, leaving me, the reader, wondering what the other Russian ships were doing, and why they weren't able to come to her aid. Reading the article on the battle, Oslyabya looks like she was sunk first; maybe a short sentence about the Japanese dominating the battle, tying up the other ships? It might also be good for clairty (even though the article is short) to split the battle into it's own section, with a {{main|Battle of Tsushima}} link, as done in Russian battleship Oslyabya. Harrias talk 09:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment's led me to expand the coverage of the beginning of the battle, which I hope has clarified things. I should have done this earlier; let me know how well it works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that has definitely helped to provide some context. Personally, I'd probably still add a bit more, but I'm happy enough with what is there now. Harrias talk 06:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing major here, a good piece of work. Harrias talk 14:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Harrias, if you could look over these responses, I reckon this is ready for promotion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • "File:Czar Nicholas II aboard battleship.jpg" Could we have a page or plate number for the Source please?
  • As both photographs appear to be Russian works, they require tagging as out of copyright in Russia, if in fact they are.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2019 (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) 23:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/10th Battalion (Australia)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk)

2/10th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about a 2nd AIF infantry battalion raised primarily from South Australia for service during the Second World War. The battalion fought in North Africa, New Guinea and Borneo. The article went through a GA nomination in 2014 and has been improved upon since then by Peacemaker and myself. Thank you to all who stop by to help us improve it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I fixed the nomination's links.

  • Hello AR. The thing is I've heard and I saw a lot of British sources and people using hyphens in the ranks before and in WWII (well in the British Empire). After WWII the hyphen became archaic and I know before the war and during the war, most dominions still had a lot of British influences. So I guessed that the dominions like Australia back then used it with a hyphen. I would stick with the hyphen because it was a back-then rank in most of the British Empire before it got an update after the war. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

That's my review complete. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: G'day, thanks for taking a look. I think these have all been dealt with now. These are the changes that have been made: [17]. Please let me know if you think any more changes are need. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I have not carried out any spot checks. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • "..the battalion embarked for overseas." This feels like it is missing a word, maybe add "service" at the end?
  • Why does the infobox only list that it was part of 7th Division, while in the article it is also listed as being in the 6th and the 9th?
  • The infobox lists Thomas Daly as a "notable commander", but he is not mentioned at all in the prose, just in the list of commanders at the end, which hardly seems notable.
    • Added mention to the text now -- Daly rose to become a lieutenant general after the war (including a period as the Chief of the General Staff), so he seemed notable compared to the others who don't have wiki articles. I can remove him from the infobox if you feel it best. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess it depends on how you interpret "Notable commanders": Daly was a commander who was notable, but not notable for being the commander. That said, I'm happy enough with its inclusion now that there is explanation in the text, and it certainly isn't something I'm going to hold this up over. Harrias talk 08:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Verrier – a World War I veteran who had previously commanded the 43rd Battalion[9][10] – after the battalion's recruits had concentrated at Wayville, the 2/10th carried out initial training in the Adelaide Hills to the city's east at Woodside Camp, before moving to New South Wales on the east coast of Australia where further training was completed at Greta Camp and then Ingleburn." This is firstly a very long sentence trying to tell us too much, and secondly ambiguous. It could be read that either Under the command of Verrier, they concentrated at Wayville and then had initial training in the Hills, or that After concentrating at Wayville, they were placed under the command of Verrier, and then had initial training in the Hills. I would recommend splitting and clarifying this sentence.
  • "..and then in the middle of the month, as winter set in they were moved.." Move the comma from after "month" to after "set in".
  • Might be worth putting a note after "Hyderabad Barracks", because I got a bit confused with Hyderabad, India.
  • "..attacked the shoulders of the salient." What does this mean? Are there any wikilinks that can help?
  • "..were six missing and 15 wounded," Per MOS:NUM, either "six" and "fifteen" or "6" and "15".
  • "..on the Dutch passenger ship, Nieuw Amsterdam," No comma needed before Nieuw (because the definite article was used; if it was the indefinite article, then the comma would be right).
  • Pipe "Bombay" to Mumbai; there's a generation growing up that won't recognise Bombay.
  • "..conducting a passage of lines.." What does this mean?
    • Essentially an action that sees one unit move through another, usually to assume the task of the in place unit. Seen it done once at battalion level (only on exercise) -- can get a bit confusing. I imagine at brigade or higher, in contact, it would have been a nightmare. Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..in a fortnight of fighting, the battalion suffered.." No comma needed.
  • "The Battle of Shaggy Ridge proved to be the most significant action for the 2/10th.." Considering this is labelled the most significant action, there is very little detail provided about it. Are there any casualty figures, for example?
  • "..with a group of about 70 being.." Re-word to avoid the Noun plus -ing construction.

That's all from me, a good piece of work. Harrias talk 08:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: G'day, thanks for taking a look at this. I think I've gotten all your points above. These are my edits: [18]. If I've missed anything, please let me know. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great article as usual, nothing else from me. Harrias talk 08:17, 13 October 2019 (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) 23:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Preussischer Adler

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Preussischer Adler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

By popular demand (really it was just Harrias), I present one of the oldest ships I've written an article for, and one with a fairly interesting career - a paddle steamer from the 1840s that initially operated on the packet trade. It also took part in the first naval battle of the Prussian Navy after it had been reborn under the patronage of Adalbert of Prussia, returned to commercial activities until the expansion of the Prussian Eastern Railway rendered her superfluous, and later being present at the Battle of Heligoland (albeit she contributed little to the action). She ended up being sunk as a target ship by a young torpedo boat aficionado who definitely never changed his mind. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

You have my review but I will do it later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • he ship did not perform well under sail, however A however at the end of a sentence?
    • I think this is fine, but I've reworded it anyway.
  • outbreak of the First Schleswig War between the German Confederation and Denmark in March 1848 A little bit wordy. We're speaking about the German Confederation however only four of the Confederation joined the war. I do not think that's the right way to use it. What about "outbreak of the First Schleswig War between four of the German Confederation and Denmark in March 1848"?
    • True, but Wrangel invaded Denmark on the orders of the Federal Diet; obviously, not every member of the United Nations participated in the Korean War, but the American-led coalition fought under the auspices of the United Nations Command (and are generally referred to as US forces.
  • and in mid-August the ship was transferred comma after "mid-August".
    • Done

That's anything from me. Most of my comments were addressed in the GAN. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Interesting ship history. I have a few comments:

  • An order for a vessel to meet Prussia's obligation to the project was issued?
    • Good catch
  • no first name for Elbertzhagen?
    • Don't know why I didn't think to look in Sondhaus until now, but we have it now
  • link seakeeping for good sea boat
    • Done
  • the ihp conversions don't match, rounding?
    • Fixed
  • lk=in for knots
    • Done
  • isn't it 25-pounder when referring to guns? Other examples
    • Good point
  • refounded→re-established?
    • Done
  • the old paddle steamer→the old paddle corvette, if that is right?
    • As I recall, she was a paddle frigate, but I don't have Groener or Hildebrand in front of me at the moment to see how they classify her.
  • say that Sulina is on the Black Sea
    • Done
  • "and had reached Piraeus"
    • Done
  • comma after "the Netherlands"
    • Done
  • move the redlink for Niels Juel to first mention, and was she a screw frigate or a steam frigate?
    • Fixed
  • given there was more than one squadron, per haps "Austro-Prussian squadron"→"Austro-Prussian fleet"?
    • Done
  • suggest I Shipyard Division→I. Shipyard Division
    • Done
  • the sources are of high quality and reliable.

That is all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, nice job on this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Harrias

[edit]

Well, I could hardly miss this one, could I?!

  • "..but the arrival of the Austrian warships forced the Danes to abandon their blockade." What blockade? This is the first mention of it.
    • Add a bit on this
  • "Beginning in 1872, she was used alternatively as.." I think it should be "alternately", not "alternatively".
    • Good catch
  • "An order for a vessel to meet Prussia's obligation to the project, but the ship built in Britain in 1845 proved to be a failure and a replacement was ordered.." This doesn't seem quite right; it skips from the order being made to the completed ship being no good. I think a bit more context would be worth putting in: did the ship operate the route, and just wasn't up to scratch, or did the ship not even make it that far?
    • Clarified
  • "The wheels were 6.34 m (20.8 ft) in.." Why 20.8 ft, rather than ft and inches like previously used?
    • Because I forgot to specify the output ;)
  • Would it be picky to ask that a new version of the image be cropped that includes the whole of the words "St. Petersburg"? Also, the caption says top left, but it is actually top right.
    • No, that's not a big deal
  • "..this was the first naval battle of the Prussian Navy after it had been refounded." Given this is a major claim, I think it should be directly cited, rather than waiting upon the citation at the end of the paragraph.
    • I don't really see a point in repeating the citation
  • "..on the heels of.." Just "after" will suffice.
    • Done
  • "..and the administration.." What adminstration?
    • The navy's - all Hildebrand et. al. say is "...zwischen Verwaltung und Oberkommando..." Generally they're more specific about which entities they're talking about, but I'd assume this was the Prussian Navy Department conflicting with elements of the Naval High Command (under Adalbert of Prussia)
  • "Preussischer Adler was to be sent to the.." This can be trimmed to "was sent to"
    • The point was to make clear that the ship's didn't actually reach their destinations
  • "Preussischer Adler, Blitz, and Basilisk.." It isn't important, but given you listed them as "Basilisk and Blitz" previously, aesthetically it would be nice to preserve that order.
    • Reversed
  • "..and had reached Piraeus, Greece on 9 October." Either "and had reached Piraeus, Greece by 9 October." or "and reached Piraeus, Greece on 9 October."
    • Fixed per Peacemaker's comment above
  • "..slowed the ships' voyage back.." Cut ships'.
    • Done
  • "At the time, the Danish fleet was far superior to the Prussian naval forces initially available.." "initially" is redundant to "at the time", cut it.
    • Done

Generally all very good, just nit-picking from me really. Harrias talk 12:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, more than happy to give this my support. Harrias talk 06:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • Consider alt text.
  • Caption of map 1 "left" → 'right'.
    • Whoops!
  • It gave me a chuckle.
  • Caption of The Battle of Heligoland image. "The" is part of the title, and so should be in italics.
    • Good catch - the title includes the year too, apparently - I've added both.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2019 (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, 10 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Capture of Wakefield

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Capture of Wakefield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The capture of Wakefield, in Yorkshire, featured two of the more prominent commanders from the First English Civil War. Sir Thomas Fairfax, after nearly getting himself captured in this engagement, went on to become the commander-in-chief of parliament's New Model Army which effectively won the war. George Goring was taken prisoner at Wakefield, had some success at Marston Moor, but ultimately failed in southwest England, and escaped to France claiming ill-health. The capture of Wakefield itself was significant for the scale of the victory, and the number of prisoners Fairfax was able to take, but territoriality was of little consequence.

This is the first of the Civil War engagements that I have brought to A-class review since the Sieges of Taunton back in 2015, but hopefully the first of many, so all comments will be gratefully received, not just for this article, but to help me form and refine the others. Harrias talk 10:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:A-Miraculous-Victory.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nikkimaria. I knew this image was going to be raised as an issue, but I wasn't quite sure what was best to do with it, and so I figured I'd wait for the review! Would the correct author be Ferdinando Lord Fairfax (as the writer of the words), Edward Husbands (as the person who had it published), or the person who took the photograph? I'm guessing possibly the first, but I'm unsure? Harrias talk 21:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I assessed this at GAN and thought well of it. Some useful expansion since then.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine. Thanks. I feel a little petty writing this, but the last point - the only one preventing an enthusiastic "Support" - is a real sticking point for me. A2 includes "and does not go into unnecessary detail" and I reckon that does. Let's see if others feel differently, or if we can form a consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. We're here to refine and improve the articles; getting a little 'A-class disc' or a 'Featured star' is just a happy by-product. Let's wait and see what anyone else says. From your personal point of view, would you be any happier with a shorter version, something like "By the end of 1644, an alliance between the English parliament and the Scottish Covenanters delivered most of the north of England for parliament." Or do you just feel it should be omitted, end of? Harrias talk 13:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Omitted. Although I would be happier with that; it is less tangential than currently. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, that was my ambiguous wording again! I should have said "would you be happy with", rather than "happier with", so your direct answer is what I was after, thanks. Harrias talk 14:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chewing this over, if you are happy to boil the two sentences in question down to 'By the end of 1644, an alliance between the English parliament and the Scottish Covenanters delivered most of the north of England for parliament.' then it is probably not 'unfocused' enough for me to legitimately oppose. So if you want to do that, I will then support. Mind, I think that 'By the end of 1644, most of the north of England had been captured by parliamentarian forces.' or something similar would be even better. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look over a variety of battle Featured articles, some of your own, and some others. It's clear looking through them that consensus sits on your side, and reading through this article again, the mention of the Covenanters in particularly does seem excessive. I have just realised that those two sentences included Fairfax at Marston Moor, so I was considering: "By the end of 1644, aided by Fairfax's decisive victory at Marston Moor, most of the north of England had been captured by parliamentarian forces." Harrias talk 21:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like an editor who uses my articles as a yardstick of good practice. I doubt their judgement, but I like them. Yes, that last suggestion is just the sort of thing I would expect. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Done. Harrias talk 06:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Hello Harrias I'm happy to hear about your return in nominating articles. Of course in October the quarterly reviewing awards will take place and I do have some eyes on some reviews including yours. If you do not mind I'd probably have a review tomorrow due the last days of the drive and other nominations who are waiting longer than this one. Do not worry I'll get this one probably tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CPA-5: All that graph shows is that 19 years ago, there was very little difference between the two, and that they were trending towards a merge. I maintain that there is no consensus to change. Harrias talk 09:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • returned south, his wife, Henrietta Maria (formally known as Queen Mary) Why formally? In her article, it states that she still was married with the King?
    • As you will have seen, the Wikipedia article is at Henrietta Maria of France, she is commonly referred to in sources as Henrietta Maria, and she did not self identify as Queen Mary. I wouldn't have included it at all, except that a few (mostly contemporary) sources do use Queen Mary, and so I felt it provided useful context. Harrias talk 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and reestablished the West Riding of Yorkshire for parliament American reestablished.
  • Royalist outpost at Stanley, roughly 2.5 miles (4.0 km) from Wakefield Could you round the unnecessary nought.
  • he led a counterattack on horseback American counterattack.
  • The horse were split into eight troops Is it me or is the word "horse" a singular and the verb should be was?
    • "horse plural: cavalry" This is a minefield. Short answer is that "were" is fine. Long answer is that either "were" or "was" could be used depending on the specific meaning being conveyed. In this case, I think that "were" is more appropriate, to account for the physical splitting of the group of people. Harrias talk 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • barricade to clear enough room for the cavalry to break through Merge "break through".

I think that was anything I've got for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review; I've responded to each point in turn above, though I have to say that I have disagreed with most of the suggestions. Harrias talk 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short note to any reviewers that I am going away for a few days, so won't be able to respond to any further comments until Sunday at the earliest. Harrias talk 17:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article looks in good shape. I have a few comments:

  • just be careful about the use of "foot" here, as it is British Army jargon. The use of "foot" is a bit of assumed knowledge regarding another name for infantry in the British context of the era, and infantry are referred to as that, as foot, and some as musketeers. Are they all the same thing in this context, or are some of the infantry only equipped with edged weapons? Suggest adding (foot) after infantry, just using infantry throughout, or some other formulation.
  • suggest "under the command of his father, Lord Fairfax, Sir Thomas Fairfax..."
  • do we know who commanded the dragoons?
  • is there a breakdown of how many of the Parliamentary infantry were musketeers (assuming they weren't all musketeers)?
  • suggest moving the description of Wakefield from where it is to the point in the narrative when the Parliamentarians first arrive there and before the defenders man the hedges.
  • was Goring the only Royalist commander?
    • There is a whole list of so-called "commanders" who were taken prisoner, though the term seems to be used synonymously with "officer". There were certainly other Royalist commanders present, not least Goring's deputy Mackworth. In fact, looking through, one sources states "the royalist garrison in the town comprised General Goring, Sergeant Major-general Mackworth, Lord Goring, and other celebrated commanders" Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume Northgate is to the north of Wakefield, but where is/was Warrengate?
  • suggest "Despite his illness"→"Whatever his incapacity", as we are assuming one rather than the other by using illness. This also applies to the lead, where the illness version is also used.
  • suggest "though both Goring's father, the Earl of Norwich,"
  • what did the dragoons do during the battle?
  • suggest "The commander of the infantry ignored Fairfax, and asked one of the two prisoners that Fairfax held for instructions."→"Fairfax was holding two prisoners, but the infantry commander did not recognise him and asked one of prisoners for instructions." if that is right?
  • Market Place→marketplace, unless it is the proper name of the location
    • The main source uses "Market Place", suggesting it is the proper name for the location, but Google Maps doesn't think it exists any more. I want to have a quick look around some others, if I'm not convinced, then I'll soften it as suggested. Harrias talk 10:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he fired at them with the cannon and his musketeers"→"his musketeers and the cannon opened fire"
  • suggest extending the piping of Sir Thomas Fairfax in the infobox
  • the sources seem reliable and of acceptable quality, although I am left wondering what more scholarly sources on the civil war might say about this event.
    • I agree, but I haven't been able to find anything from more scholarly sources relating to the capture, at least not as more than a passing mention. There is nothing obvious from either the The Yorkshire Archaeological & Historical Society or the Wakefield Historical Society, nor from searches on a couple of journal collections that I have access to. Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've initially responded to and changed some of the more obvious ones. I'm still pretty tired from my travels, so I'm going to look at some of the others later when I can concentrate better! Harrias talk 10:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I've responded to each of your points, though there are a couple that I want to look into a little further, and a couple I've queried. Harrias talk 12:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses on pretty minor issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: And responded to those points. Harrias talk 09:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Nice job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 9 October 2019 (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) 00:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 45th Infantry Division was a second-line Territorial Army division that was active for most of the war, and did not see service outside of the UK. The division guarded vulnerable points, was relegated to home defense, aided in the admin/logistical side of Overlord, and was then stripped of its assets to reinforce combat formations. In 1944, it was disbanded and then recreated as a holding division. In this role, it aided in the retraining and rehabilitation of those not up to fitness standards, ex-POWs, and returning troops. It was demobbed at the end of the war, and not reformed. It has been looked over by the GOCE, and has recently passed a GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]

Full review to follow. Harrias talk 19:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background
History
  • In the infobox, the date the Division became active is listed as 15 September 1939, but in here it is listed as 7 September. Can you confirm which is correct, and bring them inline with each other.
    Fixed typoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 1940, as a result of the swift nature of the German operations on mainland Europe, Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces Walter Kirke grew concerned over the threat posed by the Germans to South East England. As a result, the division was assigned to Eastern Command and deployed to Sussex to defend the coast. As a result of..." Remove the repetition of "as a result", which appears here three times in three sentences.
    Mixed it upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and the third positioned around 6 miles (9.7 km) inland to provide a counter-attack force. The third brigade would be positioned further inland to provide an additional counter-attacking force.." Repetition of fact here.
    The first sentence is referring to the reserve battalion of the forward brigades. The latter sentence is in regards to the division's reserve brigade. Additional thoughts on this point?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I see now. I clearly misread it, and therefore misunderstood. No problem with it as it is. Harrias talk 06:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent sentences start "In July, the division.., "In December, the division..", "As a result, the division..", "In March 1943, the division..", "This deployment.., "In December 1943, the division... Try and find a way to avoid the repetition, which just makes it sound like a bullet point list.
    I have made a few tweaks with this mind, I hope these work. Otherwise, if you have suggestions?
  • "The division's move to and from Northern Ireland were.." Either "move" and "was" or "moves" and "were".
    AdjustedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a nice article with relatively minor issues, mostly repetition, which is not surprising due to the routine nature of the division's history. Harrias talk 11:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, and nailed the main issue: not a whole lot to reportEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all looks good to me now. Harrias talk 20:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

Another great article on a British division. I have a few comments:

Lead
Body

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for your review and comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, nice job on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to your reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5. This is looking good for promotion, so unless you want to dip your oar in shortly, I'm going to list it? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. The rest were addressed in the GAN review. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. A limited spot check raises no concerns. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Sources are consistently and appropriately given. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, this looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2019 (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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

République-class battleship

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another in our series of articles on French battleships, these two ships were originally to have been a class of six, but changes to the last four split them off into another class. They had fairly eventful peacetime careers, with Patrie accidentally torpedoing République in 1910 and the latter being struck by flying debris from the exploding battleship Liberté the next year. Their wartime service was a bit more subdued, spending time on the patrol line at the entrance to the Adriatic, followed by limited action off the Dardanelles, and then a stint in Greece. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. Do this one at the weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had to fix these before I put it up ;) Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know you weren't spared if I have a review. ;)
  • Patrie was transferred to the Gallipoli Campaign in May 1915 Decaptalise "Campaign".
    • Done
  • a coup against the neutral but pro-German government Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • law was a reaction to the German 1898 Naval Law Merge German into the 1898 Naval Law's link.
    • Done
  • Link Admiral.
    • Done
  • battleship displacing 13,600 metric tons (13,400 long tons) No links for both tonnes?
    • Fixed
  • Link armor-piercing shells.
    • Done
  • Is there a law for the 1900 Fleet Law?
    • No, unfortunately
  • displaced 14,605 metric tons (14,374 long tons; 16,099 short tons) at full load Link full load.
    • Done
  • I see the usage of metric/long/short tons in the "General characteristics" section others don't?
    • Should be fixed now
  • 19.15 knots (35.47 km/h; 22.04 mph) from 19,898 CV (19,626 ihp) What's a CV?
    • The French abbreviation for metric horsepower - removed the abbreviation since nobody was apparently bothered to come up with an abbreviation for metric horsepower that makes sense
  • It extended from .5 m (1 ft 8 in) below the waterline Looks an americanised usage of ".5 m"?
    • Fixed
  • plate were two layers of 20 mm (0.79 in)-thick steel Remove the hyphen.
    • Done
  • front and side, with a 216 mm (8.5 in)-thick rear wall Same as above.
    • Done
  • that was 200 mm-thick protected Same as above.
    • Done
  • and secondary guns, and one .8 m (2 ft 7 in) Barr & Stroud Americanised ".8 m".
    • Fixed
  • Link anti-aircraft guns.
    • Done
  • battleships of the fleet withdrew to Corfu and Malta Are we speaking about the island of Malta or the island group? Because the island itself has a separate article.
    • Good catch
  • Pipe Greek to the Kingdom of Greece.
    • Done
  • Link the French Army.
    • Done
  • "14,870 metric tons (14,640 long tons)" Link both tonnes in the infobox.
    • Done
  • "18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)" Link knots.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Sorry for the late delay was a little bit busy with the drive. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we aren't going anywhere ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5, are you happy all your comments have been addressed? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Nate, this looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab links or dup links (no action required);
  • ext link works (no action required);
  • in the Fleet Law of 1900 --> "in the French Fleet Law of 1900"? Also, is there a link potentially for Fleet Law of 1900 (similar to the link provided for the German law?
    • No, unfortunately
  • page numbers for Caresse's chapter in Jordan?
  • OCLC or something similar for Brassey's?
    • Added
  • slightly inconsistent: Gallipoli Campaign v Gallipoli campaign
    • Fixed
  • Patrie suffered an outbreak of influenza...: Patrie's crew suffered...?
    • Good idea
  • an image in the armour or modifications section would help break up the text a little more

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

  • suggest "The République class consisted of a pair of pre-dreadnought battleships"
    • Done
  • after "German Naval Law of 1898" use a full stop, then start a new sentence, as they don't need to be connected
    • Done
  • "more flexible gun turrets" suggest adding "rather than in casemates"? And this aspect isn't really covered in the body
    • Good point - added a bit on this
  • suggest "HMS Dreadnought had been commissioned into the Royal Navy and made all existing battleships obsolescent"
    • Done
  • suggest "draft was limited atto 8.4 m"
    • Fixed
  • you could turn lk=in for the speed in the infobox
    • Done
  • the anti-torpedo boat guns seems to have been a mix of 65 mm and 47 mm guns, but the infobox just lists 47 mm ones? Don't we use "as built" rather than "as designed"?
    • Good catch
  • suggest metropolitan France→Metropolitan France and link
    • Good idea

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Nice job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the images are appropriately licensed, having all been published pre-1924. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 3 October 2019 (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, 3 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Roon

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

As part of my commitment to keeping the A-class page from being entirely occupied by battleships, I bring you...an armored cruiser! This is another dusty old article I started all the way back in 2007 - it's obviously come a fair way since then. This is one more step toward turning this Good Topic in a Featured one. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Great to see you again PB. Thanks for the help, mate, I need 27 nominations before I reached the 100th review before October. It is also really hard to review GANs due everyone wants to claim those since the drive is active. This would be a challenge to reach my goal and work on the drive itself too. I'm lucky to have the peer reviews (which are six left) to review. I assume there wouldn't be a lot of ARCs nor GANs. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'll do my best to help you out ;) I'm halfway through SMS Loreley (1859), so keep your eyes peeled for when that goes to GA ;)
  • being laid down in August 1902, launched in June 1903 Just a question, but do we have to add the specific dates like the infobox? It looks more right to add the specific dates in the lead and body but that's just my view of reading.
    • I don't generally give the specific date in the lead (and actually, I've gotten away from much specificity in the lead lately)
  • and made several cruises in the Atlantic Ocean Unlink Atlantic Ocean due common term.
    • Done
  • Infobox: "Commissioned:2 Aguust 1914" "Aguust"? Nice try to cover this one to us. ;p
    • Haha, whoops!
  • Looks like you forgot to add that she was scrapped in 1921 in the body.
    • No, it's there - "...struck from the naval register on 25 November 1920 and scrapped the following year..."
  • You forgot to mention how many screw propellers and triple-expansion steam engines she had in the body.
    • Fixed
  • "21.1 knots (39.1 km/h; 24.3 mph)" Link knots.
    • It's linked earlier
  • "4,200 nmi (7,800 km; 4,800 mi)" Link nmi.
    • Done
  • You forgot to mention how many officers and enlisted men she has in the body.
    • Added
  • which increased horsepower by 2,000 indicated horsepower (1,500 kW) Link kW.
    • Fixed this to standardize on PS/ihp
  • She displaced 9,533 t (9,382 long tons; 10,508 short tons) as built and 10,266 t (10,104 long tons; 11,316 short tons) fully loaded This sentence uses short tons while the rest doesn't.
    • Fixed
  • developed a total of 19,000 metric horsepower (14,000 kW) and yielded a maximum Unlink kW.
    • As above
  • range of up to 4,200 nautical miles (7,800 km; 4,800 mi) at a cruising speed of 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) Unlink both km/h and mph.
    • good catch
  • the lower edge of the belt by 40–50 mm (1.6–2.0 in) thick sloped armor Is it possible to round the nought?
    • Not without rounding the 1.6" up to 2", unfortunately.
  • Pipe German with the German Empire.
    • Done
  • on 8 April and crossed the Atlantic to Hampton Roads, Virginia Link Virginia and unlink Atlantic.
    • Done
  • included contingents from Great Britain, Japan, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, and several other nations Pipe/link Japan, Austria-Hungary and Italy with the Empire of Japan and Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • ship went on a major cruise into the Atlantic Ocean from 7 to 28 February 1908 Unlink Atlantic Ocean.
    • Done
  • caught them by surprise and damaged one of them.[22][18] Re-order the refs here.
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Now excuse me but I have some work to do here. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Like many of the late armored cruisers, Yorck was quickly rendered obsolescent by the advent of the battlecruiser; as a result, her career was limited. Err, typo?

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

  • in the lead, was the lack of manpower also a reason for her decommissioning in 1916?
    • Hildebrand didn't mention it this time - I'd suspect that Roon would have otherwise still been useful in the Baltic if not for the submarines
  • "which increased horsepower by 2,000 metric horsepower" repetition of horsepower here, could the first one be changed to "power" or "output"?
    • Changed to "power"
  • suggest linking armored cruiser at first mention in the body
    • Good idea
  • suggest abbrev=off and lk=on for the first displacement conversion
    • Done
  • should the speed be as designed, or trial speed because she didn't manage it?
    • Usually I go with design speed, but in this case I think trial makes more sense
  • perhaps be consistent with the armour measurements in the body and infobox, one is mm, the other cm
    • Good idea
  • perhaps link flagship at first mention in the body
    • Done
  • no first name for KAdm Jacobsen? and redlink?
    • There's a hidden note in the article there - <!--which one, Hermann or Leo?--> - Hildebrand don't give us a first name, and both Hermann and Leo Jacobsen were active at the time. I'd guess Hermann, since he was promoted to Vizeadmiral in 1911, while Leo was attained that rank in 1916 (so a Konteradmiral billet in 1908 makes more sense to me for the former), but I can't say for certain
  • just for clarity, suggest " IV Group"→" IV Scouting Group"
    • Works for me
  • "Commander Jones"→"Commander Loftus Jones"
    • Done
  • "Beatty"→"<rank> David Beatty"
    • Done
  • "while Hopman relocated to Roon while his flagship" could you vary the wording to get rid of the while... while?
    • Reworded
  • "was under repairs for a torpedo hit to cover a minelaying operation"?
    • Split that sentence up
  • move the description and link to Albatross to first mention
    • Done
  • "by four Russian cruisers" is sort of made redundant by then listing four cruisers, suggest dropping it
    • Done
  • any info about casualties from the hits during the Battle of Åland Islands?
    • No
  • link training ship, accommodation ship, seaplane carrier and ship breaking
    • Done

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Great work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are of high quality and reliable, just what you would expect on a German ship of this vintage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the images are all appropriately licensed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Comments & support by Pendright

[edit]

Lede:

  • ... and had a top speed [was] 20.4 knots (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph).
[?]

Pendright (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, good catch Pendright. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on by adding a few minor cmments! Pendright (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Lede:[reply]

  • ... in September 1911, she was decommissioned and placed in reserve.
The word reserve is used as a noun here; ordinarily it would be preceeded by either the definite article "the" or the indefinte article "a"?

Service:

  • Two days later, the international fleet, which also included ...
Isn't it "an" international fleet, not "the" international fleet?
No, I think "the" is correct here
  • From 11 September to 28 October, Roon briefly resumed her role as deputy flagship while Friedrich Carlrelieved Roon's sister Yorck while the latter vessel was being overhauled.
This sentence seems a little rough around the edges?
See how I reworded it

World War I

  • ... Admiral von Ingenohl ordered the High Seas Fleet to turn to port and head for Germany.
" turn to port" - won't a reader need a little help with this phrase?
Reworded

Operations in the Baltic:

  • The light cruiser Augsburg and three destroyers were escorting Albatross when they were attacked by the armored cruisers Bayan, Admiral Makarov, and light cruisers Bogatyr and Oleg.
Add "the" before light cruisers.
Done

Finished - Pendright (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Pendright. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • Why does the article use the German name (Libau) for Liepāja, rather than the version favoured on Wikipedia?
    • Generally I use the name in use at the time - the city was known as Libau in those days (same with Danzig instead of Gdansk, Constantinople instead of Istanbul, etc.)
  • The body has "19,000 metric horsepower (19,000 ihp)", but the infobox uses "19,000 metric horsepower (14,000 kW)", why the difference?
    • I forgot to specify the output in the box - good catch
  • Add an English translation for "Fregattenkapitän", like you did Kapitän zur See and Kommodore.
    • Done
  • "They stopped in Vigo, Spain, to replenish their coal for the voyage home." Is this detail necessary?
  • "On 23 September, KAdm Jacobsen replaced Kalau von Hofe, and the following month FK Georg Scheidt." Can you clarify what this means? Did Jacobsen replace von Hofe, then Scheidt? Or did Jacobsen replace von Hofe, then Scheidt replaced Jacobsen? Or something else I'm missing?
    • Jacobsen and Hofe were the squadron commanders, Scheidt was the new commander of Roon (though I had forgotten to finish the sentence, so that bit was missing)
  • "The operation was cancelled in 27 August.." "on", not "in".
    • Good catch
  • "E9 fired five torpedoes at the German flotilla; two passed closely astern of Roon while the other three missed their targets as well." The "as well" jars at the end of the sentence for me. How about reworking it completely to something like "E9 fired five torpedoes at the German flotilla, all of which missed; two passing closely astern of Roon."
    • Done
  • "..Hopman hauled down his flag.." Did Hopman literally do this himself?
  • "..replaced with only six 15 cm guns and six 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns.." Remove "only".
    • Done

Overall, a very nice article, and it's good to read about something other than a battleship from time to time ;) Harrias talk 16:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - what should I do next, an 1880s aviso? One from the 1850s? Or maybe an 1840s paddle steamer? ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it has to be the paddle steamer! Anyway, good work; I commented above on a couple of points that I'm not 100% happy with, but ultimately they are more personal preference than anything else, so I'm happy to support nevertheless. Harrias talk 12:45, 30 September 2019 (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, 27 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Audacious (1912)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Audacious (1912) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Audacious had the briefest career of any British battleship, only a single year from when she commissioned in October 1913 to her loss after striking a mine in October 1914. While this makes the article considerably shorter than most of mine, I'd still like reviewers to look for the usual suspects in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Great, if brief, article. I have a few minor comments:

  • could more information be provided regarding the main battery layout? Superfiring pairs fore and aft and... ?
  • the rounding of the main turret armour needs tweaking between the body and infobox
  • suggest "in accordance with instructions the other dreadnoughts"

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • She was sunk by a German naval mine Pipe German to the Empire of Germany.
  • off the northern coast of County Donegal, Ireland Link Ireland.
  • powered by two sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines Sea blue here.
    • That's the best wording that I've been able to come up with; happy to take suggestions, though.
  • The following bullet point: "Articles on technical subjects might demand a higher density of links than general-interest articles, because they are likely to contain more technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arriving in Portland on 25 July, she was ordered Maybe add "island" before Portland? I mean the US has even two Portlands.
  • Linked.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Per the Bulwark review, wrecksite needs to go
  • Some refs have states or countries, others don't - I'd recommend standardizing one way or the other (I prefer without for simplicity's sake)
    • All sources have the states/countries that they need. The others are world-class cities like London or New York and are too well known to need such.
  • Apart from the first point, references are high quality, from reliable publishers, etc.
  • I'd probably ditch the youtube search link - we don't need to be lmgtfy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]

Not much to say about this, it is small, but well-formed.

Lead
  • This feels slightly short, though that is natural given the length of the article. Even so, it feels a little unbalanced that the Sinking section of the article is so long, while only gets one simple sentence in the lead. Maybe add a small amount more detail about the sinking into the lead? I also think the the 'cover-up' of the sinking would be worthy of mention.
  • I would suggest adding is a clarification that the mine strike occurred during the First World War.
Design and description
  • "..between 1 inch (25 mm) and 4 inches with.." Need a convert template for the second measurement.
    • Converted in the armament paragraph
Construction and career
  • "..with the rest of the Home Fleet to Scapa Flow four days later.." I know there is a link, but a short inline description of where Scapa Flow is would be of benefit here, I think.
Aftermath
  • "Marlborough, of the subsequent (but fairly similar) Iron Duke class, was torpedoed at Jutland and for a time continued to steam at 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph) despite damage." This feels somewhat out of place. Is it meant to suggest that had things be dealt with differently, Audacious could have made it to beach? Or that improvements were made on this front? Whatever the reason, make it clear what purpose it serves in this article.
  • "'B' turret and part of its barbette was blown clear.." "were", not "was".

Nice work as always. Harrias talk 12:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, prompt fixes. No further comments from me. Harrias talk 06:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work. This looks like it meets the criteria to me. I have a few very minor queries: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, if you get a chance, would you mind checking the image licensing on this one please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:HMS_Audacious_LOC_17766.jpg is tagged as lacking author information, and when/where was this first published?
    • Added unknown photographer. Date and place of publication is unknown, but probably no later than her sinking when there'd be a high demand for a photographer of the ship.
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, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian battleship Borodino

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Russian battleship Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Never intended to serve in the Far East, Borodino and her sisters were sent there during the Russo-Japanese War to replace the Pacific Squadron that had been sunk by the Japanese, although they had just been completed and hadn't had time to finish working up before they sailed. After an epic journey halfway around the world, the ship and two of her sisters were sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905 off the Korean coast. I'd like for reviewers to look for the usual suspects in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have only a couple of comments:

  • suggest putting o/a after the length in the infobox
  • suggest "Pakenham observed two 12-inch hits on Borodino" just to make it clear, as another Russian ship has been mentioned

That's it. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borodino (Russian: Бородино) was the lead ship Unlink Russian here.
  • In the note All dates used in this article are New Style maybe we shoule let the people know how many days the difference is between Old and New style especially before 1900 there were 12 days and after 1900 there are 13 days differences?
  • Did the Russian Navy used their own units? Because I thought it already uses metric at the time?
    • The Russians didn't switch to metric until after the Revolution
  • off the north-west coast of Madagascar on 9 January 1905 pipe Madagascar to French Madagascar.
  • controlled by the Russians in the Far East Link Far East.
    • Linked in the lede.
  • 3rd Pacific Squadron, commanded by Rear Admiral Nikolai Nebogatov Link Rear Admiral.

That's anything, I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

[edit]
  • I'd like to see a bit more context on the class than you have here - you might add a line stating the reason they were built, the Russo-Japanese rivalry, etc.
    • As these were Baltic Fleet ships, they weren't part of the big build up of the Pacific Fleet; all those ships were sunk or captured before Tsushima.
      • Ah, I was going off what you had in the class article - perhaps that needs to be fixed then ;) Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the very least re-examined :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rereading McLaughlin, he says that the "For the Needs of the Far East Program" initially authorized 10 battleships to be deployed there, which meant four new ships as 3 Pobedas and 3 Petropavlovsks were already there. As Russian shipyards were already backlogged, two of these became the foreign-built Retzivan and Tsesarevich and the Tsar subsequently authorized another pair, leaving four still to be built. The next ships authorized were the five Borodinos, but nowhere can I find an explicit mention them as part of the "For the Needs of the Far East Program". If I add that to the articles is that OR since I can't find anybody to actually say as much or is that a perfectly reasonable assumption?@Parsecboy: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, that's probably a bit too much of a stretch - the Russians would've been concerned with strengthening the Baltic Fleet at that time too, so they might have been ordered for that instead. It's a shame that Russian ships are relatively poorly covered. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
V. Yu. Gribosky's 1995 monograph Эскадренный броненосец «Бородино» explicitly states that the Borodino class were to form the core of the Pacific Fleet. I'm guessing this is where McLaughlin gets his info from. Kges1901 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901:Can you add that cite and reference to the article and I'll expand on that like I did with the other ships built for the program? Thanks for checking on that for me, BTW. Very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have Second Pacific Squadron but also 3rd Pacific Squadron
  • One dupe link
  • Both this and Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr III (1901) claim to be the second ship in the line - the OOB suggests it was Imperator Aleksandr III
    • No, I say it was the third ship in line. You might be confused because Alex (2nd in line) charges the Japanese after Suvorov was forced to fall out while Borodino then becomes the head of the line.
  • Any clue what happened to Yushin? Which is to say, who picked him up?

Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are properly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Brennus

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

French battleship Brennus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

As part of our recent push bring French battleship articles to A- (and then FA-) class, we present for your consideration the first modern French battleship, named for your favorite sacker of Rome and mine. Thanks to a recently published (2019) article on the ship, the article is now up to snuff, and we look forward to reviewers' comments. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

  • is there an error with the redlink for centreline? I thought such things were just in the glossary of nautical terms?
  • suggest "three Marceaus"→"three-ship Marceau class"
    • Works for me
  • suggest "which was approved in 1889"→"and the design was approved in 1889"
    • Done
  • the p/p length and crew don't match between the infobox and the body
    • Fixed
  • the infobox gives 32 Belleville boilers, but the body doesn't say how many and just calls them plain water-tube boilers
    • Clarified in the text
  • the power output and speed don't match between the infobox and the body
    • Fixed
  • perhaps put the range in the infobox?
    • Done
  • the secondary guns were 164.7 mm or 164 mm? Rounding?
    • Rounding due to the official name of the gun, I'd imagine
  • the body says 14 × 37 mm guns, but the infobox only says 8 singles? Also, what about the revolver cannons
    • Fixed
  • any info available about the range of the torpedoes?
  • I'm a bit confused about the belt in the infobox. Doesn't the body say the lower range was 180 mm?
    • That's at the bottom edge of the belt, above the waterline it was still 300 mm
  • Dspite
    • Fixed
  • "under Vice-amiral (Vice admiral) Alfred Gervais" or similar?
    • Done
  • move link to Toulon to first mention
    • Done
  • link Gaston Thomson
    • Done
  • Vice-amiral Fournier
    • Fixed

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • construction to keep the ship yards busy Merge ship yards.
    • Done
  • The ship introduced a number of advances Replace "a number of" with "several".
    • Done
  • In addition, the torpedo nets Replace "In addition" with "besides".
    • That doesn't work there, but how about "To further reduce weight..."?
  • and the messdecks for the Split "messdecks".
    • Done
  • Over the course of April, the ships visited Replace "Over the course" with "throughout".
    • Done
  • and displaced 11,370 metric tons (11,190 long tons) at deep load Link both tonnes.
    • Done
  • each driving a single 5.4-metre (17 ft 9 in), four-bladed British metre.
    • Fixed
  • Neptune and Marceau got 26% hits at a range Use percent not the symbole.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Harrias

[edit]
  • I guess it isn't the convention, but I think it would be more useful to state "Brennus, gallic chieftain" in the Namesake field in the infobox.
  • In the infobox, the p/p length uses "m", while the o/a length below it has "meters"; it would look better to keep both as "m".
    • I swear that I don't know how that one snuck in there.
  • What is a "lozenge pattern"; is there anywhere we can link for more information?
    • I added a parenthetical link to quadrilateral if that's helpful enough. If not, I can spell it out more explicitly.
  • "Brennus proved to grossly overweight.." Missing a word; "..proved to be grossly.."
  • "..largely a result of her large superstructure.." Repetition of "large".
  • "..the actual rate of fire was about half that in service." As in one round per four minutes? (No change necessarily needed, just wanting to clarify.)
    • Yep, both the Russians and the French had problems with their rates of fire, which was one of the causes of the former's defeat at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905.
  • "..of which six of the latter were 5-barrel revolver cannon. Although cannon as a plural is not technically incorrect, it has more or less fallen out of use, so this would probably be better as "cannons".
  • "..at its lower edge —only 25 cm— and.." emdashes should not be spaced.
  • Based on later usage, "..by Captain (Capitaine de vaisseau) Joseph Besson.." should be switched around to "Capitaine de vaisseau (Captain)" for consistency.

Blimey, this ship sure crashed into a lot of other ships! Another nice, tidy article. As usual with these, I find my eye glazing over during the Design section, but I appreciate that it is all valuable information for those interested and knowledgeable about such things! Nothing major from me, just a few minor copy-edits. Harrias talk 08:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over regardless!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that came across a little more unkindly than I meant it! Happy to support with those tweaks, nice work. Harrias talk 08:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Citations are formatted appropriately and consistently. (NFA)
  • Some FAC reviewers will complain about the mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 however. (optional change, NFA)
  • I can't comment overly on whether the sources are considered reputable; but it is exclusively sourced to published offline sources which are likely to have undergone a robust review and editing process. (NFA)
  • As the sources are exclusively offline, I am unable to carry out any checks for close para-phrasing or copyvio, but I will AGF. (NFA)

(Yes, this are identical comments to my review of Japanese battleship Hatsuse, but only because they apply identically; a full review was still conducted. Harrias talk 08:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, if you have a sec, would you mind checking the image licensing on this one? As always, thanks in anticipation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map and figurehead
    • Done
  • File:Balearic_Sea_map.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
    • I don't know, and the creator hasn't really edited since 2011 - it's a basic geographic map, can I just say that it conforms with maps from, say, The World Factbook?
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, 11 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Schichau-class torpedo boat

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Schichau-class torpedo boat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This was a class of dinky little torpedo boats built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy before WWI. They were getting a bit old by the time the war broke out, so were utilised in second-line roles, and therefore didn't see much action, although that is true of most of the Austro-Hungarian Navy in WWI. After the war, a few ended up with the Navy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (after 1929, Yugoslavia), which is why I'm interested in them. This article is part of a Good Topic I'm slowly moving towards Featured. I believe it is comprehensive. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • In the infobox "88–90 t (87–89 long tons) (full load)" Link tonnes, long tons and full load here.
    done the first bit, but full load is just another link to the displacement (ship) page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox "1,000 ihp (750 kW)" Link kW.
  • In the infobox "1,200 nmi (2,200 km; 1,400 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)" Link both nmi and knots.
    linked knots for speed, but otherwise done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox "2 × 356 mm (14.0 in) torpedo tubes" Round the nought here.
  • a standard displacement of 88–90 tonnes (87–89 long tons) at full load Link both tonnes, long tons and full load here.
  • equipped with two 356 mm (14.0 in) torpedo tubes Round the nought here.
  • the 13th Torpedo Boat Group of the 7th Torpedo Craft Division at Pola Are there articles for both units?
  • the 20th Torpedo Boat Group of the 10th Torpedo Craft Division at Sebenico Same as above.
    I doubt very much any of them would be notable, as they would lack significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captured during the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 Sea blue here.
  • with the Italians then the Germans You mean than?
    No, then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all boats of the class were Add "the" before boats.
    Not sure that is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Please translate Bilzer's book. Also there should be a |language=German in the cite book.
  • Friedman's book has a little typo in its title. It should be "Naval Weapons of World War One". Also you could add an URL to the preview?
  • A ":W.I." should be add in Vego's book. Also not sure or it is allowed to use -isation in a -ization proper noun like the International Naval Research Organisation?
    Not sure what you mean by :W.I."? Changed to US spelling. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    World Cat told me that the original title of the book is "Warship international : W.I.". So I reckon we should add the W.I. in its title. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The full title of the journal is Warship International, not Warship International : W.I. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure or the source of Niehorster is reliable or not. Could you please explain to me who he/she is/was?
    Niehorster has a PhD in history and is an expert on orders of battle, having had several books published on the subject by Military Press. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sources are reliable and high-quality.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5, all done except where noted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

This'll be somewhat of a backwards image review, with some suggested images:

Plenty to choose from! Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nate, I should have done this myself. Picked a side-on view and added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]

On a first read through, very good, just some nitpicks I think.

That's all from me. Good work. Harrias talk 08:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, Harrias! Hopefully I have addressed your comments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article, no qualms supporting. Harrias talk 10:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

Support Comments by Cinderella167

[edit]

Hi, just a few observations that are relatively minor.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Cinderella157! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support by Pendright

[edit]

Lede:

  • Ten of the class were converted to minesweepers between 1911 and 1913, and apart from one that was discarded in 1911, all boats saw active service as part of local defence forces for Adriatic naval bases during World War I, with one being lost in the early days of the war.
  • This sentence is about 51 words in length, long by most style guides.
  • Ten of the class "were" converted: Does a collective noun take a plural in Aus/Eng?
  • Should it not be "in" to minesweepers?
  • Consider placing the definite article "the" between for and Adriatic.
  • ... and four were allocated to the navy of the newly created Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).
In this context, should navy be upper case?
Not sure about that, if it was Navy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, but I don't think so in this combination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After capture during the April 1941 invasion of Yugoslavia the remaining boat saw service with the Italians then the Germans during World War II.
  • Consdier a comma between Yugoslavia and the
  • Consider the word "and" berween Italians and then.

Design and construction:

  • Design and construction
  • Retitling to Construction and design would follow the order of the text.
  • Isn't it customary to present the general characteristics of a ship before that of its machinery?
  • ...sufficient coal to give them a radius ...
Is "radious" the right word here?
No, I think range is better. The source uses the term "endurance", which I think is closer to range. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time they were built, boats of this class were initially given names, but they were redesignated with numbers ...
This is not a good fit here?
Moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service history:

  • All of the remaining torpedo boats were converted to minesweepers
Consider in to rather than to
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 28 was discarded in 1911, being transferred to the Austro-Hungarian Army and serving as Tender 28.
"discarded" and "transferred", unclear?
See if it is better now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Pendright! See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: All good, supporting! Pendright (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2019 (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) 04:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Like all of the Italian dreadnoughts in World War I, Leonardo da Vinci was not very active as they were kept in reserve in case the Austro-Hungarian fleet came out to play and the Adriatic was too dangerous for large ships. She was sunk by a magazine explosion in 1916, possibly Austro-Hungarian sabotage or just another propellant explosion as were common in this era. After a heroic salvage effort the ship was refloated upside down and then flipped right-side up in the early 1920, but the Italian navy lacked the money to rebuild her and she was scrapped shortly afterwards. I hope that the reviewers will look for the usual suspects in the article in anticipation of an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Hey Sturm what an interesting article you got, for now, I can tell you that I see the British draught in the infobox. I'll continue in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I even remembered to check that the specs in the infobox and main body matched! Glad you liked it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Italians blamed Austro-Hungarian saboteurs for her loss Pipe Italians to the Kingdom of Italy.
  • turbines was provided by 20 Blechynden water-tube boilers What is a Blechynden?
    • Uncertain, probably some boiler designer.
  • maximum speed of 22.5 knots (41.7 km/h; 25.9 mph) from 31,000 shaft horsepower (23,000 kW) Link knots.
  • reached a speed of 21.6 knots (40.0 km/h; 24.9 mph) Is it possible to round the nought here?
    • When using number ranges the template won't let me
  • ships had a complete waterline armor belt that had a maximum Link armor belt.
  • increased to 40 millimeters (1.6 in) on the slopes that Link slopes.
    • Why?
  • that Austro-Hungarian submarines and minelayers could Link minelayers.
  • Link Adriatic Sea.
  • See some British metres here.
  • In the infobox "Conning tower: 180–280 mm (7.1–11.0 in)" Is it possible to round the nought here?
    • See above.

That's anything that I've got. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. Just a few minor quibbles:

  • decap Water in "Water-tube boilers" in the infobox
  • fix the rounding between the body and infobox for the 3 in guns and TTs
  • use the designed speed (or actual speed) in the infobox
  • isn't 80 mm the minimum on the belt? See infobox range
  • the lower range of the conning tower armor isn't supported by the body
  • add a ISSN for Warship International

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to hear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the sources look of high quality and reliable. Do the Further reading books add anything not already in the article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

Just a few comments:

  • "which caused them to be slower and more heavily armored than the first Italian dreadnought, Dante Alighieri".?
    • Indeed
  • "thirteen of these could be mounted on the turret tops, but they could be mounted in 30 different positions...": the close repetition of "could be mounted", suggest rewording.
  • Armor in the infobox; should the lower number for the turrets be 85mm (the thickness of roof/rear) rather than 240mm?
  • "use the fleet in an active way": seems a passive way of phrasing. Perhaps "actively deploy the fleet"?
  • The Halpern and Hore references are not in alphabetical order.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images - all three look alright to me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2019 (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) 08:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Brandenburg-class battleship

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

This is something of a milestone - the last battleship article of the German Empire to grace the MILHIST ACR page (and ironically, it's the one I found first, more than 12 years ago, that got me started writing these articles). But don't worry, there are a few battleships of the Nazi period that need to be improved and sent here, and of course there are plenty of other German warships to keep me busy for perhaps another 12 years. These ships are, I think, pretty interesting - the only German battleships sent abroad to do more than show the flag, and two of them ended up with the Ottoman Navy, where they had pretty lively (if ineffective) careers. Thanks to all who review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Damn you're already working for over 12 years here? If you want I can be your work budy for another 12 years (with Sturm probably too). I think I'll be here for a pretty while too. Except if I'll start making a family in the near future, I have look if it is still possible to edit on Wikipedia. That supprises me every single time that you can combine both of them. Anyway, those ships wouldn't be written or reviewed by themselves. ;p

Ha, I registered in mid-2006, so I've actually been around for 13 years - my first edit to German battleship Bismarck was 13 years ago!
  • Damn 13 years is a lot. You've to think, I just started with my life ;) Also just got my driving licence. See a whole world is open to me (in Belgium you only can drive at the age of 17 years and 9 months and at the practice exam you have to be at least 18 years old. Which makes sense because after you got your theory you have to wait at least 9 months before you can try to pass our god damn really hard practice exam. I know in the US you can drive from the ages between 14 years and 3 months to 17 years (which is too young in my opinion). Anyway I'll be here for a while. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox "Normal: 10,013 t (9,855 long tons)" Link "Normal" and both tonnes.
    • Done
  • In the infobox "Full load: 10,670 t (10,500 long tons)" Link "Full load".
    • Done
  • built for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • The now-Ottoman ships saw extensive service Pipe Ottoman to the Ottoman Empire.
    • Done
  • The plan governed the size and composition of the German fleet Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • two-front war against France and Russia dominated Pipe Russia to the Russian Empire.
    • Done
  • Some sentences use English units as primary units.
    • Fixed
  • from small 2,500-long-ton (2,500 t) coastal defense Link both tonnes.
    • Done
  • anged from 72.6 to 96.5 kilowatts at 67 volts Link kilowatts.
    • Done
  • for a top speed of 16.5 knots (30.6 km/h; 19.0 mph) Is it possible to round the nought?
    • Not without rounding the 30.6 up to 31
  • by C/01 semi-armor-piercing (SAP) shells Is there a link for "semi-armor-piercing"?
    • No, though there probably ought to be one that discusses the shell type, as it was a common one for the era
  • United Kingdom, Italy, Russia, Austria-Hungary, the United States, France, and Japan Pipe/link Italy, Austria-Hungary and Japan to the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan.
    • Done
  • In the summer of 1914, when World War I We cannot use seasons.
    • Fixed
  • See British word like millimetre.
    • Fixed
  • and115.7 m (379 ft 7 in) long overall Need a space in this sentence.
    • Good catch

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always. Parsecboy (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I've reviewed at least one of these ships at ACR before, but haven't looked at the class article, so I have a few comments:

  • suggest The Brandenburg-class was a groupconsisted of four pre-dreadnought battleships
    • Paired with the suggestion below, I think this works better - I was trying to come up with a way to include the ship class link but what I produced wasn't as good as that ;)
  • suggest "The four ships of the class" to restore the ship class link
  • link guard ship in the lead
    • Done
  • Genera? l
    • Fixed
  • began to thirty years of age?
    • Missing a "reach"
  • made the same conclusions→came to the same conclusions
    • Done
  • comma after "and increased coal storage"
    • Done
  • the range doesn't match between the body and infobox
    • Fixed
  • the number of secondary guns doesn't match between the body and infobox, and "an eighth gun was added" doesn't match the six mentioned earlier in the body
    • Fixed - there was some confusion between sources as to the number of guns initially carried, and that got partially fixed when I rewrote the article with Nottelmann and Dodson, but apparently not entirely
  • comma after "The first two ships, Brandenburg and Wörth"
    • Fixed
  • suggest putting the belt range in the infobox
    • Done
  • link Eight-Nation Alliance
    • Done

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the sources are all of high quality and reliable. Just wondering if the Further reading books add anything, or do they just repeat what is already cited in the article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Grießmer book doesn't belong - it's focused on the dreadnoughts built later. Weir adds detail on the political and industrial context in which these ships were built that we don't really have room to discuss in the article. I haven't tracked down a copy of Koop & Schmolke - I'd assume it's fairly redundant to Nottelmann, but having not read it, I prefer to err on the side of including it. Parsecboy (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Link fire support in the lede to Naval gunfire support
    • Done
  • Tell the reader that MRK stands for Marine Ring Kanone
    • Done
  • The engines were divided into their own engine rooms "each had their own compartment"?
    • That sounds better, but I left the link unpiped
  • allow the turret to be able to rotate
    • Done
  • Link barbette, centerline, magazine
    • Two of those were linked, but further down - what happens when you rewrite an article numerous times over 12 years ;)
  • Watch roundings
  • enemy fire shells
    • Done
  • C/92 barbette mount ??
  • The barbettes were hydraulically operated WTF? I think you mean turrets
    • Switched
  • Germany, which arrived there in mid-August. "arriving in mid-August" ?
    • Works for me
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Amiral_Baudin_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1896.jpg: what is Barnes' date of death?
    • I knew you'd ask that, so I did some digging earlier today when I saw Peacemaker ping you - I so far haven't been able to track it down, but he wrote a book in 1866 and was the Director of Dockyards from 1872 to 1886 - I think it's safe to assume he died before 1949.
  • File:SMS_Weissenburg_NH_47896.tiff: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2019 (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, 8 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Galeb-class minelayer

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Galeb-class minelayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about a class of dinky Yugoslav mine warfare ships that were captured by the Italians in April 1941 and mostly lost in their hands thereafter. One of them returned to Yugoslav service and survived until 1962. It forms part of a Good Topic I'm slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt review, CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

(The nerve of some people, requesting a review for one of their own after merely reviewing dozens of my articles! ;-) )

Comments support by Pendright

[edit]

Nitpicking! Pendright (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede:

  • ... the six unarmed vessels were purchased as "tugs" for the navy of the newly created ...
If tugs can mean tugboat, tugs might be worthy of linking?
  • ... the remaining vessel was put into service by the Yugoslav Navy after the war, and was finally deleted in 1962.
In the circumstances, the word deleted seems an unlikely choice here?

Description:

  • The Galeb class was built as 1916-designed M 1-class minesweepers ...
Consider the definite article "the" after as.
  • They used two three-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines driving two propeller shafts, using steam generated by two coal-fired boilers.
Overall the sentece is accurate, but not expressed in the sequence in which the process took pllace. Simply put, the system worked like this:
The boilers generated the steam, the steam was fed to the engines, and the engines produced the power to drive the propeller shafts.

Service:

  • The crew was increased to fifty-one.
From what number ... ?
  • In 1938–39 Jastreb was fitted for oil-firing only.
In this case, would refitted be the more precise word?
  • ... following an air raid by United States Army Air Forces aircraft on 30 January 1943.
consider adding "the" before the US.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pendright, I think you were reviewing this article, not the Schichau-class torpedo boat one, so I've moved this here. Thanks for your review, will get to this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apology! Pendright (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Pendright, all done I think. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Thank you for addressing the nitpicking, especially the one on boilers and steam. I spent a few years firing boilers in the US Navy when they still used steam on most ships. Thus, my comment! I’m happy to support this nomination.
Pendright (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2019 (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, 7 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Frank Borman

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Frank Borman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Frank Borman was one of the first three men people to travel from the Earth to the Moon, as the commander of Apollo 8. He was also a USAF colonel, a test pilot, a businessman and a rancher. He's now 91 years old, and since the death of John Glann back in 2016 he is now the oldest living former astronaut (being eleven days older than his Apollo 8 crewmate Jim Lovell). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, Hawkeye, this looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/observations. Regards, AustralianRupert talk 10:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Another astronaut's nomination. Great, I can't wait to see this one promoted.

  • Well I personaly heard about hectares before but I baraly use it or had to use it. So in my thoughts it is unknown to the public. But if it is in the English-speaking world official at schools then I do not have to say anything except to let it unlinked. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]
  • checkY Local time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe use the word 'stimulant' or 'alertness aid' to describe the drug, for those unfamiliar with it? The two astronauts were pumped up with the help of dexedrine.
    checkY Added. Sources don't think it's necessary, probably because Americans are so drug savvy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think this comma is unnecessary Scott Crossfield, and fellow astronauts like John Young.
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rephrase to "Testing parachutes to accommodate this additional weight" Testing the parachutes that had to be redesigned to ensure that they could hold the additional weight
    checkY Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember the reasons why he did not want anyone to know was because he did not want the press to find out and spin it, right? Inserting the reason he did not want to tell Mission Control would be a good addition.
    He thought it would be taken as weakness. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't they go on a private loop to tell him? Trying to remember if Borman even know they told MC but Lovell and Anders wanted to inform Mission Control.
    The private loop Mike Collins is referring to is on the ground, and is not a special communications frequency to the spacecraft. Several 'loops', or communications channels, exist throughout Mission Control. These loops allow controllers working on a particular function to have a private conversation between themselves and support staff, without having to filter out the chatter of unrelated conversations. Often, controllers would be 'plugged in' to several loops: The Flight Controllers loop, their connection to their SPAN (Spacecraft Analysis) room, and perhaps to another controller. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logical quotation so comma outside, yeah? "One of the things that was truly historic," Borman
    checkY Moved comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They landed Friday night, but only had to wait 45 minutes for daylight? Mission ground rules required a daylight recovery, so the crew had to wait 45 minutes for the frogmen to open the hatches.
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes it sound like he was seasick on the carrier, not sure if that is the correct timeline Borman became seasick and threw up, and was glad to be on board the recovery ship, the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown.
    checkY Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think 'leave the gravitational influence of the Earth' is technically incorrect (the Moon is under the gravitational influence of Earth, after all), but I am not sure the proper phrasing at this time. ever to leave the gravitational influence of the Earth and orbit another celestial body.
    checkY Deleted that phrase. I thought I had explained that the Moon is orbiting the Earth. Must have been in the Apollo 8 article . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to back sentences starting with 'they had', not sure if it can be avoided: They had survived
    checkY Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • having only a fifty-fifty chance of fully succeeding.
  • I think the Apollo 8 section could include more detail on how Borman militantly fought scope creep, preventing additional experiments and television broadcasts.
  • Can't recall, should President be capitalized in this situation? convinced the President to omit
    No idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think his POW efforts deserves more than a sentence. Whose idea was it? Where did he go? Did it help?
  • For what, why eight years after retirement? On October 1, 1978, he was awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor.
    checkY Added "for Apollo 8". It was the tenth anniversary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reading into this the other day, and it was not immediately clear: was Frank Borman heading a special commission that was investigating if his sons acted inappropriately? If so, is there any coverage on his impartialness?
    Not his sons specifically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe converted instead of changed? I see changed as going back and forth as many times as needed, while converted is more permanent. Maybe my grasp of words is flawed. of being quickly changed from passenger
    Often between each flight. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this phrasing is odd, but keep it if you like it As at North American, he
  • Should Cadillac be singular here? plush offices, Cadillacs and Mercedes company cars
    checkY I guess so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this warrant more detail? Afterwards he served on the South African Board of Inquiry into the 1986 aircraft crash that killed Mozambican president Samora Machel.
    If you have something, I can add it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For how long? What does this company even do? He became CEO of Patlex Corporation in 1988.
    checkY It make lasers. (See Gordon Gould.) Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Britannica at least has when his tenure ended. Do we have any more than that? Kees08 (Talk)
    A little. It was a shell company held the laser patents, and successfully sued for royalties over them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same question on logical quotation comma before publicly," declared Borman,
  • That is all I easily find. There are many references to 'holds many honorary doctorates', so perhaps some can be named while implying the list is extensive? Whatever you feel is best. Kees08 (Talk)
  • What about Susan's Alzheimer's? Seems worth including. Source.
  • Where to draw the line on Hall of Fames? He was inducted into a high school hall of fame; that seems like an easy one to exclude. He was also inducted into the Arizona Aviation Hall of Fame (added) (another source, if needed), and the Indiana Aerospace Hall of Fame. Maybe the cutoff should be his home state, or a minimum of the national level? Not sure, hoping to hear your thoughts.

That's all for now, hope to finish it up later. Kees08 (Talk) 20:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Kees08, just wondering if you'd get a chance to finish up here, as this seems to be progressing well? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, planning to finish this up sometime this weekend. Kees08 (Talk) 14:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

That's the reference formatting complete. More to follow. Harrias talk 20:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Project Gemini section relies heavily on Hacker, Barton C.; Grimwood, James M. (2010) which is published by NASA themselves. Can this be shown to have the "level of independence from the topic the source is covering" that WP:RS requires?
    Yes. The NASA history series is a high quality reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same question for Ertel, Ivan D.; Newkirk, Roland W.; Brooks, Courtney G. (1978) and Brooks, Courtney G.; Grimwood, James M.; Swenson, Loyd S. Jr. (1979)
  • Similarly, a lot of the article is sourced to an autobiography of Borman; same question? Harrias talk 20:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Like most memoirs these days, it is really a biography written in autobiographical form. It is acceptable to use such pources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not have too many concerns if these sources were used sparingly in the article; however, the autobiography is the exclusive source provided for 2143/6803 (31%) of the words in the article. The parts about his earlier life are fair enough, and later some of it is used to source Borman's opinions and speculation which are appropriately specified inline.
    A further 647 (9.5%) of the article is sourced to the three NASA History books, and there are a variety of other NASA sources used too.
    Personally, unless you can demonstrate that these sources are considered to have a "level of independence from the topic the source is covering", I am uneasy about the article being based so heavily on them. However, I would be happy to defer to your fellow @WP:MILHIST coordinators: or @Nikkimaria:, who is a far more experienced source reviewer than I. (Note that I have yet to conduct any checks for close-paraphrasing.) Harrias talk 09:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Hawkeye on the memoir given the way it is used and what it is used for. Regarding using NASA sources for information on an astronaut, I would have thought that is where you would start. The source only needs to be independent of the subject (Borman), not independent of NASA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sources comment

Image review

[edit]

Support from Coffeeandcrumbs

[edit]

I have read this article many times and have no reservation to support. I will add some nitpicking comments:

  • Ref #19 – Add |date=February 3, 2003
  • Ref #39 – Add |date=May 2, 2009|last=Naftali|first=Timothy (the director of episode)
  • Ref #54 – Add |agency=Associated Press
  • Ref #100 – Add |last=Carter|first=Jimmy|date=October 1, 1978
  • Ref #101 – Link is dead. Archive is here. Consider adding Borman et al, as authors.
  • Ref #102 – Add |location=New York, New York for consistency. Or remove location for other citations to The New York Times and other newspapers where the location is part of the name of the paper.
  • Ref #103 – Add |date=December 1993
  • Ref #106 – Add |agency=Associated Press|via=Newspapers.com
  • Ref #115 – Add |last=Augustus|first=Bruce|work=SAM Speaks
  • Ref #118 – Remove ISSN for consistency
  • Ref #120 – Time is overlinked
  • Ref #124 – Page number is actually |page=3E
  • Ref #127 – Add #page=5 to the end of the URL for quicker access
  • Ref #129 – Add |date=January 3, 1969
  • Ref #130 – Add |last=Levinstein|first=Joan|date=January 3, 1969|publisher=Time. This citation might work better with {{cite book}} and |title=Person of the Year: A Photo History|chapter=Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell: 1968. I wish we knew the name of the editor.
  • Ref #137 – Shorten |title=Our Enshrinees
  • Ref #138 – Use actual webpage title: |title=Astronauts – Frank Borman or |title=Frank Borman
  • Ref #139 – Page number is actually |page=1D
  • Ref #140 – Use actual webpage title: |title=Colonel Frank Borman: Astronaut
  • Ref #141 – Add |location=New York, New York for consistency. See comment above about ref #102
  • Ref #142 – Unreliable source. Use {{cite news|url=https://www.cleveland.com/tv/2008/06/post_1.html|title=Discovery launches six-hour series on space program|last=Luttermoser|first=John|date=June 5, 2008|work=The Plain Dealer|access-date=August 30, 2019|location=Cleveland, Ohio|language=en-US}}. This source confirms the documentary was released in 2008. So probably need a slight rewrite of the relevant sentence to mention year in the "In the media" section.
  • Ref #143 – IMDb again. Use this source for Race to the Moon but I could not find a perfect source for Earthrise: The First Lunar Voyage except for this source which sadly does not mention that the footage was repurposed.
  • Ref #144 – Add |last=Feinberg|first=Al
  • Ref #145 – This American Life should be in italics; it is a serial work. Add |last=Kestenbaum|first=David and maybe |editor-last=Glass|editor-first=Ira

Hope that was not too much. Ping me for FAC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:10, 30 August 2019 (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, 1 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

9th (Highland) Infantry Division

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

9th (Highland) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 9th (Highland) Infantry Division was a second-line Territorial Army division that was active for almost a year. It was dispersed throughout Scotland to strategically important points, which mostly included Royal Navy installations, and played a role in the initial defensive plans of the UK. In August 1940, it was renamed as the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division (the division's first-line counterpart). The article has been given a copy-edit by the GOCE, and recently passed a GA review. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Alt text, links etc are fine, except:

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I assessed this for GAN and had a good pick at it there.

  • IMO you over use quotations in footnote c; it would be better to paraphrase this into your own words.
    I have paraphrased the quoteEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to go on to FAC you may want to also look at the use of French towards the end of the main article; but IMO that is marginally acceptable.
    I think A-Class will be as far as I go with this article, but understand.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 1939, the division was assigned to this initial defensive plan and remained so until 1940." Erm, maybe something like 'In November 1939, the division was assigned a role in this initial defensive plan, which it retained until 1940.'?
    Tweaked per your recommendationEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plan envisioned troops in the affected area to immediately locate and defeat German parachutists, or to cordon off and thereby immobilise any German forces" → 'The plan envisioned troops in the affected area immediately locating and defeating German parachutists, or cordoning off and thereby immobilising any German forces ... '
    Tweaked per your recommendationEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it is looking pretty good. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment and reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work. I have a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for the review. I have addressed the majority of your points, and left a few comments in response to others.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, a pleasure to review these articles. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are of high quality and reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA-5

[edit]

Looks good to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2019 (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) 23:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese battleship Hatsuse

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Continuing my series on ill-fated battleships, Hatsuse was a member of the first tranche of battleships built by the IJN using indemnity money paid by China after the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895. She served as a flagship during the initial stages of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 and participated in the early battles. The ship struck two mines five months after the war began and sank with the loss of over half her crew. As usual, I'm looking for stray bits of AmEng and infelicitous prose in preparation for an eventual FAC.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Hatsuse (初瀬 Hatsuse) was a Shikishima-class pre-dreadnought battleship built Sea blue.
    • Sorry, that's only two links.
  • As Japan lacked the industrial capacity Pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan.
  • speed of 19.1 knots (35.4 km/h; 22.0 mph) from Round the nought here.
    • Can't because the km/h conversion needs all three significant digits to display properly
  • ordered as part of the 10 Year Naval Expansion Programme Shouldn't it be "10-Year" or is that part of a proper noun?
    • Fixed
  • the £30,000,000 indemnity paid by China after losing Pipe China to the Qing dinasty.
  • would be badly disorganized and weakened -ize?
  • including Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov's flagship American Vice Admiral.
  • Vice-Admiral is overlinked.
  • Link the "normal" in the infobox.
    • Can't.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

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

  • length, beam, draught and displacement don't match between the body and infobox
    • I'd like to think that someday I'll actually remember to double-check that the infobox data matches that in the main body.
  • no idea what her crew was as a private ship?
    • A couple of sources quote 741, without specifying flagship or private ships, but I'm not inclined to trust that figure as an admiral and his staff generally don't come close to 100 bodies in my experience.
  • the number of 3-pounders doesn't match between the body and infobox
  • where were the TTs located?

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]

First, can I just comment what a stunning lead image that is, considering the age of it.

  • In the first sentence of the description, I think it would be worth clarifying the location of the Royal Navy ("of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy." possibly?)
  • "maximum thickness of 10 in (254 mm)" Everywhere else, "inch" (or "inches") has been written in full, so it looks a bit odd not to be here; can it be changed for consistency?
  • On a similar vein, in the prose the guns are, for example, "12-inch (305 mm) guns", whereas in the infobox, it is listed as "12 in (305 mm) guns". I agree with shortening "inch" to "in" for space, but why drop the hyphen?
  • "The ship was laid down by Armstrong Whitworth at their Elswick shipyard.." Again, clarification of the location would be beneficial. In fact, looking at this a bit more closely, the lead says "As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to build such warships, the ship was designed and built in the United Kingdom", but this claim isn't repeated in the body, and as such is not referenced?
  • Battle of Port Arthur could do with linking in the body.

Overall, a nice tidy piece of work. Harrias talk 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice to hear. Thank your for your time to review it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Citations are formatted appropriately and consistently. (NFA)
  • Some FAC reviewers will complain about the mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 however. (optional change, NFA)
  • I can't comment overly on whether the sources are considered reputable; but it is exclusively sourced to published offline sources which are likely to have undergone a robust review and editing process. (NFA)
  • As the sources are exclusively offline, I am unable to carry out any checks for close para-phrasing or copyvio, but I will AGF. (NFA) Harrias talk 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Only one concern:

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) 00:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Third Silesian War

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Bryanrutherford0 (talk)

Third Silesian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the third in a series of four articles I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. The "Silesian Wars" are mainly a feature of German military historiography, since from other perspectives they seem to generally be thought of as theatres of wider wars (the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War), but they mark a watershed in German history, signalling the rise of Prussia to parity with Austria in German affairs. This article, along with the others in the series, was recently promoted to GA (after a helpful review by Peacemaker67), and I'd like to take it further up the quality ladder with help from this project! Thanks for your help! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up all of the maps using |upright=
As at the review of Second Silesian War, I feel that this change would be counterproductive; it would be visually strange for the maps to jut out into the text more than the other images, and the details of the maps are still not going to be legible without opening them at fullscreen. If there is a consensus to do this, then I'll go along with it, but I disagree. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Battle_of_Leuthen_2.jpg: in what country was this published? Any further details on provenance?
It's a crop of a painting by Carl Röchling, so it was almost certainly first made public in Germany; I don't know where the Commons uploader got this particular scan/photograph, but the WMF's position on art like this is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain", so by that standard the image is certainly PD. I can try to pick a different version of the same painting with a known online source, if you think it's necessary, but the license is certainly good, regardless of who digitized it. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how do you feel about File:Prussian infantry advance at Leuthen.jpg? It has information about original publication on its Commons page. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Erstes_pr._Bataillon_Leibgarde_in_Schlacht_bei_Kollin.jpg: source link is dead; any more information on provenance?
I've updated the Commons page with an archived copy of the source page.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the image with File:Johann Christoph Frisch - Death of Field Marshal Schwerin.jpg, as in the review of Silesian Wars.  Done -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Seydlitz_Prussian_Cuirassiers_Seven_Years_War.jpg: is the engraver known?
I don't know anything more than is in the Commons page (which duplicates the information on the stock image site). The painter is well documented, but if this is an engraving after the painting, then I don't know anything about that. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, when you contributed an image review to the A-class review of Battle of Rossbach, you didn't have a problem with the use of File:Schlacht bei Roßbach.jpg, so I've replaced this image with that one.  Done -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Röchling_-_Regiment_Bernburg_bei_Liegnitz.jpeg: where was this published?
Again, almost certainly in Germany, but I can find very little documentation of Röchling's work online aside from the images themselves. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what if we replaced this with File:Kotzebue - Einnahme von Berlin (1760).jpg? How do you feel about the license and provenance of that image? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I've updated the license on Commons.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria can you please indicate if anything above is a war-stopper for you? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Points 2 through 5 above, particularly point 4 - without more information we can't verify pre-1924 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know what you think about the above proposals. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of the proposed replacements look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

I reviewed at GAN, and tend towards a detailed look there, so I haven't much substantive to add, mostly prose tweaks:

  • suggest dropping the citation in the lead, Frederick's reputation is well covered in the body
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through two previous" as the third war hasn't been introduced as yet
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Austria refused finally to" or "Austria ultimately refused finally to"
Replaced with "ultimately".  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Maria Theresa's husband, Emperor Francis I,..."
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first two"→"the previous" on the same basis as the above
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Kingdom of France to Early modern France
Hmm, okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which he believed (correctly)"→"which he correctly believed"
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "of Saxony prisoner, although he was allowed to withdraw to his other realms on 18 October."
I struggled with how to make that idea flow smoothly, thanks!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "In return, Austria promised (after the victory was won) to grant France control"→"In return, Austria promised that after the victory was won she would grant France control"
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "pursued by Daun's army (enlarged by the Prague garrison)"→"pursued by Daun's army, which was enlarged by the Prague garrison."
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest ", killing Winterfeldt"→"during which Winterfeldt was killed"
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Neisse link Nysa, Poland
Oops, good catch.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest dropping the parens around "(which had been largely emptied of defenders in preparation for Kunersdorf)" and just put a comma after Saxony
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liegnitz]] and [[Parchwitz
Ach, how did that get there? Weird, thanks for catching!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk)
  • suggest "He agreed to a ceasefire with Frederick (since France had never formally declared war on Prussia)"→"Since France had never formally declared war on Prussia, he agreed to a ceasefire with Frederick and..."
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • use a comma instead of parens for "(who would receive no other reparations from Prussia)"
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are of high quality and reliable. The issue of the age of Carlyle has been gone over with the other Silesian Wars articles when they went through ACR, and isn't a problem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Constantine

[edit]

It so happens that just yesterday I finished reading a German book on the Seven Years' War (Klaus-Jürgen Bremm, Preußen bewegt die Welt) which has a refreshingly critical view of all people involved. So my review will be somewhat influenced by that. I will add my comments here as I go through the article. Constantine ✍ 15:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Looking forward to it! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Context and Causes

Overall this section reads *very* well, clear and comprehensive. Well done at representing such a complex chain of events clearly. My comments:

  • and Emperor Francis I, perhaps "and 'Holy Roman Emperor' Francis I" for clarity (optional)
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • alliance among Austria..., "alliance between Austria..." Also, perhaps it should be mentioned at this point that while France and Austria were allies, they wanted to exploit one another for completely different objectives: France did not so much care about Prussia but wanted to be able to march through the Austrian Netherlands and occupy Hanover so as to counterbalance the expected losses of its overseas colonies, whereas Austria needed to keep France away from its former ally Prussia and hoped—after Rossbach largely in vain, as it turned out—for a French expeditionary corps against Frederick. The French may have been enraged at Frederick's volte-face with Britain, but were never ready to actually realize Kaunitz's suggestions to break up the Prussian kingdom (too valuable as a counterbalance to the Habsburgs from the French POV).
I believe the standard preposition usage is "between" for two objects and "among" for three or more? I've tried to reword and supplement that section a bit to include some of this insight; I think France's plans with regard to Hanover are maybe more of a "Seven Years' War" matter than a "Third Silesian War" matter, but I've tried to emphasize the role of Britain's concern for Hanover, as well as Austria's interest in ensuring that France would not be a Prussian ally in the forthcoming Silesian War.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frederick's broad strategy had three parts this, I assume, is based on his political testament of 1752. However, as Bremm points out (pp. 112-113) this was under the assumption of a continued Franco-Prussian alliance, which was no longer the case. He suggests that Frederick rather aimed at a deterrent effect, by seizing Saxony and thus creating a political block that could only be defeated after a long war. If this had not its desired effect, it would still provide him a basis from which to withstand a long war of great powers (as indeed happened, even if barely so). Frederick correctly saw Vienna as the heart of the coalition against him and intended to attack into Bohemia as he had done previously in order to force the Austrians to the peace table, but the 'Blitzkrieg' project envisaged in 1752 was no longer feasible.
Indeed, I think that's pretty much what I said: seizing Saxony would "provide him a basis from which to withstand a long war", or as I put it, give him "strategic depth and the use of the Saxon army and treasury to bolster the Prussian war effort"; he "intended to attack into Bohemia as he had done previously", or as I put it, "advance from Saxony into Bohemia, where he might set up winter quarters at Austria's expense"; finally, he hoped his army in Bohemia would "force the Austrians to the peace table" by threatening "Vienna, the heart of the coalition against him", or as I put it, his army might thence "advance on Vienna to force an end to the war". Is the difference you note that I suggest he still hoped to attack Vienna itself, whereas you're saying he only hoped to deter the Austrians into making a white peace? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • which he believed (correctly) was a secret party to the coalition against him interesting, Bremm (p. 111) is quite explicit about the opposite: although in possession of the Saxon archives in Dresden, Frederick never published a credible 'smoking gun' for this, other than the fact that the Saxons were aware of the secret negotiations between Vienna and the Russians, which he then published. Bremm assesses its propaganda impact as almost zero, apart from Britain. Bremm emphasizes the diplomatic isolation Frederick brought himself into in this way, with even the Protestant princes of the Reich joining the Habsburgs against him.
The sources I've seen certainly agree that publishing the Saxon papers does not appear to have helped Frederick's cause in the French or other foreign courts; however, Fraser (p.319) specifically says that the Dresden papers provided "direct evidence ... of hostile Saxon intentions", and Fraser's citation is to Politische Correspondenz Friedrich des Grossen, a collection of letters to and from Frederick published by Alexander Duncker. All sources seem to agree that the appearance of an aggressive attack on (publicly) neutral Saxony badly hurt Prussia's diplomatic position among the actual neutrals. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Course
  • Saxony's treasury was emptied... I have some interesting figures here (p. 113): from a total Prussian war expenditure of 139 million thalers, Saxony ended up furnishing a whopping 48 million (by comparison, the sum of the British subsidies were 27 million, and the gains from currency debasement 17 million).
  • recurring difficulties with logistics limited the offensive capabilities of the large Russian army... Bremm (p. 159) also highlights the fact that Tsarina Elisabeth was ill at the time, and rumours circulated about her imminent death, so that Apraxin was also motivated by the possibility that the Prussophile Peter would soon become Tsar.
If you can give me a full citation for your source, I'd be happy to incorporate some of these insights! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 7 September Austrians under Daun and Prince Charles advancing the Austrians, and comma after Charles.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • briefly occupy Berlin, ransoming the city for 200,000 thalers and then retreating. perhaps mention that the Austrians lost a golden opportunity to destroy the Prussian armament factories in the city.
As above, if that's in your source, I'd love to add it with an appropriate citation. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm Constantine could you please confirm whether you support or not? It's almost three weeks ago when you dropped your comments just wondering when you'd support? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry CPA-5 , been a bit out of circulation lately due to RL events. Generally the article is fine as it is, so I have no problem with supporting. My comments above were mostly supplementary either way, rather than indicating any severe deficiency in the article content. Regarding these additional references/content, if you don't mind, I will return in September and then we can go this over together. Up to you whether you want to do this as part of this FAC or after it. Constantine ✍ 13:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh understandable, my apology to disturb your real-life events. I was gone for almost three weeks too during the summer months. But indeed we'll see each other back in September. Hopefully, they're not bad real-life events if so good luck and I'll pray for you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • The Third Silesian War (German: Dritter Schlesischer Krieg) Unlink German here.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • would be attacked in the spring of 1757 Try to avoid to use seasons here.
I've removed the "spring"s and an "autumn", but winter had strategic significance for military campaigns in this era, and I don't think it's helpful to try to avoid mentioning it.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over the winter of 1756–7 the belligerents By MOS:DOB the years should be four-digit or two-digit style and not one-digit.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweden also agreed to invade Prussian Pomerania Current counties shouldn't be linked.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After wintering in Saxony King Frederick decided I think we need a comma between Saxony and King.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ransoming the city for 200,000 thalers The raid in Berlin's article says it was 250,000 not 200,000. Which one is correct?
Actually, the text of that article currently says 225,000, but the source cited there (this source) agrees with Asprey that the figure was 200,000. I've updated the other article. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • his 22,000 men marched 274 kilometres (170 mi) in twelve days At the time they usedn't metric units. I reckon we should flip the units here. Same with the other sentences where metric units are the primary unit.
Er, I don't follow your thinking here. This article isn't written to be read by Germans in the 1760s but by English-speakers in the 21st century. WP:UNIT says that the standard in non-USA topics is the use of SI units, which means kilometers. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • hoped to provoke an Austrian counterattack American counterattack.
I'm guessing you mean that you want it changed to counter-attack? Being an American, I don't know what the standard is elsewhere, so it would be more helpful if you could tell me what you want it to say rather than what you don't want it to say.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe standardise the usage of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
I'm not sure what you mean. What usage do you feel is not currently standardized, and how do you recommend improving it? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Bryanrutherford0, about that, we've Poland itself in the sentence "and then exchange that territory with Poland for control". it is linked to the Commonwealth's article and vs Poland–Lithuania which is also in the article. I reckon we've to standardise the usage of the Commonwealth in the article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only "Poland" that existed in the 1760s is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Poland had long been the dominant partner in the joint state, and it was common then and is common in modern historiography to refer to the Commonwealth as "Poland" (e.g. the Partitions of Poland, not the "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth"). For simplicity, I've cut all references to Lithuania, since it is indeed Poland of which Augustus was king, etc.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memel is overlinked.
Good catch, fixed.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a war of partition.[103][25][97] Reckon to reorder the refs here.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria Theresa's Austria in the mid 1700s You mean "mid-1700s"?
  • in mid 1756, and it ended Same as above.
If you prefer.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and retreated soon afterward You mean afterwards?
Apparently this is another American English issue. It seems that "afterwards" is more common outside North America, so we'll switch to that here.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to find 66,000 Austrians in formation around the village You mean information?
I do not. The Austrians had put themselves into a military formation, in preparation for an engagement. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russo-Austrian victory, totally scattering the Prussian You mean shattering?
I do not. The Prussians were scattered—sent in all directions without order. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the belligerents agreed an end to the Third Silesian War --> "the belligerents agreed to end to the Third Silesian War".
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • army to defend his northeastern flank American northeastern.
  • near Burkersdorf, northeast of Schweidnitz Same as above.
Again, I'm guessing that you mean you want a hyphen added.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention and input! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2019 (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) 00:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

10th Battalion (Australia)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk) and AustralianRupert (talk)

10th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The heavy lifting on this article has been done by AustralianRupert, but I'm co-nominating as I have a fair bit of interest in it. The 10th Battalion was the first battalion raised in SA, and was part of the covering force for the landing at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915. After fighting for almost all of the Gallipoli campaign, it then went on to the Western Front where it was involved in many major battles, including Pozieres, Menin Road, Hazebrouck and the Hundred Days Offensive. It continued as a part-time unit during the interwar period, but never served outside Australia in World War II. After that war, it was part of the part-time forces in various forms, and it is currently represented in the Australian Army ORBAT by the part-time 10th/27th Battalion, Royal South Australian Regiment. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Australian_9th_and_10th_battalions_Egypt_December_1914_AWM_C02588.jpeg: not seeing that credit line at the source site?
  • File:10th_Bn_3rd_Brigade_1st_Division_1st_AIF.png is too simple to warrant copyright protection
  • File:Stanley_Price_Weir_portrait.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nikkimaria, the long answer is I reckon it was published about the time it was taken (likely around March 1921) due to Weir's apparent age in the photograph, his wearing of the 10th Battalion unit colour patch, and the fact that the photograph was of him wearing colonel's rank. Despite his honorary rank of brigadier-general, he was made honorary colonel (an appointment rather than a strict rank) of the 10th Battalion in 1921, and it is highly likely the photograph is associated with that occasion. His lack of WWI medal ribbons supports the date, as those medals weren't distributed until a few years later. The photograph would have been displayed within the 10th Battalion barracks during the period he was honorary colonel (for recognition purposes). I know I'm making a few assumptions here, but they are based on an intimate knowledge of Australian Army traditions and Price's history (as I wrote the FA on him). I assume that display would be akin to publication for photographs? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Infobox: "Purple over Light Blue" Why the upper case L and B?
    fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unit Colour Patch" Similarly.
    Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang up from too much service writing on my part, I guess, although for me it is a UCP, therefore a Unit Colour Patch. I can live with it being decapitalised, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Members from the 10th Battalion" Either "from" →'of'; or "Members" → 'Soldiers'.
    of, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "provided training to national servicemen" Optional: I am not sure if a battalion can "provide" training. Possibly 'served as a training unit for national servicemen' or similar?
    done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually battalions can provide training and do to this day -- usually individual, but also collective (platoon/company for instance). In World War I and II, most battalions ran their own basic training courses initially (before deploying after which training establishments probably took over), as well as more specialised unit-needs courses. Even today, regular infantry battalions and engineer regiments that I've served in have run initial employment training courses (when there is a need to surge and training establishments can't meet throughput needs), as well as other unit needs courses such as driver courses, tactical combat casualty care, specialist weapons, unarmed combat etc. In the Reserve training system, units like AUR are established for the sole purpose of providing training to recruits and officer cadets for instance. The change is fine, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AustralianRupert. Yes, I realised that. (Been there, done that.) My point was a pedantic one about whether, linguistically, one can/should speak of the battalion providing it. But I was/am content to go with that usage, hence the "Optional".
Yes.
  • "Gallipoli campaign" IMO there needs to be at least a sentence, preferably more, giving the background for the campaign, and similar for the landing. A non-specialist reader - I appreciate that there may be few of those in Australia - is likely to be confused.
That works for me.
I guess that we have to go with what we have. (I have had to use less than ideal maps more than I would wish to myself.)
Good. Easier to follow now, IMO.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get excited about it. It seems to me to be one of those where a specialist group capitalise things important to them. I don't see that "a king's colour" should be any more a proper noun than "a king's crown". Leave it if you wish.
I had a check of some of my sources to see how they treat it. Dennis, Grey, Morris and Prior's Oxford Companion to Australian Military History uses "unit colours" as a generic term with lower case, but also "Queen's Colour" and "Sovereign's (King's or Queen's) and Regimental" as capitalised when referring to the specific. I think this is because it is definitive within the unit, i.e. it is "the unit's King's Colour". But this is probably bush lawyerism on my behalf. Jobson's Looking Forward, Looking Back: Customs and Traditions of the Australian Army also uses "Colours" and "Queen's Colour" etc with capital letters. But then uses "the King's and the regiment Colours" (with varied caps). Jobson is an ex RSM, though, so may have a tendency to over capitalise. So, not sure... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know Jobbo, ex-RSM (Ceremonial) of the Australian Army and a WO2 when I was a staff cadet at Duntroon. In my experience, Queen's Colour, King's Colour and Regimental Colour always have initial caps, as they are a type of proper name, not a common name for a general item. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the threat to the garrison diminished, the garrison was reduced" garrison twice. Possibly replace the first with 'invasion'?
  • Coverage of the history of the 2/10th Battalion seems skimpy. Is it not considered a "true" part of the 10th Battalion?
    • G'day, while they share a similar numerical designation and state association (and they may even have some sort of spiritual link -- if one believes in such stuff), the 2/10th is a different unit -- please see 2/10th Battalion (Australia). The two units existed in parallel to each other during World War II, and served in different branches of the Army (Militia v. the all volunteer Second AIF). Expanding coverage here would risk becoming too detailed. It would also be a challenge to the current schema of dealing with the infantry battalions of the First and Second AIF separately, which has been the accepted practice on wiki for longer than I've been here (more than a decade). There are 60 First AIF battalions that are treated separately to the 36 Second AIF battalions; I would not be keen to merge their articles. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. The schema you are using seems fine. I should perhaps have done more research before posting. That said, would it - very, very optionally - be possible to put a little more stress on "the units of the 2nd AIF were considered separate from those of the Militia"? Maybe reorder that sentence to 'The units of the 2nd AIF were considered separate from those of the Militia, although many members of the Militia volunteered to join the 2nd AIF.' or similar? (Do you really need "many existed at the same time"?)
Adjusted with this edit: [23] AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling work; it reads well. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the improvements and/or explanations. A couple of thoughts above for your consideration, but I am happy to support the article as it stands; it meets all of the criteria and reads well. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've adjusted one and added a bit more thought about the other. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • all-volunteer Australian Imperial Force during World War I Link WWI here.
  • raised shortly after the outbreak of World War I as part Same as above.
  • November and proceeded towards Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Khedivate of Egypt's article.
  • At approximately 4:30 am on 25 April 1915 Unnecessary 1915.
  • Pipe Turkish to the Ottoman Empire.
  • the 10th Battalion sailed for Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt's article.
  • Pipe German to the German Empire.
  • Link North Africa.
  • Link New Guinea.
  • Link Borneo.
  • Link World War II.
  • a shortage of fresh water on the island You mean freshwater?
  • reinforcement parties and machine gun crews Machine gun needs a hyphen.
  • was raised as part of the all volunteer All volunteer needs a hyphen.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5, thanks for taking a look. All done except fresh water, which is an adjective-noun combination in this case, not a compound adjective. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

This article is in very good shape. I have the following comments:

  • The coverage of this battalion's service in Gallipoli in the lead is probably too detailed (especially given that its activities in 1916-18 are covered more concisely)
    • G'day, Nick, thanks - I had a go at reducing the lead with these edits: [24]. Does that help at all? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)
  • I'd suggest making it clear in the material on the battalion being selected for Gallipoli that the entire 1st Division was committed
  • "According to the Australian War Memorial they are "believed to have penetrated further inland" than any other Australian unit" - I'd suggest framing this though in the context of the chaos and break down of command and control which occurred at Anzac on 25 April - it's not necessarily a good thing to have happened, given that small disorganised groups of soldiers penetrated much further than was sustainable. Peter Stanley's book The Lost Boys of Anzac has a good discussion of this topic.
  • " In September, the 2nd Division arrived as reinforcements." - I'd suggest tweaking this to note that the 2nd Division was reinforcing the forces at Anzac, not only this battalion
  • "The attack so impressed the British Inspector General that he described it as "the best show ever done by a battalion in France" - can more detail be provided? It would be an interesting point of comparison against the battalion's fighting at Anzac
  • "as most of the former 48th Battalion personnel were used to raise a light anti-aircraft regiment" - can the LAA regiment be identified from the sources?
  • "In 1943, the 10th/48th Australian Infantry Battalion was gazetted as an "AIF" unit,[46] which meant that its members could be deployed outside Australian territory" - was this because at least a certain percentage of its soldiers had volunteered for the AIF? (which, as I understand it, is how most CMF units became AIF)
  • As a suggestion for FAC, the notes for each CO in the 'Commanding officers' section would probably work better as a table (which would make the dates of command clear, and encourage readers to consult this useful material). Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are all now addressed - great work Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • References 40, 41, 52 & 70–80. do not have a closing full-stop.
  • Could reference 69 specify "Australian Department of Defence", as the current publisher title is a little ambiguous.
  • I can't comment overly on whether the sources are considered reputable; but it is predominantly sourced to published offline sources which are likely to have undergone a robust review and editing process. The only slightly contentious source, I would suggest, is Lock 1936, essentially a primary source for this article. However, as that is only supporting a bland list of Commanding Officers and some other small details, I have no real concern about its use. (NFA)
  • Inline quotes are always appropriately followed by a reference. (NFA)
  • There are no dead links, and online sources are archived for posterity. (NFA)
  • There is no evidence of close para-phrasing or copyvio against the heavily used reference 3; good faith assumed on the rest, most of which are offline. (NFA).

Nothing much of concern here; mostly very minor typographical fixes to be made. Harrias talk 12:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 27 August 2019 (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, 26 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Catechism

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Catechism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Operation Catechism was the last in the long-running series of air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II. Crippled by damage from earlier attacks, the battleship had been downgraded to a floating battery and stationed in an unsuitable anchorage. She survived the Operation Obviate attack on 29 October 1944 due to luck, but little chance of survival when the pair of elite heavy bomber squadrons which had been tormenting her struck again on 2 November. Two hits from massive bombs and several near misses left Tirpitz a wreck and killed most of her crew.

This article marks the end of the series I've been working on since 2013 covering the British air attacks on Tirpitz, and is now the only of these articles which is not a FA. The article was assessed as a GA in early August, and has since been further expanded and copy edited. I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria, and would appreciate any comments regarding further areas where improvements are needed ahead of a FAC. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I reviewed this article during its Milhist ACR, so I have very little to add:

  • Luftwaffe doesn't need to be italicised per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, as it is now in the Merriam-Webster dictionary
  • do the sources say which RAF bases were used to actually mount the attack?
    • Sorry, I missed this at GAN - I've just added this. Oddly, none of the sources specify how many aircraft flew from which airfield, despite almost all providing this for Operation Obviate! Presumably the relevant documentation was lost before historians could draw on it. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Weber believed that within three weeks the days would be short enough to prevent further air attacks."
  • suggest "as they could not be cleared in time of the snow and ice which had formed on them overnight."
    • Likewise - also fixed.
  • "The loss of Tirpitz was a disaster for the German military" seems an extraordinary claim, given she was effectively disabled by the time of Catechism and posed no threat to Allied convoys, and therefore the Germans could not have been relying on her to do so.
    • I've toned this down to be truer to the source. The British official history (which I've consulted since the GAN) also reached a similar conclusion due to the loss of life and the fact that it finally ended the German Navy's pretensions at being an ocean-going force. I've been looking to see if any sources criticise the German leadership for keeping this deathtrap in commission beyond the point where it was achieving anything worth the number of lives which were lost, but they don't for some reason. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Add |lastauthoramp to the multi-author book templates to match the ampersand used in the cites.
  • Otherwise cites and refs are properly formatted.
  • Sources used are comprehensive and fully RS.
  • For more info on the JG 5 situation, I'd suggest reading: Mombeek, Eric (2011). Eismeerjäger—Zur Geschichte des Jagdgeschwaders 5—Band 4 [Fighters in the Artic Sea—The History of the 5th Fighter Wing—Volume 4]. Linkebeek, Belgium: ASBL, La Porte d'Hoves. ISBN 978-2-930546-05-6 and Girbig, Werner. Jagdgeschwader 5 >>Eismeerjäger<<: eine Chronik aus Dokumentation und Berichten 1941-1945, 1974 3-87943-365-8 with Mombeek likely the better source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that I don't know any German. Do these sources add much beyond the fairly detailed, yet fairly easy to summarise, coverage in English-language sources? Thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No idea, but I know that I'd like more info on why they failed in their mission. But that'd be a "nice to have", not a "have to have".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The most authoritative discussions of this (such as Sweetman) state that it's not possible to conclude why the fighters failed. It seems to have been a total stuff up, due to the chaos affecting the German military units in northern Norway at the time and startlingly bad inter-service cooperation. I'll look to expand this a bit ahead of FAC. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Nick, not much for me to comment on. Just a couple of minor suggestions/observations; otherwise looks pretty good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bulkhead_from_the_German_battleship_Tirpitz_at_RAF_Museum_Hendon_in_November_2011.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: ...probably not PD given that 1996 is the URAA date for Germany, so removed. That said, the copyright status for this painting is complex (painted by anonymous German military personnel in World War II, sold as part of the ship's wreck to a scrap company, recovered and handed to the Norwegian Government, then donated to the Royal Air Force who still own it and have placed it on permanent public display!), so I'll try to figure this one out. Thanks for the review. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2019 (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, 23 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Zuihō

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese aircraft carrier Zuihō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Zuihō was originally laid down as a submarine tender, but was converted into a light aircraft carrier before the Pacific War began. She did not participate in the opening campaigns of the war, but did play a minor role in the Battle of Midway. The ship did participate in most of the aerial battles during the Guadalcanal Campaign, sometimes with her air group disembarked. She was not damaged during the Battle of the Philippine Sea in 1944, but was sunk during the following Battle of Cape Engano when she served as a diversion for the surface striking forces. I've recently updated this elderly GA and would like for reviewers to look for unexplained or unlinked jargon and badly worded phrases in expectation of an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901

[edit]

Nice to see a relatively famous ship up for ACR.

  • In the infobox, Zuihō should be under ship name since the Auspicious Phoenix refers to that name, and Takasaki can be mentioned under laid down

Design and conversion

  • Was Zuihō's conversion a result of attempts to circumvent the Washington Treaty tonnage limits?
    • Yes, but that's best reserved for the class article.
  • Draft, beam, and length are rounded in the infobox but not in the body
  • As part of her conversion, her original diesel engines, which had given her a top speed of 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph), were replaced by a pair of destroyer-type geared steam turbine sets with a total of 52,000 shaft horsepower(39,000 kW), each driving one propeller. Steam was provided by four water-tube boilers and Zuihō now had a maximum speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph). The boilers exhausted through a single downturned starboard funnel and she carried enough fuel oil to give her a range of 7,800 nautical miles (14,400 km; 9,000 mi) at a speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph) - Suggest rewriting for concision to split the clauses about top speed into their own sentence following the explanation of the conversion as a one knot difference in speed really doesn't need to explained in that many words and the first sentence is inordinately long. The information about the number of boilers and the funnel can be in a separate sentence with the sentence about the range following it.
    • See how it reads now
  • but she was not fitted with an aircraft catapult redundant 'she'
  • Not having an island is inherent in flush deck carriers, and this sentence might be better if it were before the flight deck details
  • Gun caliber conversions are in the infobox but not in the body

Service

  • On 13 October she was briefly assigned to the 11th Air Fleet in Formosa --> She was briefly assigned to the 11th Air Fleet in Formosa on 13 October
  • I think that it is mentioning that the Zeroes she was ferrying to Davao were from the 11th Air Fleet (per TROM)
  • There are also changes in assignment during the early war period mentioned in the TROM but not in the article
    • Yeah, I clean forgot to review the TROM before nom'ing this. You know what they say about assumptions...
  • Suggest spelling out at least numbers up to 9 in this section as you've spelled out the small numbers in the design section
  • Another nitpick - "Zero" should be in quotes the first time mentioned as with "Kate", overlinking of Zero
  • Per TROM her aircraft chased off US scouts on 6 June during Midway, so I think that Midway warrants more than one sentence in the body. According to the index of Parshall & Tully's book Shattered Sword, Zuihō is mentioned on twenty different pages
    • See how it reads now.
  • Suggest mentioning that the refit in July-August 1942 was at Sasebo per TROM
  • and left Truk 10 days later --> departed ten days later
  • Curious as to what the carrier division did between leaving Truk and Santa Cruz Islands
    • Shokakus and Zuikaku did stuff, but no mention of Zuiho's activities during this time in my sources
  • USS Enterprise - One usage of 'USS' in the text while USS is not included for other USN vessels
  • They shot down 3 each Grumman - Suggest rewording this sentence
  • damaged her flight deck enough that she could not conduct flight operations --> put her flight deck out of action
    • Good idea
  • Note that she remained at Truk during the period her fighters were transferred (per TROM)
  • By this time, Zuihō was assigned to the First Carrier Division with Shōkaku and Zuikaku and they sailed for Eniwetok Atoll on 18 September for training and to be in position to intercept any attacks by American carriers in the vicinity of Wake Island and the Marshall Islands area. - Suggest splitting this monster of a sentence
  • Suggest splitting the overly long first paragraph in the Philippine Sea section
  • Link Guimaras island
  • spotted Task Force 58 --> spotted the American Task Force 58
    • No, it's mentioned that the Japanese were searching for the Americans a couple of sentences earlier.
  • For consistency, suggest you keep spelling out the carrier division numbers in the Philippine Sea section
  • This consisted of --> The strike group consisted of
  • Inconsistent usage of A6M2 and Zero
    • Intentional.
  • turned away to the northwest to regroup and to refuel and the Americans turned west to close the distance --> turned away to the northwest to regroup and refuel, while the Americans turned west to close the distance
    • Good idea
  • The Commons cat for Zuihō contains several good images of her at Cape Engano, suggest adding a couple and moving the sinking photo down to the last paragraph

More later. Kges1901 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • they did not discover the Americans --> they did not find the Americans
  • While they sank the carrier --> While the American attack sank the carrier
  • was not attacked The TROM says that Zuiho was in an AA action on 20 June so that suggests that she was at least near the attack. Suggest changing this to escaped unscathed
  • Because of the above, I think File:Japanese Carrier Division Three under attack.jpg is appropriate for this section
  • By the end of the battle, Ozawa only had 34 intact aircraft at the end of the battle Remove one of those extra clauses
  • Are the unadopted Sho-Go 3 and 4 significant enough to mention here as they aren't directly relevant to the ship?
  • Standardize on either 653rd Air Group (used above) or Air Group 653
  • Most of these aircraft Unclear what 'these' refers to given the previous sentence, suggest Most of the aircraft sent to land bases
  • lost for little gain --> fruitlessly lost
  • Admiral Toyoda --> Toyoda
  • Zuihō's role in Shō-Gō 1, together with Chiyoda, Chitose and Zuikaku and the rest of the Main Body of the 1st Mobile Fleet This could be more concisely explained as Zuiho and the rest of Ozawa's carrier force (technically Ozawa's force had a screen as well but the carriers were the primary bait) Suggest Under the plan, Zuiho and the rest of Ozawa's carrier force were to approach Leyte Gulf from the north as a diversion from two other forces approaching from the south and west, with all three forces converging on the gulf on 25 October as a replacement for this sentence
  • 26 B6N and 4 B5N torpedo bombers We already know that Jills and Kates are torpedo bombers. In this sentence, there is also the inconsistency that all types except the Zero are referred to by their IJN designations
    • I don't see an issue with this. Lundstrom uses Zero and the Japanese designations in his books.
  • The Americans were preoccupied dealing with the other Japanese naval forces and defending themselves from air attacks launched from Luzon and Leyte and could not spare any aircraft to search for the Japanese carriers until the afternoon. --> Preoccupied with the other Japanese naval forces and land-based air attacks, the Americans could not spare any aircraft to search for the Japanese carriers until the afternoon
  • They finally found them at 16:05 --> The American aircraft spotted them at 16:05
  • Link SB2C Helldiver. Thanks to previous mentions it is already known that Hellcats are fighters and Avengers are torpedo bombers
  • Note Kuwa and Ise were also part of Ozawa's (Northern) force
    • Why do you think that this is important? I'd expect ships from Ozawa's force to do the rescuing.
  • If you haven't seen it yet, the Japanese Wiki article cites this document on JACAR for information that the Zuiho was renamed on 15 December 1940

Done with my review. Kges1901 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back in the saddle. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • consisted of eight 40-caliber 12.7-centimeter (5 in) Type 89 dual-purpose guns in twin Sea blue here.
  • fighters to Davao City, Philippines for the 11th Pipe the Philippines to the Japanese occupation of the Philippines's article.
  • Link Guam.
  • was en route to Guimares Island in the central
  • In between battles, the ship served as a aircraft A typo in the "a" part.
  • and each side launched air strikes Merge air strikes.
  • on launching his air strikes early the following Same as above.
  • consorts were intended to draw the attentions of the Americans you mean just attention?
  • conducted their air strikes without disruption Merge air strikes.
  • carriers launched a follow up wave of 13 B5Ns Follow up needs a hyphen.
  • While the air strike was still forming up Merge air strikes.
  • battleships and the air strike was diverted Same as above.
  • launched three aircraft at 12:00 to search east You mean noon?
    • Yes, but 24-hour time, not 12-hour time
  • ordered an air strike launched Merge air strikes.
  • and Ozawa ordered an air strike launched Same as above.
  • Halsey ordered an air strike of 60 Hellcats Same as above.
  • A fourth wave of American aircraft attacked --> "The fourth wave of American aircraft attacked"

That's anything from me. And happy Assumption of Mary and Mother's day. Cool sidenote in my home province it is today a public holiday. Other parts in Belgium don't celebrate them as a public holiday. Something unique in my home province. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. So is there a special name for people from the province, but not the city?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really as far as I know. I do know that here in my home city we've to nicknames of people. The first is called sinjoor (plural: sinjoren) which came from the Spanish occupier's hundreds of years ago. It means someone from and born in Antwerp and he/she has parents from the city as well. Some even describe the word sinjoor as someone who's born between the Scheldt and the De Leien. I'm not a sinjoor I'm a pagadder (also a nickname) which means someone from outside the city (or the De Leien) or one or both parents are not from the city, while you are born in the city. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Kees08

[edit]
  • The National Archives and NHHC are not the same thing - one is a Federal government organization for archives and NHHC is the USN's historical command, but this is irrelevant because the National Archives record group 80-G (which the image is from) is for official USN material, so it is still PD. Kges1901 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, that makes sense, I was wondering if the license for PD should be National Archives or USN (since the image says it should be National Archives), but probably either is fine. Kees08 (Talk) 02:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Japanese aircraft carrier Zuihō.jpg publication date? Also, possible to get more clear source information?
    • Pub date isn't relevant because it was taken before 1947 and it's not in copyright in the US. I don't know anything more about it than appears here. There are a bunch of high-quality photographs of IJN ships held by museums in Japan, some of which have been published. I don't know if this has or hasn't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The warning on the license template (If the photograph was also published in the United States within 30 days after publication in Japan, it might be copyrighted. If the copyright has not expired in the U.S, this file will be deleted. See Commons:Hirtle chart.) is what tripped me up. But it looks like the second license template addresses that, so should be good there. Kees08 (Talk) 02:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all. Kees08 (Talk) 18:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing these and to Kges1901 for fixing the links before I got to them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Think we should be good on all these now. Kees08 (Talk) 02:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<Montgomery Burns voice>Excellent!</voice>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few (mostly prose-related) comments:

  • in the lead, " in thisthat campaign"
  • suggest "after repairs, Zuihō covered the evacuation of Japanese forces from Guadalcanal in early 1943."
  • "mid- to late 1943"→"mid- to late-1943"
  • "Attack on Pearl Harbor"→"attack on Pearl Harbor"
  • "Main Body"→"main body" it is a generic term and there are a few of these
    • It's not generic for the Japanese as they often broke down their fleets into a van, a main body and a support force for an operation and used the terms formally. Most every source capitalizes these terms for them and I've followed suit.
    That's fine, just be consistent, there is a main body a bit further down. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six each Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" and A6M2 "Zero" fighters"→"six Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" and six A6M2 "Zero" fighters"
  • "with the carriers Shōkaku and Zuikaku"
  • "and departed from Truk 10 days later" if that is what is meant?
    • No other place name is mentioned after her arrival at Truk, so what else could be meant?
    It doesn't say she arrived in Truk on 1 October, is says she sailed to Truk. I read it as "departing Sasebo". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Imperial Japanese Army
  • "26 October duringat the opening of the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands"
  • "The aircraft passedencountered each other"
    • No, encounter doesn't do justice to what actually happened as several squadrons from each side never saw the other side despite flying the same courses as the other squadrons of that did see their opponents. And Zuiho's escorting fighters actually abandoned their charges.
    But they didn't just pass them, did they? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most did actually. IIRC, there were 30-odd Japanese fighter escorts and only Zuiho's and a few others attacked. None of the American fighters attacked any of Zuiho's aircraft, merely alerting their carriers that an air raid was inbound.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the carriers Jun'yō and Zuikaku"
  • link Kyushu
  • link Light aircraft carrier
    • Linked in the lede.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. See if my changes suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All references formatted uniformly
  • References are high quality, produced by experts in the field
  • Conducted a few spot checks, nothing gives cause for concern about close paraphrasing/plagiarism. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2019 (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) 15:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of battleships of France

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of battleships of France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

With WP:OMT closing in on completion, you're going to see more of these lists being put together ;) This one covers the battleships built by France between the late 1880s and the 1940s, from the early experimental vessels built during a muddled period of French naval philosophy to some pretty cutting-edge thinking in the interwar period with the Dunkerques and Richelieus. The French portion of the project is nearly complete, so once this list passes ACR (and FLC), we'll have our second major navy completed (or third, if Japan beats France across the finish line). Thanks to all who review the list! Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I'd love to eat some popcorn here until the race end. I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • cancelled v. canceled.
  • Naval to counter growing German naval strength Pipe German with Imperial Germany.
    • Done
  • to counter the German and Italian fleets Pipe German and Italian with Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • by introducing a number of innovations Replace "a number of" with "some".
    • That doesn't seem like an improvement to me
  • were to be built over the course of the program Remove "over the course of" with throughout.
    • Done
  • 1897–1898 Greek uprising on Crete against Is there a link for the uprising?
    • No - the closest we have is the background section at Cretan State, but even that mostly skips over the rebellion and covers the international response to it.
  • was designed by Victor Saglio Link of Saglio?
    • I can add a red link, but we don't have a bio on him
  • Try to round "33.0 km/h" in the "Carnot" table.
    • Yeah, I knew you wouldn't like that - the only way to do it is to either round the mph figure to 21 or everything to two decimal places, and "17.8 knots (32.97 km/h; 20.48)" seems excessive
  • She suffered a number of minor accidents Remove "a number of" with "several".
    • Done
  • albeit of an experimental 45-caliber (cal.) It's odd to see the short form of calibre. I never saw you using it. The calibre's article even doesn't mention the short form?
    • It's a common abbreviation
  • evacuated the Allied army that Link Allied here.
    • Done
  • Dardanelles campaign v. Gallipoli campaign. And if we use Gallipoli campaign then we shouldn't capitalise campaign.
  • There is a little error in the File:French_battleship_Bouvet_NH_64442.tif image.
    • I'm not sure what you mean
  • within the 11,000-ton limit It's odd to see an "11,000-ton" here. Wich kind of "ton"?
    • It's already specified earlier in that paragraph
  • they were joined by Saint Louis the next year Link Saint Louis here.
    • Done
  • were moved to the North Sea in 1909 Link North Sea here.
    • Done
  • In the "Charlemagne class" table Saint Louis' fate it states "Broken up, 1933" But its article says "25 April 1933" instead of just 1933.
    • Yeah, but that's just the date she was sold
  • In the same table this time in the Gaulois' "Commissioned". It states "23 October 1899" but its articles says "15 January 1899"?
    • Fixed

More to come. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Iéna table at "Fate" it was destroyed in 1907. Its article says it was destroyed on 12 March 1907, maybe we need to add the specific date in the table.
    • Good point
  • Also shouldn't the other tables have a specific date?
    • Added where appropriate
  • was ultimately scrapped in 1967.[98][99][89] Reorder the refs.
    • Fixed
  • French considered a scaled up version Scaled up needs a hyphen.
    • Done
@CPA-5: - Now that you're back, did you have more comments to add? Parsecboy (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This list is looking good. A few comments:

  • "By the end of the decade, the British"
    • Fixed
  • link Jean Bart in the lead?
    • Done
  • I suggest an introductory note after the lead explaining what armor (I assume belt) and displacement (I assume oa) are being used in the tables, assuming it is being handled consistently
  • suggest linking long tons in the Brennus table
    • Done
  • suggest link=on in the power conversion of the Brennus table to link kW
    • Done
  • "each other in other details" could you vary the wording here? in lesser details?
    • Lesser works for me
  • ihl is in full and overlinked in the Jauréguiberry table
    • Good catch
  • both the main and secondary batteries of Masséna were the 1893 guns, suggest mentioning this in the prose section, which currently just says the 305 mm ones
    • Good idea
  • ihp is overlinked in the Masséna table
    • Fixed
  • something odd going on with the Bouvet pic
    • CPA said the same thing, but it's displaying fine to me
  • "pronounced tumblehome that characterized many French warships of the period" I think you've already covered the issues with the tumblehome above
    • Removed
  • probably link Gaulois at first mention, under Bouvet
    • Done
  • drop the comma from " the following year, she was transferred"
    • Done
  • link Dardanelles in the Bouvet section
    • Done
  • metric hp and ihp are overlinked in the Bouvet table
    • Fixed

Down to Charlemagne class. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • link Charlemagne at first mention, in the Charlemagne class section, also Saint Louis and Suffren in that section
    • Done
  • in the Charlemagne class table, what is 14,500 CV? expand and link?
    • CV is the French abbreviation for metric horsepower - have added an explanatory note to this effect
  • "apart from a collision with a torpedo boat off Toulon in 1906 that resulted in the latter's sinking"
    • Fixed
  • "The wreck was repaired to make her watertight"
    • Good catch
  • suggest "the armor layout onof the hull"
    • I'm going to say that was a typo ;)
  • "shipyard in before work"
    • Fixed
  • link Démocratie at first mention in the Suffren section
    • Done
  • I'd mention in the prose that it was U-52 that sank Suffren
    • Done
  • "1898 Naval Law"→" German 1898 Naval Law"
    • Good catch
  • link Liberté class when first mentioned in the République class section
    • Done
  • link Danton-class when first mentioned in the République class section
    • Done
  • link République and Patrie when first mentioned in the République class section
    • Done - you'd think I'd have paid closer attention to this when I was writing the list, but...
  • link Liberté, Justice, and Vérité when first mentioned in the Liberté class section
    • Done

Down to Danton class. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "construction of the Liberté"
    • Fixed
  • suggest "that Japan's success"→"that Japanese success"
    • Works for me
  • the sentence beginning "As a result, the navy decided..." is too long, suggest breaking it
    • Done
  • link Mirabeau, Danton, Vergniaud and Condorcet when first mentioned in the Danton class section
    • Done
  • perhaps mention in the prose of the Danton class section that it saw the introduction of the new Modele 1906 guns
    • Good idea
  • "by four 305 mm turrets"
    • Good catch
  • link France, Jean Bart, Courbet and Paris when first mentioned in the Courbet class subsection
    • Done
  • link Bretagne, Provence and Lorraine when first mentioned in the Bretagne class subsection
    • Done
  • suggest "with a pair of twin-turrets superfiring above them"→"each with a twin-turret superfiring above them"
    • That sounds better to me
  • link Béarn when first mentioned in the Normandie class subsection
    • Done
  • "hte vessels"
    • Fixed

Down to Fast battleships. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • link Dunkerque and Strasbourg when first mentioned in the Dunkerque class subsection
    • Done
  • link Richelieu or Jean Bart when first mentioned in the Richelieu class subsection
    • Done

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Alsace illustration
    • I dunno, to make the text legible the image would have to be gigantic - I might just upload a different version with the text removed.
  • File:Justice_1909_LOC_det_4a16114.jpg: why is this believed to be in the public domain?
    • It was gifted to the LOC in 1949, apparently, and the LOC states there are no known restrictions
  • File:Alsace.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this illustration? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Both editions of Brassey's Naval Annual have the same OCLC#
    • Would they be different? That OCLC isn't to a specific volume
      • I keep forgetting that most annuals don't get their own number for each volume.
  • The ISBN for Friedman is for the Seaforth edition. This one is just going to continue to bite both of us in the ass.
    • Fixed
  • Why is Roberts worth noting in Ropp?
    • Per my comment of the Kaiser Friedrich III review, Roberts took Ropp's unpublished dissertation and turned it into the book (and having watched somebody edit an unpublished work into a book, that's no small task ;) )
  • Citations are properly formatted
  • References are high-quality RS--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Where are the cites for the lede?
  • late 1900s specify that you mean the first decade of the century, not sometime in the 1980s
    • Reworded
  • Dunkerque was later scuttled there with her sister ship Strasbourg when the French scuttled the fleet Proximity alert!
    • Good catch
  • Brennus was the first pre-dreadnought battleship of the French Navy built in the late 19th century Delink French Navy, otherwise awkward as it implies that predreadnoughts were built at other times. And watch for redundancy with the lede
    • Reworded
  • Link scrap(ped) on first use
    • Done
  • A lot heavier on the background details of the designs than I think is optimal. Why are you giving architect's names in the ship sections? That's hardly summarizing things, IMO. Your German BB list does a better job, I think, in summarizing the ships' service and backgrounds.
    • In my mind, one of the things the list should do is trace design histories over time, which is something you can't do in individual class articles - at most you'd talk about how the previous design influenced the next. And that's one of the reasons I included the designers, so the reader sees the same individuals popping up over the course of the construction programs. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to stop here so we can discuss this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the weight reduction was to be achieved be returning to twin-turrets for the main battery. I don't understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spelled out more clearly
  • Tell the reader that Iéna was refloated for use as a target ship
    • Good idea
  • years conducting training to prepare the crews I think that that last bit is rather redundant.
    • Removed
  • What was actually done to the Dunkerques as part of this demilitarization? I think that it was pretty nominal for the overseas-based ships.
    • Good point - they hadn't actually done much before the British arrived
  • Good work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2019 (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) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Medusa (1864)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Medusa (1864) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Between Sturm and me, there've been a lot of battleships lately, so I figure it's time for something with flapping sails (even if it had a noisy steam engine too). Medusa was the second screw corvette ordered by Prussia in the early 1860s, but unlike Nymphe, the ship wasn't ready in time for the war with Denmark. She nevertheless had an interesting career, including testing an oven so the crew could bake fresh bread at sea, helping a US vessel and receiving an official "thank you" from Grant, and being trapped in Yokohama during the Franco-Prussian War. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article in preparation for an eventual run at FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Long-time no steamship.

  • No image of the ship? I mean, there should be one, because it'd expired the copyright laws in all countries?
  • during the Cretan Revolt against Ottoman rule Maybe pipe Ottoman to the Ottoman Empire.
    • Done
  • she protected German citizens in Japan German citizens? Are we speaking about the ethic Germans or people from Germany because Germany didn't exist until 1871. Also, pipe Japan with Tokugawa shogunate here and pipe Japan in the next sentence to the Empire of Japan.
    • Good point - clarified
  • and longer voyages to North, Central, and South America Link all the Americas here.
    • Done
  • before continuing on to Japan Remove "on" here.
    • Done
  • equipped immediately for a deployment to East Asia Remove "a" here.
    • I think the article is needed there
  • Medusa initially stopped in Alexandria in Egypt before making Pipe Egypt to the Khedivate of Egypt.
    • Done
  • where the crew could return to Germany Germany didn't unite so where exactly could they go.
    • Switched to "home"
  • on 16 May 1869 and stopped briefly in Hong Kong Pipe Hong Kong to British Hong Kong.
    • Done
  • at which point she went to Bangkok, Siam Link Siam here.
    • Done
  • I also believe Bangkok should be unlinked here. Cheers.
  • a German merchant vessel in the Mekong river Capitalise river here.
    • Done
  • crossed the Indian Ocean Link Indian Ocean.
    • It's linked the first time, earlier in the article
  • was to leave the West Indies for Lisbon, Portugal Pipe Portugal to the Kingdom of Portugal.
    • Done
  • between the Great Powers in Paris, France Unlink Paris.
    • Done
  • She reached Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 15 December Unlink Rio de Janeiro.
    • Done
  • then steamed north to Barbados Unlink Barbados.
    • Done
  • The sources are appeared to be of high quality and reliable.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed, although as per CPA I'm wondering whether an image of the ship might be available. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I've been able to track down, unfortunately. There's File:Korvette SMS MEDUSA der Kaiserlichen Marine Aufnahmeort und Aufnahmedatum unbekannt.jpg, but it has no source or author information, so we can't use it. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Peacemaker's suggestion below, I cropped Willy Stower's illustation and added it to the article (here) - it's better than nothing! Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

  • given they were sisters, surely the Battle of Jasmund painting of Nymphe used in the class article would be better than nothing?
    • A good point - and the image is high-res, so I've cropped it to just Nymphe
  • suggest "her crew was thanked by President Ulysses S. Grant for their actions."
    • Works for me
  • suggest "Medusa was to leave the West Indies for Lisbon, Portugal. This move would bring her closer to the Mediterranean without openly signaling Germany's intention to respond to uprisings against Ottoman rule in the Balkans." if that is correct?
    • Sounds good
  • suggest "the armored training squadron with its flagship Kaiser reached the city"
    • Done
  • I agree with CPA-5 that the sources of of high quality and reliable

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • Any chance you could provide alt text for the images?
    • The way that infobox images are formatted now doesn't allow for alt text (or at least I don't know how to do it) and I don't know what would actually be useful for the map
      • I added alt text for the infobox image, and simply put "refer to caption" for the other. Both are actually covered sufficiently in the captions, but dependent on screen reader, providing alt text just makes it a bit more accessible, even with such bland inputs. Harrias talk 12:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph uses "she was" four times; is it possible to avoid such repetition?
    • Fixed
  • "The second, lengthier voyage lasted.." I think there should be another comma after "lengthier".
  • "..as the likelihood of a conflict with Denmark over the Schleswig-Holstein Question became increasingly likely." Can we avoid the repetition of "likelihood" and "likely"?
    • Good catch, that's redundant
  • "On 8 December, the three German ships met in Smyrna in the Ottoman Empire.." Which three? The last mention was of just two, Medusa and Blitz, but Hertha and Kronprinz have also been mentioned?
    • Hertha (Kronprinz went to Germany after commissioning) - clarified in the text
  • "..return to the now-unified Germany on the 2nd of the month." Should be "second", rather than "2nd".
    • Done
  • "She steamed south, crossed the Indian Ocean, and then after rounding South Africa, turned north through the Atlantic and finally arrived in Kiel on 26 August." Is this level of detail necessary?
    • My thought in including it was to give the reader something of a sense of the scale of the voyages ships took (and there were two possibilities as to how a ship in Japan could return to Europe at that time)

Overall, a very good article, and only minor points from me. Harrias talk 11:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, nice work. Harrias talk 12:24, 20 August 2019 (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) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 9th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division was a British Army division during the Second World War. The division, raised initially as a motor division before being converted into an infantry formation, remained in the UK until it was deployed to Normandy. In Normandy, it was involved in several brief sharp clashes with German forces (Operation Charnwood and Pomegranate) before the British manpower crisis came to a head. In August, as the junior division in Normandy, it was disbanded and its units transferred to other divisions to bring them up to full strength. The article has recently been overhauled and greatly expanded, was given a copyedit by the GOCE, and has just past its GA review. I believe it is ready for the next step.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • All images are appropriately licenced.
  • Consider alt text for all images.

Gog the Mild (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in good shape. There is quite a bit of dropping of the definite article in front of Arabic ordinals (which is common in military circles, but isn't grammatically correct), but I have a few other comments as well:

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and comments, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I've steered clear of wording issues given PM's very comprehensive review, and would like to offer the following comments:

  • I'd suggest explaining what "second-line" means in the context in which it's used here.
  • Likewise, what's meant for this to be a "duplicate" division?
    In regards to these two, I have made some changes to the article to hopefully make this a bit more clear for the reader. Do they work?
  • "piecemeal use" and "The TA would join regular army divisions in waves " seems contradictory
    I have made some changes to this, I hope it works better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the 1/6th Battalion South Staffordshire Regiment suffer casualties during its deployment to France in 1940?
    It does appear that secondary sources offer little in the way of casualty information for the fight and flight in Flanders.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was short of equipment..." what point in time are the stats for equipment? When was this rectified? - my understanding is that some key deficiencies were made good quite quickly.
    A lack of equipment seems to be a common theme among the 2nd line formations. I have added the date for when the stats are from. Doing some digging on the artillery and AT situation, I have read some production figures that suggest it would have taken a full month's worth of 25-pounder output to fully equip one division around May-June 1940. The existing, and somewhat offhand comment, that was worked into the overall of new equipment arriving in 1941 seems the best that can be dug up at the moment. I don't have access to Knight, but could request with the reference chaps for the pages before and after the cited one to see if Knight provides more information in this regard?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the division returned to the United Kingdom" - was Northern Ireland not part of the UK at this time?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the division had had little in the way of tank-infantry co-operation training or experience, the 34th Tank Brigade was attached in September." - was this only for training purposes? The British infantry divisions which fought in Western Europe in 1944-45 almost always had a tank or armoured brigade attached, so it may have been doctrine.
    The specific quote from Place is "It n doubt helped that for the remainder of 1943 the brigade was affiliated for training purpose to 59th Division, whose troops had negligible training in co-operation with tanks." He then goes into quite a bit of detail on the tactical changes in training for the tank brigade and advancing with infantry. From the doctrine and operational aspect, Buckley and Hart argue that the armour and tank brigades being attached for attacks was part of the Colossal Crack process of reducing casualties and concentrating firepower. Buckley also argues there was a breakdown between official doctrine and how Montgomery wanted to use his brigades, as well as a lack of production factoring in. All taken together, yes, I think this was merely for training purposes and not another attempt at reimaging the mixed division or getting the 59th ready for how Monty wanted to fight Normandy. With that all said and done, suggestions for rewording if you see fit?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late June, Montgomery ordered XII Corps, part of British Second Army and of 21st Army Group, to be shipped to France due to the need for fresh infantry formation" - surely the corps and this division were programmed to be deployed to Europe at some stage? Did Monty have this brought forward?
    From what Stacey writes, Monty appeared to have total control over who was being to shipped to France and when: "[Monty's] senior administrative officer 'had informed him that while another Corps could be brought in, he could not maintain another body of Army Troops in the existing area'. Moreover, while Montgomery wanted more infantry, he did not need more armour at present. Therefore, the Guards Armoured Division and the 4th Canadian Armoured Division were to be "phased back" and come in at the end of the build-up. His immediate intention was to build up the 12th Corps by bringing in the 53rd and 59th Infantry Divisions..."
  • [18][74][89][90][91][83] - this number of sources for two fairly simple sentences seems excessive.
    I have addressed thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite their precarious position, German infantry conducted counter-attacks and attempted to retake lost villages." - needs a reference
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest noting that Charles Perry Stacey was the Canadian official historian
    amendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from Montgomery to Brooke in the quotebox doesn't really work - the quote appears next to the subsequent para. I'd suggest not using a quotebox here.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division was included on a list of the eight most reliable divisions that fought with 21st Army Group during the Normandy Campaign" - whose list was this?
    Further refined using the complete context of what Hart was discussing, rather than downplaying what was previously in the article when it was being revamped.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest saying what a battlefield clearance unit was Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Joslen does not provide much more detail than "controlling and organizing the clearance of all equipment", which I have inserted into the article. I don't dare to elaborate further, and the other sources I have don't appear to discuss it (if I am not mistaken).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that's the case @Hawkeye7: is there anything from your research on logistics in the Normandy campaign which explains this term? Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned it briefly in the British logistics in the Normandy Campaign article, under "Salvage" down near the bottom of the article. The 197th Brigade was engaged in collecting the vast quantity of equipment that was abandoned in the Falaise area. It remained engaged in this work in the area until December. Components included No. 17 Field Salvage Unit. A great deal of equipment was collected and restored to use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the heads-up about that article. I have added a note into this article largely based off what is in that one to give a little more info on the bigrade.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick pass of some of the issues you have raised, I will attempt to clear the rest in the coming days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - great work, and sorry about the slow response. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work - I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2019 (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, 20 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of battleships of Japan

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Parsecboy (talk)

List of battleships of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another installment in the lists of warships, this one covers the battleships built by Japan. It caps the Japanese section of OMT, which is complete. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

The big giant has awakened here. ;)

  • Japan promulgated a ten-year naval build-up in early 1896 British build-up.
  • threatened Japan's interests in Korea Link Korea here and unlink the second one.
  • fleet of eight modern battleships, 20,000 long tons (20,321 t) Link long tons.
  • The launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 by the Royal Navy raised the stakes Link Royal Navy.
  • "was spending in 1921 32 per cent of her entire national revenue" By MOS:NUMNOTES "Adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats". Also British per cent.
  • Fuji hosted the American ambassador to Japan and some senior Who was the ambassador?
  • Link Russo–Japanese War in the lead.
  • First World War v. World War I.
  • Link Yellow Sea.
  • Link knots in every template in every section.
    • It's not a sortable table so the first link suffices
  • Link long tons in every template in every section.
    • As above
  • Unlink tonnes in every template in every section. Because of common term.
  • World War I/First World War/WWI (I don't care which name) is overlinked.
  • the Russian battleship Poltava (Russian: Полтава) Unlink the Russian language here. Because of common term.
  • Japan declared war on Imperial Germany Maybe link Imperial Germany here?
  • in 1907 that killed 34 men and wounded 8 others Maybe use eight instead of 8?
  • they both participated in Japan's intervention in Siberia in 1918 Link Japan's intervention in Siberia here.
  • Aki was launched on 15 November 1906 Remove 1906 here.
  • No Kanji and Rōmaji in the Satsuma class?
  • The Fusō-class battleships (扶桑型戦艦 Fusō-gata senkan) Maybe add a semicolon between the Kanji and Rōmaji? Same in the Ise, Nagato, Tosa and Yamato-classes.
    • They're templated.
  • Also Japan used metric units at that time.
  • Ref 65 "pp. 84-85, 90." --> pp. 84–85, 90.
  • Citation 65 and 66 are the same.
    • Sharp eyes!
  • Ref 147 "p. 70–71, 356." --> pp. 70–71, 356.
  • In the template of the Kii-class "29.75 knots (55.10 km/h; 34.24 mph" there is an unnecessary nought in the km/h.
  • In the template of the Fuji-class "18.25 knots (34 km/h; 21 mph)" unlink km/h and mph.

I think that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Sturm the list looks good in my view. I just found a little issue in the 39th citation which state "p. 125-26." I guess it should be "pp. 125–126". Also, the 92nd citation has double p even it is only one page. That's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Colorized_Shikishima_Shooting.jpg: as per the tag, what is the publication date of this image? Same with File:Japanese_battleship_Fuji.jpg, File:Colorize_Mikasa.jpg, File:Yamato_%26_Musashi.jpg
    • File:Japanese_battleship_Fuji.jpg is probably a commercial photo or postcard, based on the lettering.
    • I realize that this is a problem with the template, but the statement therein that "It is also in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in Japan expired by 1970 and was not restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act." seems to override any need for the PD-1996|Japan tag when there's no known US publication prior to 1970. Earlier versions of this tag lacked the whole section about publication date and I'm not sure why it was added as nothing changed in Japanese copyright law. At any rate I'm going to simplify both our lives and tag most of these with the alien property custodian tag as I believe they were official photos of one sort or another and thus out of US copyright entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Асахи.jpg: is the 2005 source the first known publication? Same with File:Tango1908-1909.jpg, File:Hizen-battleship-1.jpg, File:Iwami_large.jpg, File:Katori_large.jpg, File:Kawachi_1913.jpg, File:Fuso_Trial_Heading_Left.jpg, File:Nagato1924.jpg
    • As above--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • For both this and the above, I'm not convinced that all of these would necessarily have been administered by the alien property custodian - most of them are author unknown, and as per WP:NUSC there were limitations in the Japanese context. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since all photos used herein were taken prior to 1947, what possible problem could there be with the Japanese copyrights since all photos taken before that date are explicitly stated as out of copyright as of 1970? The only issue, as far as I can tell, is the status of US copyright. And, to the best of my knowledge, none of these were published in the US prior to 1996. So why are you dubious that these weren't official photographs subject to the alien property custodian?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • (a) I'm not disputing they are out of copyright in Japan. (b) Whether they were published in the US prior to 1996 has nothing to do with whether they were official photographs; however (c) if they were not subject to the alien property custodian and were first published in 2005, they are likely to still be in copyright in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, we're agreed on their Japanese copyright status; some of what you said earlier gave me the impression that there might be a problem there. As for determining if they were official photographs or not, how do we do that without photographer or publication info (if they were published at all)? Given that these are not obviously taken by amateurs and the IJN's cult of secrecy after WWI precluded professional ship photographers from getting access with which to take their photos, I think that that we can reasonably assert that they're official photos that were dispersed after the war into museum collections. This would leave the earlier photos which could have been taken by anybody, including the IJN, and professional photographers who we know published some as postcards and may or may not have published them in other formats like photo album pages or simple prints. These are generally pretty-high quality photos, so I'm inclined to rule out amateurs with a Kodak Brownie or similar camera which leaves amateurs with pro-grade equipment and skills and actual professionals who need to keep food on the table by publishing them. So I think we can reasonably assume that these were published in one form or another shortly after they were taken, which means that they'd fall under the normal PD-1923 rules. I know this is a lot of assumptions, etc., but I think that we're reduced to the most probable situation when evaluating their copyright status, barring better information, which probably isn't easily available. What are your thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think we've discussed this before, but does that 2005 book provide any further information on provenance that might be useful in sorting this out? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not that I can tell since I don't read Japanese. It just says "selected photos from the Archives of the Kure Maritime Museum" and "The best from the collection of Shizuo Fukui's photos of Japanese warships". Fukui was, according to his obit, was a IJN naval architect who was director of naval construction of Maizuru Naval Shipyard at the end of the war. After the war he worked for the 2nd Bureau of Discharged Officials and started "his historical research and his lifelong contributions to the preservation of the records of the ships of the IJN". He joined the Maritime Safety Agency in 1948 and resigned in 1952. He collected 20,000 photos before he died in '93 and donated them to museums upon his death. Annoyingly, that's not clear about when he started collecting photos, though I'd bet it was post-war. Many of the IJN's records didn't survive the war or were dispersed, so he may have started to assemble those that he could find then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, so here's what I'd suggest. Given that pre-war photography was more open, I don't think we can assume those automatically fall under the alien custody rules; those that were likely postcard or album publications can get a pre-1924 tag instead. Images taken after WWI but before 1946 can keep the alien custody tag, but suggest adding some justification to each of these explaining why they are likely official photos. Confusingly, the Commons page on Japanese copyright suggests an 11-year extension for wartime copyright? I can't figure out what they've based that on though, any ideas? In any event, in all cases suggest adding as much information as to provenance as can be found, and also where assumptions have been made the basis for those assumptions. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good compromise. I have no idea of what they're talking about with the extension of copyright during wartime, although it perhaps pertains more to written and artistic items already under copyright when the war began? Looking over the page, I noticed {{PD-anon-1923}} which might be better for all the older photos. What do you think? Here's a draft of the language that I plan to use for the older ones: "Photographer is assumed to be either a professional or an official photographer as it is a high-quality image unlikely to have been taken by an amateur. If taken by a professional photographer, it is assumed to have been published in one form or another shortly after being taken." What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you could use that template, and that language, but suggest in both cases mentioning in the image description what work was done to attempt to identify the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Howzabout something like: "The identity of the photographer has not been found in any media through its most recent publication c. 2005."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the images from that book, that's the earliest confirmed publication, not the most recent - you could say no author was attributed in that book nor in any other source found. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is better phrasing. All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

This article is in very good shape, but I think would benefit from changes to its first section:

  • The first para still isn't in line with MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH - it should summarise the whole article, and not immediately go into a narrative. I'm not a fan of having such a long lead, as it's rather daunting to readers. I'd reiterate my comment below. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to do about this - the entire lead summarizes the list - there isn't much that can be cut at this point, and there's certainly no way to condense 50+ years of battleship programs into a single paragraph. The only thing I think that could be added to further define the scope of the article would be a line that gives a breakdown of how many pre-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, and fast battleships were built over the course of the time period (plus cancelled ships), as I did at List of battleships of France. Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, I'm still not supporting this nomination per the above (which I think is easy to fix) but I also have no opposition whatsoever to the article being promoted to A-class. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest turning the very long lead into a titled section ("Historical context" or similar perhaps?), with sub-sections - it's hard to navigate the current large quantity of text
  • This material should, at least briefly, put the start of the IJN battleship force into the context of the extraordinary transition Japan made in the late 19th century as it rapidly industrialised and established a strong central government with modern military forces, and then aggressively expanded overseas.
  • "Japan "was spending in 1921 32 per cent of her entire national revenue" - what's meant by "national revenue" here? Government tax receipts? It seems a hard-to-credit figure if it's a proportion of GDP.
  • I'd suggest noting the modernisation of the battleship force prior to 1941
  • Given that the Kongō-class battlecruisers were reclassified as fast battleships after being rebuilt, I'd suggest including them in this article
    • Sturm added a section on them (though I don't know if he's done with it)
      • Done.
  • As the introduction notes the performance of Japan's battleships in the Russo-Japanese War, I'd suggest adding a similar para on their performance during World War II
  • "She was badly neglected during the post-World War II Occupation of Japan " - she was actually partially dismantled under the terms of the Japanese surrender agreements (for instance, to remove her guns), and then neglected
  • I think there's too much detail on the post-Japanese history of Tango
  • "Due to the threat of American submarines and aircraft carriers" - weren't fuel shortages also part of the reason? Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy:, Nick's comments have been here for a month, maybe you've missed them? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm and I had talked some time ago - I thought he was working on a new intro and figured I wouldn't mess around with it in the mean time. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been distracted by volunteering for a music festival, which, not entirely incidentally lacks an article. Been reading up on notability criteria for music-related topics and trying to familiarize myself with good practices there. Nate, if you want to address all of Nick's comments that don't relate to the intro that would be fine, and I'll try and finish rewriting the intro today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those watching, we have a new intro put together. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Placeholder for now, will wait until the above are addressed before doing my review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll crack on, as I think Nick-D is just about done. I have a few comments, but I think it will take a while to get through them all due to the length of the list:

  • In the lead, "But tTo counter"
  • "convinced the IJN that its existing policynaval doctrine was untenable" if that is what is meant?
  • "adopted the doctrineapproach"
  • "The Imperial Japanese Army captured the portPort Arthur, along with the surviving..."
  • link pre-dreadnought battleship and introduce it in full
  • The propect
  • "to agree to the Washington Naval Treaty, which limited Japan"
  • perhaps explicitly state that the 3:5:5 ration was battleships, if that is correct
  • suggest it would be clearer if it was "and dominance of the government by the military,"
  • "and other ships had higher prioritiesy"
  • not related to here, but the infobox displacement on the Fuji article doesn't match the body and this list, and on the Yashima article neither the body or infobox displacement matches what is on this list
    • Fixed
  • the speed in the Fuji article infobox and the class one don't match the speed used here, and are you using "as designed" or sea trials maximum? Maybe clarify that in the Key?
  • Fixed
  • "and together with the battleship Mikasa sank the Russian battleship Oslyabya"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and was not damaged by Russian fire"
  • "sunk by the submarine USS Salmon"
  • "Ooccupation of Japan"
  • why the range for Tango's belt, given the others are just maximums?
  • "Sagami and Suwo were originally the"
  • not for this list, but the Retvizan one has mismatching displacements between the infobox and body
    • Fixed; where were you when the article was going through FAC?
  • not for this list, but the upper displacement range on the Katori class article doesn't match the Kashima article
    • Fixed
  • according to the class article, Satsuma's designed speed was 18.25 kn
    • Fixed
  • not for this list, but the infobox displacement in the Fusō-class battleship article doesn't match the body
    • Fixed
  • "in the early years of the war"→" in its early years" just to avoid repeating war
  • the Ise-class battleship article says the belt was 11.8 in
  • the Ise-class battleship article doesn't actually give the normal displacement in the body (it is in the infobox)?
    • 'Cause I haven't updated it in preparation for an ACR yet.
  • the Nagato class displacements are round the wrong way, and the speed was 26.5 kn
  • the Kongo speed as a fast battleship appears to have been 30.5 kn?
  • minor quibble, but the Design A-150 battleship article says 46 cm armor and this list says 457 mm
  • is there an ISBN or OCLC for Seagrave?
  • the sources all appear reliable and of high quality. I understand that combinedfleet.com has previously been ruled to be reliable.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly thorough review, many thanks for picking up on some many inconsistencies. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, looks pretty good to me. Just a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • seems inconsistent: "the United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" in the same paragraph
  • "armoured" but also "armor"
  • "File:Асахи.jpg": suggest cropping and adding an English description to the Commons description page
  • "File:Hizen-battleship-1.jpg": suggest cropping
  • are there page numbers for Lengerer's 1982 chapter in Roberts?
  • same as above for Lengerer's 2012 chapter in Jordan?
  • same as above for Itani's 1992 chapter in Gardiner
  • in the References section, it probably makes sense to add a subheading called Books for consistency
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) 02:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is an unusual article, which grew organically from humble beginnings. I overhauled it in 2017. It wasn't my intention that it could be a featured article someday, but in its current form I think that it might be. I'd like to draw your attention to the pic of Eisenhower laying the cornerstone for the AEC's headquarters in Germantown, Maryland. The AEC decided to relocate there so it would be safe when Washington, DC, was razed by an atomic blast. Somebody thought that it would be cool if Eisenhower laid the foundation stone with a trowel made from radioactive uranium that had been in the first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1. (With a wooden handle made from one of the benches at Stagg Field.) The Secret Service did not agree, so it is not the one he is using in the picture. Today the trowel is in the Smithsonian. [27] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

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

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, great article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all reliable and of high quality. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D

[edit]

Support This article is in great shape. I have only two minor comments:

  • "The British hydrogen bomb programme successfully tested a hydrogen bomb in the Operation Grapple test" - I'd suggest rewording to avoid repeating 'hydrogen bomb' and 'test' in the same sentence

Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, would you be willing to take a look at the image licensing on this one, please? It looks close to promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 18 August 2019 (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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Silesian Wars

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Bryanrutherford0 (talk)

Silesian Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the last in a series of four articles I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century, a top-level summary of the other three. The "Silesian Wars" are mainly a feature of German military historiography, since from other perspectives they seem to generally be thought of as theatres of wider wars (the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War), but they mark a watershed in German history, signalling the rise of Prussia to parity with Austria in German affairs. This article, along with the others in the series, was recently promoted to GA (after a helpful review by Peacemaker67), and the other three have recently undergone A-Class Reviews here, and I'd like to take this one further up the quality ladder with help from this project! Thanks for your help! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I reviewed at GAN, and tend towards a pretty detailed look there, so I haven't much to add. I only have a couple of comments:

  • the sources are of high quality and reliable. The issue of the age of Carlyle has been discussed in previous ACR's of this series, and I consider it has been accepted that it remains an important detailed source on the subject. Page numbers have now been provided, so I believe that just about wraps it up for the sources.
  • generally, I believe year ranges should be in full, per MOS:YEARRANGE
Thanks for pointing this out.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Realpolitik→realpolitik
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Maria Theresa's contested succession to the Habsburg Monarchy under the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 provided an opportunity"
Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. This is a great capstone for the series, and summarises it all very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for your efforts! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Optional: The infobox image. It may be my eyesight, but that "blue" looks green to me.
Huh! To my eye it clearly reads as blue, but GIMP agrees with you; there's more G than B in the pixels. Er, what if I changed it to "blue-green"? (The components are almost equal.)  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.
  • "considerations of Realpolitik and geostrategy played the leading role in provoking the war" Lower case r.
Ach, another one. Fixed!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frederick Augustus II, who ruled Poland in personal union" Should that be 'who ruled Poland in a personal union'?
I'm seeing both used in academic writing; when I Google "in union with" I get more hits than when I search for "in a union with", and most of the latter have to do with labor unions. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK
  • "King Frederick began secret peace negotiations with Maria Theresa; with British urging and mediation" That should be a comma, not a semi colon.
I guess you're saying that you think the semicolon should be moved to the end of "mediation", and I suppose I agree!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the allies were reluctant and uncooperative" This implies that all of the allies, including Prussia, were "reluctant and uncooperative". If this is not what is meant, can I suggest 'but his new allies were reluctant and uncooperative'.
Yes, it should clarify that Prussia's allies are meant.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or occupy the Prussian capital at Berlin" Should "at" not be 'of'?
Er, I think either would probably work? I would say that "at" emphasizes that Berlin is the location of the Prussian seat of government, whereas "of" more emphasizes that Berlin is the name of the Prussian capital, so I prefer the first, but the difference is pretty minor. If you feel strongly that it should be "of", then I'm okay with that. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. I definitely prefer "of", but certainly not enough to insist.
  • A minor stylistic point: a lot of victories seem to be "solid" or "decisive". To my eye they would be better unadorned, but if you differ, then so be it.
I agree that it's better not to overstate in such a matter; I think the only battles whose outcomes I call "decisive" are Pfaffenhofen (which completely ejected Bavaria form the conflict), Hohenfriedberg (which totally ended what was meant to be the triumphant Austrian counterattack into Silesia), Rossbach (which completely ejected France from the war), and Leuthen (which once again totally reversed control of Silesia). I would say that certainly Pfaffenhofen and Rossbach "decided" the outcome of the war for two particular belligerents, and Hohenfriedberg "decided" the outcome of the Second Silesian War. Leuthen was probably the least strategically "decisive" of the four (though not the least tactically dramatic), but note that the first paragraph of the (Featured-quality) article Battle of Leuthen calls that battle a "decisive defeat" for Austria. Given the sheer number of battles and engagements that took place in these wars, I don't think highlighting these four as particularly notable in determining the outcome is excessive. I've cut "solid" from the description of Soor, but I really think it fits for Liegnitz. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me, four "decisive victories" weakens their currency, but as you are clear that that is what you want and have a sound rationale, then OK.
  • "that proved very costly for both sides" very costly - how so? The casualty rates seem lower than those at several other battles mentioned.
I've cut "very".  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and made peace with Prussia with the Treaty of Saint Petersburg" "with" twice in three words; possibly change the second to 'by'?
Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a century until the Austro-Prussian War of 1866" A picky point, 'for a century until after the Austro-Prussian War of 1866'.
I like the exactitude!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I shall try to take that as a compliment :-) .
  • "Prussia's rise to the status of a new great power" Is "new" not redundant?
Fair point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a series of military, educational and administrative reforms, many carried further by Emperor Joseph II" Optional: It would be interesting to hear of the long-term effect, if any, of these reforms.
I need to get access to some more journal articles and add some content about the wider historical context and significance to the whole series of articles. I'm having trouble figuring out how to access Jstor through my local public library, but when I get that sorted I hope to expand on these sorts of things a bit! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you find out, do let me know. That lack is the bane of my Wiki-life.

An engaging and educational article, excellently written. I am jealous. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to offer your guidance on the series! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just picky points from me. Thanks for the prompt and thoughtful responses. I am toying with a Seven Years' War topic, I shall be happy if it turns out a third as good as your Silesian set. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up most of the maps
As noted previously, I don't think that this would be an improvement, but I'll bow to the judgment of the project if everyone thinks this. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an English-language title to the image file on Commons. I don't know the history of the physical painting, I'm afraid. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria, are there any outstanding licensing issues here in your view? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image has a tag indicating publication by 1924; unfortunately at this point we don't have any demonstrable proof of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, the reason we can feel confident that the painting was completed before 1924 is that the painter died in 1914, which the license on Commons clearly states. Are you saying you don't believe that Richard Knötel painted this work? I think it's likely that this work and some of the others by Röchling you've taken issue with were originally published around the time that the two of them collaborated on Der Alte Fritz in 50 Bildern für Jung und Alt, a children's illustrated history book that they published in 1895, if that more specific guess helps. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that the painting's authorship nor its creation date, but the licensing tag at issue refers to publication rather than creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this is a disqualifying issue, then could you be happy with File:Johann Christoph Frisch - Death of Field Marshal Schwerin.jpg, File:Battle of Leuthen 2.jpg, or even File:Schlacht von Leuthen.JPG (which is currently the infobox image in the Featured Article Battle of Leuthen)? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest the first of those. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • The Silesian Wars (German: Schlesische Kriege) Unlink German.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • leading state of Protestant Germany, while Catholic Austria's Unlink Catholic and Protestant because of common terms.
Fair enough.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Russia in conflict with Sweden; Bavaria and Saxony Unlink current countries.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austrian surprise and superior numbers.[35][33] Reorder the refs.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as the leading power of Protestant Germany Unlink Protestant because of common term.
 Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The region's border were thus confirmed You mean "was thus confirmed"?
Oops, switched to "borders were".  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me.

Thanks, again! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2019 (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, 18 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yuri Gagarin

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Coffeeandcrumbs (talk)

Yuri Gagarin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criterion for the class. The article has undergone a GA review which can be found at Talk:Yuri Gagarin/GA1. I have since expanded lead and continued to copy-edit the article. As most people know, Gagarin was the first human in space and a very important figure in world history. The article is viewed by over 1,000,000 readers each year and is likely to have a large spike in viewers around July 21. (It is indefinitely semi-protected.) I would like to have it seriously scrutinized by editors with experience in MILHIST. This article is written in a generic Commonwealth English which is not my native lect. I welcome criticism where my North American English has crept in. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

This is wonderful, Gagarin deserves an FA article so it's great to see you working towards it. I found it to be well-written, comprehensive, and an enjoyable read. I have a few comments that can be addressed or disregarded at leisure as none impede my enthusiastic support.

  • "The KGB's report declassified in March 2003 dismissed various conspiracy theories and instead indicated the actions of airbase personnel contributed to the crash." I think "declassified in March 2003" is a paranthetical expression and should be set out with commas.
  • "The bodies of Gagarin and Seryogin were cremated and their ashes were buried in the walls of the Kremlin." For efficiency, I think the second "were" could be omitted but it reads fine either way.
  • There's an unresolved template in the second paragraph of Medals and orders of merit.
  • I think German Democratic Republic should be wikilinked since not everyone nowadays will know it's East Germany.
  • I was surprised not to see anything about his stature, only because it seems like a lot has been made of it, but that's neither here nor there.
    • It was much ado in popular media but scholarly sources do not emphasize it. They point out that those considered for Vostok missions, including Valentina Tereshkova (GA review ongoing), were all short. This was because the Vostok capsule was tiny. Gagarin was chosen from among the 20+ candidates/6 trained cosmonauts for his other talents which I hope I made clear. I added a note about the height prerequisites and Gagarin's height. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people might raise an issue with reference 81 and ask if a different source could be found. However, per WP:RSP, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for its coverage on "general topics" of which this seems to be one, so I'd imagine it's fine.
    • Thank you for the review! I will work on the unresolved template and ref #81. The latter is attached to a more recent 2013 revelation not covered in my books. I have the latest biography on Gagarin coming to me via mail in couple of days and it should allow me to rewrite those few sentences. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Yuri_Gagarin_(1961)_-_Restoration.jpg: when/where was this first published and what is its status in the US?
    • First published in Helsinki, Finland in 1961. I am not sure how we determine status in the US. There is no evidence in searching newspapers.com that this photo was ever published in the U.S. immediately after its publication in Finland. Getty Images also brings up no results. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it was never published in the US its status will rely on restored or subsisting copyrights. My reading of that page is that it's non-free, but please review to see if I may have missed something. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am nowhere near an expert but according to c:PD-Finland50: In 1961, the protection period was 25 years from the year of first publication according to the §16 of the law of protection of photographs of 1961. Material already released to public domain according to the 1961 law remains in public domain, and therefore all photographs (but not photographic works of art) released before 1966 are in the public domain. (emphasis added) It became PD in Finland in 1986. Does that not mean it is also in PD in U.S. as well. Does URAA not apply in this can as well since the photo was in PD in Finland before January 1, 1996. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gagarin_Signature.svg: source link is dead. Same with File:RIAN_archive_615544_The_USSR_pilot-cosmonauts_Valentina_Tereshkova_and_Yuri_Gagarin.jpg, File:Gemini_4_Astronauts_Meet_Yuri_Gagarin.jpg
G'day Coffeeandcrumbs, just checking you've seen this. It is the only thing holding up promotion from what I can tell. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for help at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Yuri_Gagarin_(1961)_-_Restoration.jpg. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and Peacemaker67: Here is my thinking:
  • Photo was created in 1964 and published in 1964 in Finland and there is no evidence it was simultaneous published in the U.S.
  • According to Template:PD-Finland50, before 1991, "the protection period [in Finland] was 25 years from the year of first publication according to the §16 of the law of protection of photographs of 1961."
  • Therefore, the photograph became PD in Finland in 1989, before date of URAA (January 1, 1996).
  • QED: The photograph is PD in U.S. because it was already PD in its home country in January 1996 and therefore not restored by URAA.
So I added Template:PD-1996. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I would appreciate any acknowledgement or comments. Thank you! Regards. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Coffeeandcrumbs, thanks for your efforts on this very important article. I have the following suggestions for improvements: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey CC could you please explain me what this is including the Order of Georgi Dimitrov) on 24 May.[16][chronology citation needed]? Why is there a "chronology citation needed" template here? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I placed that chronology citation needed tag. I could not find a source for the date. I know the year (1961) but all the other merits in that paragraph have exact dates and not just the year. I don't know where 24 May came from but I have no reason to doubt it and also no way to verify it. I have sources that say he was in Bulgaria ca. 21–24 May 1961 and he did receive those medals that year. There is a little of sythensis there to get to claim that he received those medals on that exact date.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have commented out the unsourced date. It should be good now--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]
  • Is there any way to mention that the monuments that just have a bust of his head, like the image we have on the page from India, are all the same? The reason the Belgrade one looked weird is because they took that same bust and put it on a much larger pedestal.
  • Manned → crewed per WP:GNL (unless used in a name like Manned Spacecraft Center etc)
  • The decision on whether to alter the imagery of Gagarin leaving the aircraft with his shoes untied has been mentioned in every documentary I have watched; I think it deserves inclusion
    • This seems undue unless we expand this article significantly. In the two biography of Gagarin, Jenk's The Cosmonaut Who Couldn't Stop Smiling and Doran & Bizony's Starman each only have half a paragraph dedicated to this. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple things at a glance so far; hopefully can make time for a thorough review. Kees08 (Talk) 17:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Kees08, assuming Nikkimaria is happy with the image licensing, I'm going to list this for promotion shortly. Just letting you know, as you indicated you might take a closer look. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any issues if there is a consensus to promote; I would rather not hold up the promotion and just provide comments at FAC. Kees08 (Talk) 17:06, 11 August 2019 (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) 00:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

USS Oberrender

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

USS Oberrender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the first United States Navy article that I have brought up for A-class review, and holds the distinction of being the first article on a USN destroyer escort to make it to GA-class. Oberrender had a fairly active career as a destroyer escort in the Pacific during World War II, and could be said to have led a charmed life until Okinawa, where she was hit by a kamikaze which rendered her a constructive total loss. Kges1901 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in good shape. Good to see smaller ships getting a run. I have some comments, mainly additional wikification and MOS-related, but a few substantive things:

  • suggest linking keel laying, ceremonial ship launching, ship commissioning, convoy, escort carrier, anti-submarine warfare and target ship in the lead
  • Done
  • suggest decapping Invasion in the lead
  • Done
  • suggest adding the month she returned to service in the lead
  • Done
  • suggest "As a result, the destroyer escortshe"
  • Done
  • suggest linking destroyer escort again at first mention in the body
  • Done
  • suggest "The John C. Butler-class destroyer escorts were designed to meet a need for large numbers of cheap anti-submarine escort ships for ocean convoys, and as a result carried little anti-surface armament."
  • Done
  • "As a John C. Butler-class destroyer escort, Oberrender"
  • Done
  • if o/a, state that when giving her length in the body
  • Done
  • suggest turning lk=on for displacement so long tons are linked, as they are obscure for non-ship buffs
  • Done
  • suggest "OberrenderShe was propelled"
  • Rephrased differently to avoid repeating 'she' too much in the design section
  • suggest turning lk=on for the power, so kW is linked
  • Done
  • if the 5" guns were single mounts in gunshields, state this. Also state where they were positioned "one forward and one aft of the superstructure" if that is correct?
  • Done
  • where were the 40 mm Bofors mounted?
  • Done
  • suggest "also controlled by the Mark 51"
  • Done, rephrased to avoid confusion
  • suggest "built without the three" as is currently reads like it was a reduction rather than a complete absence of TTs
  • Done
  • suggest "Oberrender was equipped" or "The ship was equipped" in general, don't use "the destroyer escort", just alternate "she", "the ship" and Oberrender
  • Done
  • suggest linking keel laying
  • Done
  • consider linking Lieutenant commander (United States)
  • Done
  • "who captained the ship for the duration of her service"
  • Done
  • link fitting-out
  • Done
  • one of the Oberrender's isn't italicised
  • Done
  • link shakedown cruise
  • Done
  • suggest "For post-shakedown availability (repairs to correct deficiencies found during shakedown)"→"For repairs to correct deficiencies found during shakedown" and "for further repairs" availability meaning repairs is very jargonish and impenetrable for a layperson
  • Done
  • "with the destroyer escort Rall"
  • Done
  • "Alongside the destroyer escorts" and "Walter C. Wann, and LeRay Wilson"
  • Done
  • suggest "Oberrender was heavily damaged"
  • Done
  • "leaving the Oberrender"
  • Done
  • state Ulithi is in the Caroline Islands
  • Done
  • decap Invasion in Invasion of Okinawa
  • Done
  • link for Abercrombie?
  • Done
  • suggest putting "on 21 March" at the beginning of that sentence
  • Done
  • suggest Suesens→Richard W. Suesens
  • Done
  • suggest "On the night of 29 March her lookouts spotted a Japanese G4M Betty bomber, flying above the transports she was escorting for the night. This was Oberrender's first Japanese aircraft sighting of the campaign. She..."
  • Done
  • suggest "assumed control of the screen in the waters surrounding the island, including Oberrender on anti-submarine patrol."
  • Done
  • DE→destroyer escort
  • Done
  • "to escort the attack transport"
  • Done
  • Hagushi wan? Hagushi Bay?
  • Done
  • there are duplinks of San Pedro Bay (Philippines), Hedgehog, and Ulithi
  • Done
  • to flank speed for ten minutes
  • The second ten minutes was actually a typo, so removed.
  • what sort of ship was PCE(R)-855?
  • Added
  • Citation(s) needed for the footnote, as the main text may be modified
  • Done. Thanks for the review.

That's all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the diagrams/maps
  • Done.
  • File:USS_Oberrender_(DE-344)_off_Boston,_Massachusetts_(USA),_on_15_July_1944_(80-G-382879).jpg: why a Navy tag? The source site is not Navy-affiliated and credits the image to one of the site's photographers
  • For the Navsource photos marked as from the National Archives, the contributors column means the person who emailed it to the site, not the photographer/copyright holder. Images with the ID starting in 80-G from the National Archives are from the official photographical files of the United States Navy. Also, below it there is an image (on Navsource) stamped Official USN photograph that is from the same sequence. Kges1901 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected the source.

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, this looks pretty good to me. I reviewed this for GAN and see it has been improved further since then. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Bibliography, move the link for Friedman to the first mention
  • Done.
  • in the Bibliography some of the ISBNs are hyphenated, but some are not
  • Done
  • Rielly uses the citation template, but the other works use the cite book template -- this renders the citation differently (but only very slightly)
  • Converted to cite book
  • After picking up the a lone Japanese -- typo "the a"
  • Done
  • Thomas Oberrender's rank isn't mentioned in the body, but is in the lead
  • Done
  • Orange, Texas: consider a comma after "Texas"
  • Done
  • she went to Borgen Bay of Cape Gloucester --> "she went to Borgen Bay off Cape Gloucester"?
  • Done

Source review

[edit]
  • There's an awful amount of detail here since you're using primary sources for the ship's movements and assignments. I'd suggest summarizing a lot more of the detail.
  • I've trimmed some of the non-operational detail, but the article ought to give a better idea of what she was doing between December 1944 and the beginning of Okinawa, which DANFS covers in one sentence.
  • I'm not a fan of ribbon bars for ships, but this one is a problem since it's sourced to Navsource, which I don't believe to be RS.
  • Ribbon bars have been definitely displayed on ship's bridges since the 1980s at least (see battleships Iowa and Wisconsin for example), but since the Navy didn't figure out the campaigns until after she was out of service, on second thought I find this display anachronistic.
  • Cites and Bibliography are properly formatted.
  • Morison's a pretty old source and rather biased towards the US. In this context it might be OK since your cites of him are US-centric info. But can you find another more modern source that gives you same info?
  • The more modern sources that I've found cite Morison for the same info, so for the uncontroversial details in this article, I think it is unnecessary.
@Sturmvogel 66: Does that mean that it's good to go, or does it need another reviewer? (I only count two. so far.) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just for the source review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Kamikaze should be italicised.
  • Kamikaze is now a loanword into English and does not need to be italicized.
  • The class was part of an initial requirement You mean were part of?
  • Class is singular in this case so 'was' is the correct usage.
  • two twin 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft guns Add AA behind anti-aircraft.
  • Done
  • and ten 20 mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft cannon British plural cannon.
  • Done
  • the island, attached to the Atlantic Fleet.[7][2] Reorder the refs here.
  • Done
  • Sprague’s escort carriers to the Philippines for the invasion of Leyte Pipe the Philippines to the Second Philippine Republic.
  • That wouldn't work here because the Second Republic was the Japanese puppet government, but this usage is more about the Philippines in general, not the government.
  • Unlinked.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2019 (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) 23:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lionel Matthews

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Lionel Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Matthews is the second of the two George Cross recipients from South Australia that I'm moving towards FA. Matthews ran an underground network in the Japanese-run Sandakan POW camp in WWII, and when betrayed, he refused to give up his network. The Japanese executed him. I'm pretty sure it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

[edit]
  • In the lead, it is stated that Matthews was captured. I don't think this is quite right as it seems that he surrendered with the rest of the 8th Division. Perhaps better to say "at the surrender of Singapore he was captured and became a POW". Also recite POW in full?
  • In the early life section, he joins the militia twice (and its linked twice as well). Perhaps he resigned when he moved from Adelaide to Melbourne?
  • "With only two brigades, Bennett...": perhaps, for better context, it should be mentioned a little earlier in this section that the 8th Division was effectively two brigade division.
  • Some ranks aren't linked but perhaps it is a style thing? You seem to only link ranks when they directly pertain to Matthews.

Minor issues really, this article is looking good. Zawed (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Zawed, thanks for taking a look. All done I think? Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, am supporting now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, PM, this looks excellent to me. I have a couple of very minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a couple of duplicate links in the lead, but in the circumstances this makes sense to me (no action required)
  • there are no dab links (no action required)
  • ext links all seem to work (no action required)
  • "in Adelaide, South Australia and" --> comma after South Australia?
  • "guerillas" --> "guerrillas"?
  • "sponsored by the The" --> remove second "the"
  • in the References, the London Gazette is probably overlinked
  • do we know who established the fund to educate his son?
  • brother Geofrey commanded the 9th Infantry Battalion on Bougainville; might be worth a mention: [28][29][30]
  • images: licensing looks fine, except:
    • "File:Lionel Colin Matthews.jpg": probably needs a PD-AustraliaGov licence
    • "File:Matthews-VX24587-crop.jpg": same as above
  • sources: appear to be reliable and formatting looks consistent to me
  • a few of the images appear to lack alt text, it might makes sense to add this in: [31]
  • years of service: in the infobox it says 1939-1944, but the text indicates he served as early as 1930 AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian

[edit]

Up to your usual standard, PM -- just a couple of things:

  • Matthews transferred to the Royal Australian Naval Reserve and trained as a signalman, but after he moved to Melbourne, he transferred back to the Militia and was posted to the 3rd Division Signals in April 1939. -- I don't quite understand the chronology or cause-and-effect here: last I heard he was in Melbourne doing social work, then he's in the RANR, then he moves to Melbourne but it looks like he was already there...
  • The brigade was then committed to the Malayan Campaign... -- sorry, which of the two brigades mentioned in the previous sentence do we mean?

That's it really -- I have to admit to reading and copyediting at a pretty fast clip to find out what happened next in his story, so pls let me know any concerns. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Sent to Singapore with the rest of the division Link Singapore.
  • to growing concerns about war with Japan Pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan.
  • Link Malay Peninsula.
  • British north-eastern v. American southwest.
  • in the southwest Philippines, who assisted Australian Pipe Philippines to Japanese occupation of the Philippines.
  • Link Borneo.
  • maintain control of the cross road around Ayer Hitam You mean crossroad?
  • At the conclusion of the Malayan Campaign Remove "At the conclusion of" and replace it with "after".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5, all done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 17 August 2019 (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) 11:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lyon-class battleship

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

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

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

Toolbox

The Lyon-class battleships were the 1915 tranche of a French naval expansion program begun in 1912. Their design had not been finalized before the beginning of the First World War in August 1914 and their consequent cancellation. Parsecboy and I have recently overhauled this article in preparation for this review. As usual, we'd like for reviewers to check for any stray bits of BritEng, unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose in anticipation of a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Why is there no full load in the infobox?
    • We don't have the figure - it was probably never calculated given work on the ships never began (or if it was, the estimate hasn't survived)
  • Link kW.
    • Done
  • would have followed on 1 April 1915 I do not believe we should use here 1915.
    • Good catch
  • The primary alterations was that the upper strake of armor intended to protect the secondary armament was reduced from 160 millimeters (6.3 in) to 100 millimeters (3.9 in) to compensate for the additional armor below the waterline to better protect the hull against "diving" shells A long sentence without a comma maybe add at least one or split the sentence.
    • I split the sentence
  • The sources are appeared to be of high quality and reliable.

I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA! Parsecboy (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Kges1901

[edit]

Interesting article. Some comments:

Design

  • and settled on one of the two 34 cm proposals --> and one of the two 34 cm proposals was selected
    • Done
  • be modified to use --> to be modified to use
    • Done
  • (50 kg (110 lb) more than the existing shell) - Works better as a clause in itself with commas around it to avoid having parentheses next to each other
    • Good point
  • particularly for the army --> emphasizing the army
    • Done

Characteristics

  • Perhaps the range of the figures for the ship drafts can be given in the infobox for consistency?
    • Good idea
  • What type of displacement is the 29,600 metric t? Is it normal or full load, or is that not in the source?
    • Not in the source, unfortunately
  • Beginning before work Redundant beginning as you've got 'begun' in the same sentence
    • Fixed
  • hull of battleships --> hulls of battleships
    • Good catch
  • Does 'through the water' mean underwater?
    • Indeed - fixed
  • that could accurate through --> that could be accurate through
    • Fixed
  • The primary alterations --> The primary alteration
    • Fixed
  • 160 millimeters (6.3 in) to 100 millimeters (3.9 in) Can be condensed as you've done below with the graduated slope of the below-waterline hull thickness Kges1901 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All ok now. Supporting. Kges1901 (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: Not much from me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • no dabs, no dup links, ext links work (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text: [32]
  • the lead says the war broke out in August, but the body says July
  • the information in the infobox appears to be covered consistently in the body (no action required)
  • in the References, is there an ISSN or similar for the Journal of the United States Artillery?
  • another image would be great to break up the text of the Characteristics section if available (suggestion only)

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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Kapetron

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

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

Toolbox

The first well-known large-scale battle between the Byzantines (and their Georgian allies) and the Seljuk Turks. The battle itself was a decidedly mixed affair, while the overall campaign pointed at the deficiencies of the Byzantine military position against the Turks. The article has been recently written practically from scratch, and just passed a GA. I would like for it to eventually go to FA, so any comments or suggestions, above and beyond ACR requirements, are welcome. Constantine ✍ 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I looked at this for GA, and thought it a fine article.

  • Your paragraphs are quite short. The last two of "Battle" each consist of a single sentence; six others of two sentences.
    • Usually I get the opposite advice ;). The division into paragraphs is made by the aspect/phase of the battle described
  • "Byzantine–Georgian" should have a hyphen in the middle, not an en dash.
    • AFAIK, per MOS:ENDASH, it is correct. "Byzantine" is an adjective form, but not a combining form.
Yes, "Other uses (en dash only)" permits it. I am not sure that I agree in this case, but you are the author, so OK.
  • "till cock's crow" Quotes need to be cited, even in the lead. (Or you could paraphrase it.)
    • Paraphrased.
  • Infobox: "Byzantine tactical victory, Seljuk strategic success" A semi colon would work better than a comma.
    • Done.
  • "not informed until after they gave thanks to" Very optional: it may read better as 'not informed until after they had given thanks to'.
    • Done.
  • "a large number of Oghuz Turks arrived on the Byzantine borderlands in Armenia" Did they arrive in Armenia? Or would 'near' be better?
    • Clarified.
  • "thematic (provincial levies) troops" Should the bracketed section not be after "troops"?
    • Indeed, done.
  • "a difference of opinion on how to counter" Optional: "on → 'as to'.
    • Done.
  • "thematic (provincial levies) troops"; "standing professional (tagmatic) troops". The first uses the Byzantine expression with the English in brackets; the second the reverse. It would be better to be consistent.
    • Done.
  • "Kekaumenos' urgings to come to the town's aid". "come" → 'go'.
    • Done.
  • "Turkish detachments atrriving to fight"
    • Fixed and rephrased a bit.
  • "including large numbers of horses, flocks, and goods, including 8,000 coats of mail" "including ... including". Would it be possible to change one of those?
    • Done.
  • "and in the amount of plunder and captives seized". Delete "in". (It is a follow on from "in stressing ... ")
    • Done.
  • "bolster their credentials in their championing of Sunni orthodoxy" "their ... their". Maybe 'bolster their credentials as the champions of Sunni orthodoxy'?
    • Have rephrased the section considerably.
  • "The Seljuq ruler instead set Liparit free" I am not sure why you say "instead", given that the ransom was accepted.
    • Done.
  • Note b: "also of kouropalates as well" One of "also" or "as well" is redundant.
    • Done.
  • Note d: "a Black African champion" Lower case B.
    • Done.
  • Note d: You need to look to your formatting.
    • Done.

Great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Gog the Mild, much apprenticed as usual. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 16:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on. Having nominated several GAs from this period and region myself I can vouch that both the detail and the spirit of the article are true to what we know of the time and place. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria: Done Constantine ✍ 11:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape, but I must admit I know nothing about this period. I have a few comments:

  • in the first sentence, state where the battle occurred, including the modern locality
    • Done.
  • "although the latter encouraged these activitiesthe mass migration" if that is correct?
    • Rewritten to slightly different form; 'Activities' refers to the raiding first, which had settlement as its ultimate consequence.
  • is there a link for Byzantine Caucasus?
    • Not really, changed to "Byzantine provinces of Armenia".
  • Ibrahim Inal's invasion→Inal's invasion, per MOS:SURNAME, there are other examples
    • "Inal" is a sobriquet, not a surname. Changed to "Ibrahim" throughout instead.
  • suggest "The inhabitants successfully resisted for a while"
    • Done.
  • is there a link for Syriacs?
    • Done.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, thanks a lot for your time and suggestions. I assume from your remarks that the article was comprehensible, but if there is anything that was even remotely left unclear, please don't hesitate to point it out. Constantine ✍ 11:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All quite clear. Although my support is tempered by a lack of any knowledge about this era, I offer it regardless. A very well written article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Roebuck (1774)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk)

HMS Roebuck (1774) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... The article achieved GA in April and I am hoping it will eventually make FA. A peer review was requested last month where, among other things, it was suggested I nominate for ACR.

Roebuck was a two-deck fifth-rate ship of the Royal Navy, built specifically to operate in the shallow waters around America, where the British ships-of-the-line couldn't go. She served throughout the American Revolutionary War and took part in notable operations against Philadelphia and Charleston. Presumably because she was old and her type wasn't required during the French wars, she was after converted for use as a hospital and troop ship, taking part in the captures of Martinique and St Lucia in 1794. When war broke out with the Batavian Republic, Roebuck was part of the fleet sent to capture the Dutch Navy in the Vlieter roadstead. She served as guardship towards the end of her career and was eventually broken up in 1811.

Any and all feedback is welcome but I am usually lambasted for my prose so that could be a good starting point. Thanks Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Great to see this here. I reviewed at GAN, and it is in good shape, but I have some comments:

Lead
Body

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the thorough review. I've made most of the changes you've suggested but haven't been able to address your points about why the attacks in Narragansett Bay ended in April 1779, and how to differentiate between the Batavian Republic and Batavia in the Dutch East Indies. Do you have suggestions as to how I can better comply? Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good. Supporting. Well done on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:USS_Confederacy.jpg: why is this believed to be in the public domain?
    I'm assuming because it is a reproduction of the painting taken with a Nikon D90 by Kenneth G. Takada for the USN and they appear to have released it into the public domain. It is free to download here [[42]].--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For that file, the current tagging reflects the photograph - what is the copyright status of the original painting? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that Freedom of panorama in US copyright law doesn't extend to works of art as it does in the UK but the painting (and therefore presumably, the copyright) is owned by USN and if they choose to put a faithful reproduction of it into the public domain, how is that not acceptable? Just asking out of interest, I don't have an overwhelming desire to use it. As regards the date, it was published in this book [[43]] in 1974.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, this article looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Well yes indeed Ykraps, this is a British related article so we need to add pounds here too (as primary units). Cheers.
  • 18-pounder refers to 18 pounds. The 18-pound gun fired an 18-pound roundshot. Pounder is a fairly common noun used for something with a specified value in pounds.[[45]] If someone had a six-pound baby or caught a six-pound fish for example, one could refer to both as a six-pounder. Hope that clears things up.--Ykraps (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for your review. Can you take a look and make sure you're happy with the changes? I'm going away in a couple of days and would like to come to some agreement before then, if possible.--Ykraps (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of interest, I'm going to Belgium. :)--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh intresting, where in Belgium? In the Flemish, Waloon or Brussels region? This is also the first time I see someone on Wikipedia going to my home country. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will go to the Ardennes in a couple of days for two weeks. I hope you will have great time Bruges. Also be awere those West-Flemish are do have a weird and almost a vague dialect. As an Antwerpian I have a hard time to understand them, I could understand some of them but most of them I couldn't. But is it for work or for holiday? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the advice. I went camping in the Ardennes as a teenager. It is very beautiful as I remember. This isn't really appropriate use of this page but I am very happy to continue this conversation on a user talk page. Are we in accord with the pounds issue now?--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & suppot by Pendright

[edit]
  • HMS Roebuck was a 44-gun, fifth-rate ship of the Royal Navy which served in the American and French Revolutionary Wars.
  • By description, HMS Roebuck (1774) was a fifth-rate class warship; "a 44 gun" is a detail that seems unnecessary in the lede summary.
Done. Roebuck was a powerful fifth rate, right at the top end of her rating, so I thought it was worth adding. However, it is mentioned in the next section so I don't feel strongly about keeping it in the lede.--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper name of the ship is HMS Roebuck (1774) - add (1774).
I don't think 1774 is part of the name. There was never more than one Roebuck in service at any one time so there was no requirement to differentiate it from other Roebucks, and 1774 would not have adorned her like identification numbers are painted on modern ships. The launch date (or capture date) is just used to disambiguate her on Wikipedia and in books where multiple Roebucks are discussed. Nor does it appear to be the style.[[47]][[48]][[49]]--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unaddressed! Pendright (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so! But for the purposes of this article, 1774 (whatever called) is what distinguishes it from the other 13 ships (Google) of the Royal Navy that were named Roebuck. If you are still uncomfortable with the idea, the call is yours to make. Pendright (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I wasn't responding in any particular order and was still pondering these two points. I have now replied above.--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have rushed you. Pendright (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Designed in 1769 by Sir Thomas Slade to operate in the shallower waters of North America, she joined Lord Howe's squadron towards the end of 1775 and took part in operations against New York the following year, engaging the American gun batteries at Red Hook during the Battle of Long Island in August 1776, and forcing a passage up the Hudson River in October.
This sentence is about 64 words in length. Most style guides, including British, would likly see this as two sentences. Consider breaking it up.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the American Revolutionary War ended, in October 1783, Roebuck underwent repairs at Sheerness and was refitted as hospital ship.
  • Consdider removing the comma after ended; by doing so will complete the introductory phrase.
Done. That was one of a pair of parenthetical commas but the sentence makes sense as you've constructed it.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the indefinite article "a" before hospital ship.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was therefore at the front of the attack; leading the British squadron across the bar to engage Fort Moultrie and the American ships beyond.
Therefore is really unnecessary because it is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. If kept, it should be set-off by commas.
Comma added. She was at the front because she was the flagship and hence the therefore.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One comma won't do it! Enclose therefore with commas, or use none at all. You decide!
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... to which the Dutch surrendered in the Vlieter Incident, on 30 August.
Becaue the Vlieter Incident link indicates the date, it is probably not needed here.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the War of the Third Coalition broke out in May 1803, she was brought back into service as a guardship at Leith, flying the flags of Vice-Admiral Richard Rodney Bligh then Rear-Admiral James Vashon under whom she later transferred to Great Yarmouth.
Consider the word "and" between Bligh and then.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In March 1806, she became a receiving ship, and from some point in 1810, the flagship of Lord Gardner.
Three commas interrupts the flow of this sentence, when one would due. Consider this: In March 1806, she became a receiving ship and in 1810 the flagship of Lord Gardner.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Construction:

  • Roebuck was built with two rows of windows in the stern, giving the illusion of an extra deck but behind was a single-level cabin.
Consider the word "them" betweem behind and was.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When fully manned, Roebuck had a complement of 280.
Consider adding this after 280 - officers and enlisted men.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service:

  • On 9 October she was in action on the Hudson, with HMS Phoenix and HMS Tartar, where she destroyed two armed galleys and forced her way up the river, whilst engaging, on either side, the two forts Washington and Lee.
  • The proper name of the Hudson is the Hudson River.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consdier adding "of" between forts and Washington.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On hearing of the encounter Roebuck set off in pursuit of the American vessel but was unable to locate her.
On hearing of the encounter is an introductory phrase and needs a comma after encounter.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamond's familiarity with the local waters meant that Roebuck, which had hitherto been involved in operations in the Delaware River, ...
Consider "on" the Deleware River instead of in.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 1777, the British were planning to land an army at the head of the River Elk ...
The proper name of the river is the Elk River.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamond, offered to force a channel at Billing's Point if Howe could muster ...
Consider removing the comma after Hammond and placing it after point.
Done. Left over from a previous change to that sentence.[[50]]--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsuccessful attempts to take the Forts Mifflin and Mercer meant the British were subjected to heavy fire when they engaged the American flotilla at the Battle of Red Bank.
  • Place the word "at" after forts.
Mifflin and Mercer were the names of the forts and adding an "at" would, in my opinion, make them sound like locations.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge University dictionary defines "at" in this way: "in a particular place or position", I’ll leave the decision to you. Pendright (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The forts are named after persons, not locations. I could refer to them as "the forts at Red Bank" but I would need to reference their location in the previous paragraph. I'm happy to do that but I'm more worried about the clumsiness of introducing a second "Red Bank" into the same sentence: "Unsuccessful attempts to take the forts at Red Bank meant the six British vessels were subjected to heavy fire when they engaged the American flotilla at the Battle of Red Bank.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, these forts were named after people but they were also places settled by the military and people. The context of "Unsuccessful attempts to take the Forts Mifflin and Mercer …" seems to reference places. I think, as we say in the Western U.S., we’re kicking a dead horse so let’s move on. Pendright (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace the word were with "would be".
I think there is some confusion here. The fort which was carried by the two regiments from Chester was the fort at Billingsport (I've added a link to make this clearer). The two forts of Mifflin and Mercer weren't captured until November so the British vessels were subjected to heavy fire during the Battle of Red Bank in October.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I stand corrected! Pendright (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All comments addressed to this point. Pendright (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... blew up; after which Roebuck and the remaining force broke off the attack and returned to Billingsport.
Do you mean Billing's Point?
Done. I wasn't sure whether they were different locations, so faithfully copied the usage in the source. On rechecking, the source does actually say that Billing's Point is now called Billingsport so I've removed reference to the archaic name.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 1778, Roebuck was at Sandy Hook, near New York Bay and in August, she ...
  • Near New York Bay is not essential to the meaning of the sentence so it shoud be set-off by commas.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the comma after August?
Done. Left over from a previous incarnation of the sentence, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • France had entered the war in February that year and on 29 July, the French fleet from Toulon, commanded by Charles Hector, comte d'Estaing, arrived in Narragansett Bay and began attacking British positions on Conanicut and Goat Island the next day.
France entered the war on behalf of the Americans. A reader might assume this, but might it be better to say it.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 8 August, 4,000 French soldiers and sailors were landed to reinforce the 10,000 American troops who had just crossed from the mainland to lay siege to the British garrison on Rhode Island.
I wonder if Lay siege fits here, Consider replacing "lay siege to" with "attacked".
Done. Although, I think "lay siege to" is probably okay, given that the source says the garrison was "...hemmed in by vastly superior forces, by land and by sea".--Ykraps (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several days of manoeuvring in which both parties sought the weather gage were curtailed by a violent gale which scattered the fleets.
..."sought the weather gage" should probably be set-off by commas.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roebuck captured an American privateer in February 1779 before setting sail for Woolwich where she underwent a refit and had her hull sheathed in copper.
Consider a comma after 1779.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pause here: Pendright (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Roebuck returned to American waters by 5 December 1779, when she took the American privateer, Lady Washington.
  • Since the date is specific, would on be preferable to by?
Unfortunately sources don't say when she arrived in American waters. We only know she was there on or before 5 December because the capture of Lady Washington was recorded. Hence, "by".--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of took, Captured might be better understood.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the command of Admiral Marriot Arbuthnot, the ships left New York on 26 December and in January 1780, in need of repairs, called in at Savannah, captured by the British the previous month.
  • Since a specific date is used for the departure, it would seem consistent to use a specific date for the docking of repairs?
Again, sources don't give a precise date.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think a reader would be interested in knowing whether the need for repairs was minor or major; if major - what, to whom, and how long?
Yes, but again sources aren't specific. One source, which I'm unable to locate at the moment, infers that the damage was the result of an almost constant storm during the trip from New York so I imagine the repairs were to spars, sails and rigging.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Savannah worthy of linking?
I think so. Although it's clearly an important city in the US, I don't think it's well known outside.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From there, the convoy proceeded to the North Edisto River where the army disembarked on 10 February.
Consider adding the date the convoy got underway.
Another case of sources don't say, I'm afraid.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The troops marched the 30 miles (48 km) overland and occupied James Island while the ships sailed to the entrance and effected a blockade of Charleston harbour.
A comma after James Island will separate two complete thoughts.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of Roebuck's company were among the 450 seamen and marines later sent to lay siege to the town.
  • were should be changed to was.
This is an Engvar thing. In British English, are/were can be used with collective nouns.--Ykraps (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Thanks, good to know! Pendright (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is how the Cambridge University Dictionary defines siege: "the act of surrounding a place by an armed force in order to defeat those defending it"
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying the Siege of Charleston wasn't a siege?--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Nope! The point was raised this way only because the term lay siege, or the word “siege” is used two or three times. Though, my point could have been better made. If the circumstances fit the definition, then that should settle it. Pendright (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I have left that but removed some other references to siege, including one in the title. Hopefully that's helped with the repetiveness.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crew of Roebuck were awarded a share of the prize money for the frigates Boston and Providence.
The crew was awarded ...
As above.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamond was ordered to England with dispatches on 15 May 1780, ...
"with dispatches": unclear?
Dispatches are official reports. Do you think it's an uncommon word that needs further explanation?--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>It might depend on where one lives or where one is employed. For my part, I have the notion that mail or a person usually dispatches messages or reports. If you fell otherwise, let it stand. Pendright (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The message was received too late however and Romulus was thus alone ...
However is not essential to the meaning of the sentence - in which case it should be set-off by commas.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Roebuck was cruising with HMS Orpheus off the Delaware on 14 April 1781,
Looks like it should be Delaware Bay.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following month, Roebuck was with HMS Medea when she captured the 28-gun Protector near Sandy Hook.
If Medea participated in the capture,then it should be they and not she.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French Revolutionary Wars:

  • Dutch surrendered in the Vlieter roadstead, on 30 August 1799.
  • The definite article "the" should preceede Dutch.
Are we looking at different things? The sentence already says,"...and to which the Dutch surrendered in the Vlieter roadstead..."--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the comma after Vlieter roadstead?
Done. I think I was confused by which of the two preceeding events occured on that date.--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • French intervention in the Dutch Republic and subsequent exile of William V, Prince of Orange in January 1795, led to the formation of the French allied, Batavian Republic, upon which Britain immediately declared war.
The definite article "the" should preceede French.
Done. Although that makes it sound like a single event and not the constant meddling that it was.--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General:

  • Roebuck participated in the American Revolutionary War from 1775 until 1782. And it seems she never sustained any damages from enemy fire or by enemy forces; damaged only by a storm. Curiosity led me to a random Google search, which produced a source that says otherwise:
  • "In action on the-lower Hudson River, Roebuck was one of the three-ship squadron fired upon and badly damaged by the guns of Fort Washington on 9 October 1776."
Although I don't doubt that being subjected to fire from two forts would result in damage, my sources don't mention any. They do say that 9 were killed among the three ships, which doesn't sound catastrophic. Can you direct me to the source you've found?--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "at the capitulation of Charleston on 11 may 1780; Roebuck was again badly damaged heading the line past the guns of Fort Moultrie."
I think the phrase "exchanged heavy fire" infers there was damage on both sides but I've added a bit about the damage incurred to the British squadron as a whole. My sources don't indicate which ships were damaged in what way.--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Inference can suffice here, but showing both sides of an issue provides balance – which is my point. Pendright (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If, as you say, you are taking the article to the next level, consider these sugestions:
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request a copyedit.

Section headings:

  • Consider changing the section title of "Siege of Charleston", with something without the word siege.
Done. Is "operations against..." better?--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service in Delaware: Since Roebuck was a warship, naybe on the Delaware River, the Delaware Bay, or perhaps the Delaware waterway?
As less than half that paragraph refers to operations around Delaware, I've decided to change to "Blockade duty" as this was Roebuck's main role during this final period of the war. I hope that's an improvement.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Pendright (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: Thanks for undertaking such a comprehensive review, your comments have been most helpful. I think I've addressed all your points but if you feel there is anything outstanding, or you have further comments, please let me know.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: I’m pleased to support this nomination. Thank you for addressing all of my comments in such a pleasant manner. Good luck at the next level. Pendright (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Please change cites 2 and 3 to match the title used in the references.
  • References are from reputable publishers and authors and are high-quality RS
  • Refs and cites are properly formatted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2019 (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) 08:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Second Silesian War

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Bryanrutherford0 (talk)

Second Silesian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the second in a series of four articles I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. The "Silesian Wars" are mainly a feature of German military historiography, since from other perspectives they seem to generally be thought of as theatres of wider wars (the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War), but they mark a watershed in German history, signalling the rise of Prussia to parity with Austria in German affairs. This article, along with the others in the series, was recently promoted to GA (after a helpful review by Peacemaker67), and I'd like to take it further up the quality ladder with help from this project! I'm particularly interested in help getting it into European English (I'm an American and can't tell when I'm noticeably writing like one). Thanks for your help! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Given I reviewed at GAN, and I tend towards a detailed look there, I haven't got much new to comment on:

  • you can drop the citation in the lead, as the preceding info is covered by citations in the body
Got it.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be moving towards reducing the use of tertiary sources as you progress towards FAC, eg Britannica, esp if the content is available from secondary sources
Indeed, thanks for the guidance. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • War of the Austrian Succession is duplicate linked, as are Alsace, Elbe, Prague, and Third Silesian War. There is a script that will spot these for you, instructions for installing it are at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
Those should all be fixed. I'll try that tool!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • all the external links are good

That's all I have. Nicely done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "which confirmed Prussia's control of the region of Silesia." Optional: Add ', in eastern Germany' or ', in what is now western Poland'.
I agree that many readers will not be immediately clear about the location of "Silesia"; in these cases I'm usually inclined to let the wikilink to Silesia provide clarification if a reader wants it, but I guess I could see adding a little more context at this first instance. Do you think this detail should be added to the leads of all four articles in the series? I'd like to preserve the parallel style, if possible. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is decided, it probably should be standard across the articles. It is not a deal breaker at ACR. How about leaving as is in the lead, but explaining briefly where it is at first mention in the main article? Ie towards the end of the first paragraph.
I think it probably goes better in the lead; I'm adding a brief gloss to all four articles' leads.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me.
  • "in mid 1744, and it ended in a Prussian victory with the 1745 Treaty of Dresden" Suggest 'with the Treaty of Dresden in December 1745', to match "mid 1744" and to allow the lead to communicate a sense of the war's duration.
Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking "crown land".
Done.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even threatening Vienna" Suggest a preceding 'and'.
Good advice.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Austria conceded the majority of Silesia" I think that should be 'ceded', linked to cession.
Fair enough.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of linking ceded, as suggested above?
Ah, sorry; done!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in return for Prussia's neutrality in the continuing War of the Austrian Succession" Suggest deleting "of the Austrian Succession"; readers have probably remembered which war it is.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "King Frederick apprehended that" → 'King Frederick was apprehensive that'.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the invading Prussian army, numbering around 70,000 men" "numbering" is redundant.
I think I had structured the sentence that way in part to create a comma after "men" so that the reference could follow a punctuation mark, but I agree that it slows the flow of the sentence.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entered Bohemia in three parts" "parts" doesn't, IMO, work. Could you use another word? ('columns' would do nicely.)
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all three forces converged upon Prague by the beginning of September" "upon" → 'on'.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and gave up Bohemia for lost" "for lost" is redundant.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which they defended against Austrian incursions through the winter" Suggest 'which they defended through the winter against Austrian incursions'.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "signed 18 May in Leipzig" Could you insert 'on'?
Good point.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Austria prepared for a more determined invasion of Silesia" Optional: Is "determined" the best word here?
The point is that all through the winter Upper Silesia had been probed and harassed by Austrian light troops, but what occurred at this point was more of a proper "invasion", meant to take and hold territory, although Austrian troops had already been in a sense "invading" the region intermittently for months. I'm open to suggestions for an adjective that would better convey the distinct character of the "invasion" of spring 1745. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see your point. Leave it as is if you wish then. Or, possibly, 'large-scale'?
How about "...more forceful"?  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.
  • "agreed on a more offensive alliance against Prussia" Suggest either "a more" → 'another'; or explain just what was more offensive about it.
The contrast is with the earlier "Quadruple Alliance", which was (at least rhetorically) defensive in character and aimed at preserving the integrity of the Habsburg legacy against Hohenzollern depredations, whereas this new Austro-Saxon alliance spelled out both parties' hopes of actually gaining territory at Prussia's expense. I've attempted to clarify.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from multiple quarters toward Brandenburg" "quarters" → 'directions'.
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "once again sent envoys to Maria Theresa and Frederick Augustus II to make peace" A genuine question: Is that correct? Or would ' offering to make peace' be more accurate?
How about "...to propose peace"?  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very good.
Seem fair!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An impressive article. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for the informative article. One minor query above and then I would be happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the lead image and both maps
Do you mean doing something to the image files themselves on Commons, or do you mean displaying the images at a higher thumbnail resolution in the article? None of the images currently has a resolution specified, so they're showing up at whatever size you've set your images to default to; that seemed to me to be the safest policy in light of the wide range of display resolutions people might read the article with. I don't think there's much chance of a reader getting any real detail out of a map without blowing it up to fullscreen anyway, and scaling up the infobox image also widens the infobox and would make it no longer match the other images in the article. Do people here think the article would look better with only those three images set to a hardcoded resolution different from all the others? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do it with a hardcoded resolution, but with |upright= - this functionality respects the default image size setting, ie. if you've set your default to 240px and I've set mine to 260px |upright=1 would display at 240 for you and 260 for me. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Template:Infobox military conflict takes the parameter |upright=, and I'm not seeing another parameter that allows for that sort of image sizing; the parameter |image_size= just sets a pixel width for the image (and the parameter |width=, which sets the width of the entire infobox, is also set in pixels). As for the two maps, I don't personally think they would look better or be more useful if made slightly larger (and they would then stick out and not match the other images in the article, which I think would look sloppy), so if there's a size you think the |upright= parameter should be set to, you're going to have to tell me what value you think it ought to take. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. Commons says that the original work is at the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, but I wasn't able to find a reference to it on their website, which is quite sparse. The date would presumably be somewhere between roughly 1880 and 1920. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of narrowing that down with other sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not turning up any dated lists of Röchling's works in my searches; he doesn't seem to be very well documented. He co-illustrated a children's book of the life of Frederick the Great "in fifty images" around 1807, and it's possible that this image could have come from that work. I think the best I can do is narrow it to the time period during which this artist was alive and making historical military art. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. Could you indicate if there is anything outstanding from your perspective? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • (German: Zweiter Schlesischer Krieg) was a conflict Unlink German.
Er, the language template does that; wouldn't it be better to stick with a style consistent with other Wikipedia articles? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could use |links=no in the template but no worries I already did it for you.
Okay then!  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • region of Silesia (now in western Poland) Unlink Poland.
Haha okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • improved greatly in the continuing War of the Austrian Succession Link the war.
  • resurgent Austria from taking back Silesia Link Silesia.
Both are already linked at their first appearance (in the previous paragraph); I've previously been asked to remove all duplicate wikilinks. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI died in 1740 without Blue see here.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Can you clarify? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sea blue by MOS:SEAOFBLUE means try to avoid more than three links next to each other (same with red links). This is handy to not confuse the readers because they think it is one link even they're three links.
Alright, I've reworked the phrase a bit to turn it into two non-adjacent links,  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prussia, France, Spain, Bavaria and others Pipe Spain to the Bourbon Spain.
Good catch.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid seasons here.
A good point; I've pulled all the references to "summer", but the coming of winter was a pretty important factor in the structure of an early modern military campaign, so I really think those need to stay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Bavaria, Sweden, Hesse–Kassel and the Electoral Palatinate Unlink Sweden.
Er, why? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current countries' articles should be linked. However, if we're speaking about a past article like for an example the Kingdom of France that country should be linked. In this case, it would be Age of Liberty as its past article. If we use it then it will become MOS:EGG and that means we should let the readers know where the link goes so if you want Sweden and Age of Liberty then you could use "Liberty Sweden" here and pipe it to the Age of Liberty.
Okay, I've removed the wikilink.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • his forces back from southeastern Bohemia to face American southeastern.
Pardon my ignorance, but what's the European convention: "south eastern"? "south-eastern"? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on what we're talking about if it part of a noun then it should "south-eastern" if we're talking about the direction then it is "south eastern".
...So, which would you say applies here? In this phrase, southeastern refers to a direction as an adjective modifying a noun; does that mean that it's "talking about the direction" or "part of a noun"? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Bryanrutherford, It's part of the noun so it should be "south-eastern". Cheers
Haha okay,  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Austrian surprise and superior numbers.[37][34] Re-order ref in numerical order.
  • multiple directions toward Brandenburg.[37][34] Same as above.
Both  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • of Habsburg Bohemia in mid 1744, and it ended "Mid 1744" needs a hyphen.
I wasn't sure; sources say that both "mid " and "mid-" are standard usage in various cases (it's used both ways in WP:MoS), and I can't spot the pattern that decides which is better in a particular case. Since I don't hyphenate "early 1744" or "late 1744", it seemed most consistent to also neglect the hyphen in "mid 1744". Is there a reason you feel that it should be present in only that case? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

All the sources appear of high quality and reliable. The reliance on Carlyle was discussed at length at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Silesian War, by both Auntieruth55 and Factotem, and they seemed to be ok with it, but just pinging them to be sure. I will say that the lack of page numbers for Carlyle may be a stumbling block at FAC though due to the difficulty in verifying the material cited. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat the position stated in the First ACR: I'm not comfortable with the reliance on such an old source. I find it difficult to believe that there isn't more recent research, even in an area that is perhaps not well served specifically by English-language sources; this is, after all, the dawn of Prussian hegemony in Germany. But, I could not find any better myself, and defer to AuntieRuth's more informed opinion. Of more concern is the lack of page numbering, and I think this is an issue at ACR, not just FAC. I thought the nom had found a full scan of a 1901 print edition of Carlyle's biography with pagination on Google. Why isn't that being used? Factotem (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it will be quite a bit of work to change over all the Carlyle citations across all four articles. I'll start switching them all over now. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the first and this one, forthcoming for the third and the summary.  Done -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is good to go now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 4 August 2019 (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, 3 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

149th Armor Regiment

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): RightCowLeftCoast (talk)

149th Armor Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, I began to work on this article in February 2012, after 7 years of on and off effort nominated the article for elevation, and with the help of Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) the article was promoted. Now, on the way to a future FA Nomination, I would like to nominate this article for A-class review. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:149thArmorReg.png and File:149thArmorDUI.png: source links will not load
  • File:Manila_declared_open_city.jpg: source provided identifies this as a Japanese photograph, not one created by the US Army
  • File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg: the stamp mentioned in the note under the image description page does not appear on this image. Is any further information available on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: For the map size, would you suggest say 25% or 34% of page width for the map images?
I'd start with |upright=1.4 and see how that looks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the link would not open is that the Institute of Heraldry website has been down since July 2018
Is an archive link available? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a modification of the author field at Commons.
Okay, but the licensing tag is still US Army. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of the exact photographer of the image. Would this image be a better one?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The credited author of that image, the National Guard Education Foundation, is an independent non-profit, not a part of the US federal government. If the authorship is correct, the tag is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have implemented the upright sizing for the maps.
I have added an archive link for the DUI image at commons.
What would be the correct license tag? The image is taken from a book published by the United States Army, and thus why it might be why Cave cattum (talk · contribs) utilized that tag. Another possible license could be this one.
What was the date of the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nesnad (talk · contribs) uploaded the image File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg which appears to be from the Library of Congress. I have changed the license there.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not seeing the stamp on that image that would identify it as being part of the set covered by the instrument of gift. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As for the alternate image of File:40th in Watts.jpg, it is utilized at this website. If the image does not have a specific author, and I am not seeing a specific license for the 501c3 that is the National Guard Education Foundation.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I don't know the first known publication of the image, but the book itself was initially published in 1953. If the image was taken during the Japanese occupation of Manila, it would have been taken in December 1941.
The File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg file is the same one as seen at this website, which for the rights being discussed on this website. It does not appear to be restricted.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the five potential categories on the latter site: given that there are no visible stamps on the image AFAICT, that rules out categories 1 and 3. Of the remaining categories, one would be free, one would be unclear, and one would be non-free. On what basis are we determining it is free? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe that the opinion above is in error regarding File:Wattsriots-burningbuildings-loc.jpg. The image on Wikimedia commons is cropped from the original image. It is also listed as being in a collection that is nearly entirely in the public domain. Furthermore, even if it was a UPI photo, as stated in that most photos pre 1991 did not have their copyrights renewed. Therefore, we can AGF that the uploader of the image, Nesnad, believed that the image was up-loadable onto Wikimedia Commons and clear of copyright issues.
I'm quite willing to accept that the uploader honestly believed the image was clear of copyright issues; however, that doesn't mean the uploader was correct in that belief. The first link you provide confirms that this was a UPI image from 1965, and the second that "works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office". Nikkimaria (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As no further comment was made about the Open City image, is Nikkimaria of the opinion that it has no copyright issues?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The current tagging of that image is incorrect, but based on the information provided above the Japanese tag should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed any image relating to the Watts Riots, to resolve that issue regarding the correct license tag.
I have placed the Japanese license tag on the Open City image.
Is there anything else that needs to be resolved?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Interesting article. I have a few comments:

  • generally, per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, military units are titled at the final name, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names. Not sure whether that applies here. In this case, with so many names and three names for the unit on active service, I would have thought 149th Armored Regiment was the obvious title. Not sure about preemptively disambiguating the title with (United States), as the spelling of armor seems to be peculiar to the US.
  • state in the lead that the unit didn't see action in WWI.
  • also in the lead, "the unit converted from a cavalry into armor"
  • per WP:OTHERNAMES, significant alternative names should be bolded in the lead. To my eye, Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion and Company C of the 194th Tank Battalion are obvious contenders, given they relate to active service
  • how did Noble Eagle relate to Kosovo? I thought it was a domestic operation? The way the sentence is constructed indicates a link.
  • in the infobox, suggest Mexican Border War rather than just Border War, which is far too vague
  • link 40th Infantry Division (United States)
The link in lead is the first mention, in the sentence "The following year, Troop C was activated then reorganized and redesignated as Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion upon the United States' entry into World War I; as part of the 40th Division, the battalion deployed to France in 1918, and returned to the United States in 1919." I have included the link again, outside of the lead here, at its first mention in the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, generally link once in the lead and again at first mention in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the mention of the first soldier from Salinas to die seems overly detailed
  • "where it would spendspent" and "the machine gun battalion would bewas sent"
  • "mid-December 1918, the 40th Division"
  • link mobilization for demobilized
  • the "Renault light tanks" were almost certainly M1917 light tanks, which were a licence-built copy of the Renault FT
  • the bolding of Company C, 194th Tank Battalion in the body is not MOS-compliant. If this is an alternative name, it should be bolded in the lead
  • link Fort Lewis
  • suggest "assembled as an entire battalion"→"assembled as an entire unit" to avoid repetition
  • if Company B, 194th Tank Battalion went to Alaska, but Company C didn't, why does the infobox list the Aleutian Islands Campaign?
  • state that Fort Stotsenburg was in Angeles City
Change implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "armored-piercing"→"armor-piercing"
  • "The beginning of World War II" - WWII started in September 1939.
  • This is just factually wrong. WWII didn't begin in December 1941. I suggest something like "When the United States was drawn into World War II by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, Company C was..." You can't place the beginning of WWII into a US context, it was a world war, and had already been going for two years. You also shouldn't WP:EASTEREGG a link like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I remind the review of WP:CIVIL. This is the first time that the reviewer has made the suggestion for the specific working. I attempted to civilly explain the modification below, only to be met with intensity. If this was such a significant error in modification why is it that the re-write wasn't done by the reviewer? If I am making changes specifically as instructed how does this not make me a WP:MEATPUPPET in the context of this review/assessment?
I have implemented the changes as instructed.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am being civil, but this was counter-factual, and you seemed to insist it was right, so I was pointing that out and being firm about the need to fix it. I believe that making changes yourself is a much better way of learning that having the reviewer do it. You are always free to ignore or reject a reviewer's comments, but this needs to be balanced against receiving support for the promotion of the article, depending on how important the point(s) raised might be. A Milhist A-Class review is a collective effort to improve the article as much as possible so it meets the A-Class criteria. Milhist A-Class is very close to Featured, so you can expect close questioning about any concerns raised. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "United States Far East Air Force"
Modification implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • when he's introduced, he should be General Douglas MacArthur, after that he should just be MacArthur, per MOS:SURNAME
  • the sentence beginning "Assigned to the area east..." doesn't have a subject
  • suggest "The commanding general of the South Luzon Force, Brigadier General Albert M. Jones, heard from a motorcycle messenger from Company C on Christmas Day that the 1st Infantry Regiment had prematurely moved westward away from their position at Sampaloc. He then instructed them to engage the Japanese who had landed at Mauban."
  • suggest "He decided to conduct a reconnaissance himself using a halftrack from Company C, and they were engaged by a Japanese patrol north of the town of Piis. During the engagement the halftrack became immobilized in a ditch, however the crew was able to disperse the patrol allowing Jones and the crew to carry the halftrack's machine guns back to friendly lines." In general, once you have introduced someone, just use their surname after[[ that unless there are multiple people with the same surname.
  • suggest "For their actions, Jones recommended the crew members receive the Distinguished Service Cross; but by April 1946, when the recommendation was finally processed, the awards were downgraded to Silver Stars and only one of the five crew, Sergeant Leon Elliot, was still alive."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I have made most of the suggested changes above. See this group of diffs (which include a few edits by other users (AustralianRupert (talk · contribs), The Banner (talk · contribs), ). Due to the page move, some of the associated reviews of the article, including this one did not move over. therefore I have had to transclude it in the talk page.
Information about Martin Hopps was moved to the section "Popular media", as East of Eden is where the soldier is memorialized in literature.
The reason for the Aleutian Islands Campaign credit in the info box is due to a unit which was later amalgamated into the regiment which is the primary subject of the article, the national guard unit based out of Santa Cruz, California, had earned that streamer. This is explained by the national guard unit from Santa Cruz use to be Company F of the 159th Infantry (see this newspaper clipping), which participated in Battle of Attu (see page 1588, of this source.) In the 1990s that company was changed to the 149th.
Regarding the link to World War II, I modified to link to Pacific War. For the United States World War II began with the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and as such the sentence is appropriate in the context of this article. But to make it even more specific, I changed the link. As the Pacific War is part of World War II, the sentence is still correct.
United Sates Far East Air Force is a successor unit of the Far East Air Force and was not designated such until later on in the war (as stated in its article), and redirects to that article.
I will get to the suggestions below later. Apologies that I can't get to this sooner, but I am getting to it as time allows for more editing of Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have checked down to here, but my eyes are spinning, so I'll come back later. More points at the bottom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest either "The next day the 2nd Platoon" or "The next day the second platoon"
  • "a Filipino Major Rumbold" but then he is described as an American?
  • once Needham is introduced, he should just be Needham
  • "which had been prepared in anticipation of exactly the type of American action that was taking place due to the firefight the night before" doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps "Due to the firefight the night before, a roadblock had been prepared by the Japanese, consisting of antitank guns, artillery, and several machine guns. The Americans advanced as a column, and the lead tank, commanded by Needham..." also link anti-tank warfare for anti-tank guns and also link artillery
  • (SSG) is unneeded, as the only other mention of him is later, when it should just be "Morello"
  • "before his tank was disabled itself"
  • "thiswhich allowed Morello to gather the wounded"
  • suggest "With the wounded"→"Having collected them" to avoid repeating "wounded"
  • no comma after "Filipino guides"
  • lower case h for hospital
  • "they werehe was able to reach"
  • "For this Morello was awarded the Silver Star (in 1983)"→"In 1983, Morello was awarded the Silver Star for his actions;"
  • "part of a covering force coveringfor the division's withdrawal"
  • "which would rejoined the rest of the South Luzon Force"
Copy edit made.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Calumpit there was anwere important bridges"
  • "ensuring the path to the units defending the bridges" what does this mean?
  • "Compancy C"
  • "While there, they observinged empty trucks"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: The changes requested in this section can be seen with this diff. I attempted to clarify the path statement. Please let me know if that is still not clear.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the couple of things above, this section is good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest converting 12,000 gallons
  • "combat occurred for thate 194th"
  • "destroyed the bridge over the San Fernando" do you mean the Pampanga?
  • "they found themselvesthe 1st Provisional Tank Group conductinged"
  • "There they the held"
  • were the Philippine Constabulary officers killed?
  • "which lead to significant Japanese losses in the Tanaka Detachment unit"
  • "Tank Group weere formed"
  • "That was the was the final defensive line"
  • "which wereas worked on"
Copy edit implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which includinged the action which resultinged"
  • LTG in full, and who was he? ie commander of...
  • "to the Wwest"
  • "Initially, tTwo tanks were damaged by anti-tank mines during the initial attack"
  • "Yet after that initial setback" initial is being repeated and is unnecessary
  • suggest "beginning their withdrawal"→"pulling out" to avoid repeating withdraw/withdrawal
  • link mortar (weapon)
  • "the attack on the 7th April" or April 7, in general, go through and choose one method of applying dates, I suggest US style, ie April 7
  • "Major General Edward P. King" in general, use the first and surname when you introduce people
  • link Bataan Death March
  • I take it Zingheim was a Company C man?
  • drop the comma from "the soldiers of Company C, were"
  • the whole of the company were awarded the Bronze Star?
  • were these awards for their conduct during the fighting or for conduct during internment? Or both?
  • suggest combining the two sentences beginning "During a weekend drill..." as there is some repetition
  • " yearly annual"
  • say that Fort Ripley is in Minnesota
  • "As a result ofIn response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Operation Garden Plot was initiated, leading to the regiment returning to riot control duties in Los Angeles"
Change implemented.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3rd bBrigade"
  • "this resulted in the regiment consisted"? Not sure what is meant here
  • "transitioneding from the"
  • "In following year in May 1998"
  • link for Watsonville?

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I have made the changes requested above in this group of changes. The San Fernando River is separate from the Pampanga River (in some diffs I added potential references which could be used to create an article for it). The Constabulary Officers which were being utilized as human shields by the Japanese force behind them were killed. General Jonathan M, Wainwright IV was a Major General at the time when he is mentioned in this article, so I changed it to fit his rank (and command) at the time of mention. It is not stated why every soldier of Company C was awarded a Bronze Star Medal, but one can presume it was for actions during their combat experience and time in captivity; I also found another source stating that each solider of Company C also received a Purple Heart, I added the reference, and a quote stating exactly that.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK to here, but with a couple of tweaks above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Kosovo Force
  • say what Operation Noble Eagle is and link
  • how did the soldiers see action? as individual reinforcements to other armor units?
  • In Awards, each award needs a citation
  • all of the Lineage needs to be cited. If one or two sources do it, perhaps an introductory sentence with the citations should cover it
  • " SSG Morello's tank" as he has been introduced
  • "California National Guardsman who enjoys jazz" seems off-topic, as it doesn't seem to relate to this unit specifically
  • both the See also's are already linked in the article, so are unneeded.
The see also link isn't for 194th Tank Battalion, which is a redirect to the article which is being reviewed here. It is a link to 194th Armor Regiment (United States). It is a successor unit of 34th Tank Company of the Minnesota National Guard, which became A Company of the 194th Tank Battalion. (see this website, or this book, or this news article). So it makes sense to keep a link to them.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, how confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Here is the diffs with the changes requested in this final part. I separated the linking of Operation Noble Eagle with the separate activation for the Kosovo Force, and explained the Operation Noble Eagle activity. In addition I modified the citation style for the award and lineage section. As for the character portrayed by Arnaz, while he says that he is with the 192nd, he also says that he is a California National Guardsman. At the time there were only two California Army National Guard units that were OCONUS; the 251st Coastal Artillery which was on Oahu during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the other unit being Company C of 194th Tank Battalion. If it is the consensus of reviewers that it is not relevant to this article, it can be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67:Correction, Company C, 194th Tank Battalion was one of three California NG units that were OCONUS at the beginning of hostilities for the United States in World War II. I had previously mentioned the 251st, but I forgot to mention the 250th which was in Alaska; still Company C was the only California National Guard unit in the Philippines. Therefore the mention of the 192nd in the movie was surely a mistake, as the 192nd Tank Battalion was made up of units from Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and Kentucky. Thus, the character of PVT Ramirez, portrayed by Desi Arnaz is surely a California National Guardsman (as is stated in various sources), and thus a member of the 194th, a predecessor unit to the subject of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is close to OR, but at least a note to that effect is required. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note added.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now going through all my points, and checking no others have cropped up.

Here is the diff with the spelling correction.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have now checked the lot, a few outstanding points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just let me know when you're done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: All requested modifications appear to have been conducted. If there are any additional changed needed please instruct me what those are.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm happy now. Just for future ACR noms, I suggest you request a WP:GUILD c/e before nominating, to eliminate the minor spelling/grammar/MOS issues, and you don't need to ping me in every edit summary. Well done on this, it is a great article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, RightCow, interesting article. Nice work. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • unit served along the Mexico-United States border: suggest adding an endash instead of hyphen here
  • Following the September 11th attacks in 2001: suggest removing the ordinal suffix here for consistency with normal date format
  • "Company B of the 145th Machine Gun Battalion": --> "Company B, 145th Machine Gun Battalion"?
  • "Company C of the 194th Tank Battalion": --> "Company C, 194th Tank Battalion"?
  • As prisoners of war, soldiers: --> suggest introducing the POW abbreviation here
  • In 1946, the unit was inactivated, then redesignated as the 199th Tank Battalion; then in 1949, as the 149th Tank Battalion; then in 1959, as the 149th Armor Regiment: this seems a bit run-on. Is there a smoother way of saying this?
  • period the battalion was past of... --> "part of"
  • near ammo dumps at night: "ammo dumps" seems a bit informal, probably best to say "ammunition dumps"
  • regarding their peacekeeping role with Kosovo Force: was this in a mounted or dismounted role? Do we have any details about where they operated and dates they were overseas? Any casualties?
  • Manilla is overlinked in the Clark Field section; malaria is overlinked in the Surrender and occupation section; and Bataan Death March is ovelinked in the Legacy section
  • the tank crew of the immobilized tank... --> "the crew of the immobilized tank"
  • Technician fifth grade Eugene Zingheim --> "Technician Fifth Grade Eugene Zingheim" as it is a title in this case?
  • After that they were was the last... --> "They were the last..."
  • ...a part of the 65th Fires Brigade (United States): pipe the link here to display "65th Fires Brigade"
  • in the citations sometimes you display authors with surnames first (for instance "Rovere, Richard") but other times you don't (for example "Gary S. Breschini) -- this should probably be consistent
  • near Nogales, Arizona.[8][6]: suggest reordering the refs here so they are in numerical order
  • note a should be attributed in the text of the note before the citation
  • "340th Support Battalion" or "340th Brigade Support Battalion
  • probably best to link guidon
  • do we know what vehicles the unit operated in the immediate post war period? Currently, there seems to be a gap between the end of the war and 1989 with regards to the vehicle listing AustralianRupert (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I have made the changes that I could, please let me know if there are any that I missed.
Regarding the role that the Soldiers of the subject took in Kosovo Force (6A). I could not find any reliable sources which state what they did there, what specific dates they deployed or returned, whether they experienced any casualties, and whether they were mounted or dismounted. That said, I provided what reliable sources I could find about its time there.
Both "340th Support Battalion" & "340th Brigade Support Battalion" are used in reliable sources and official publications. For instance the lineage document utilized "Support Battalion", however a more recent army news article utilized "Brigade Support Battalion". If google hits mean anything "Brigade Support Battalion" is more common than "Support Battalion".
As for vehicles during the Cold War, I have not been able to find any reliable sources which state what vehicles are utilized. Unfortunately that leads to gaps in information, which I would like to fill, but don't have reliable sources to fill at this time. The California State Military Museum maintains a photo collection (149th) (199th) of the unit, which depicts M4 Shermans, M41 Walker Bulldogs, M48 Pattons. & M60 Pattons; if these images (without metadata) are reliable sources, perhaps they can be utilized to fill in that knowledge gap.
Guidance how to proceed would be appreciated.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, your changes look good to me, so I've added my support. (I made a minor tweak, though, which I'd ask you to check you are happy with). Regarding using the images as references -- in this case, I'd probably say it wouldn't be sufficient. As the images don't have description pages, and are just links straight to the raw image, there is no real content to cite, just the page header and file names which don't really provide dates or other information to verify. Have you tried maybe searching newspapers via ProQuest or some other database? That might have some sort of local news story about vehicle change overs, or parades etc that might be useful? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

G'day RightCowLeftCoast, can you click on the External links thingo in the toolbox above and fix the issues? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: sorry for the delay, I was busy in real life, which including holding a Wikipedia meetup. What items are you wanting fixed specifically? The dead links that became rot in the +5 years since the article was initially started? Or are is a more extensive modification of references requested?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The broken link at a minimum, but there is a lot of blue on that report which will need fixing before this goes to FAC, which is where I assume it is going. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed one deadlink reference which was redundant. The other deadlink reference is to an old Army report from 1996-1997 timeframe. I am trying to find a replacement now, but even if there isn't an online version, that is not to say that there is not an offline version in an archive within the federal government somewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to Kges1901 (talk · contribs) & CPA-5 (talk · contribs) in advance. I am but one person, and trying to get to each item as they come up, in the order I have received them. I am busy in real life, but will attempt to resolve the issues raised as soon as I have the time, and after I have fixed the external link issues which Sturmvogel 66 have informed me of.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to National Archives and Records Administration, and hope that Dominic (talk · contribs) might be able to assist in finding the deadlink reference being sought.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Damn this one is really long not only the article but the time to get A-class too. We need one more reviewer so I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • battalion deployed to France in 1918 Unlink France because of common term.
  • and returned to the United States in 1919 Same as above.
  • the battalion fought against Japanese forces Link Japanese to the Empire of Japan's article.
  • was deployed to the Philippines Link the Philippines with Commonwealth of the Philippines's article.
  • using Golden Gate Park as its base of operations.[8][6] Reorder the ref in numerical order.
  • In June 1916, the unit was activated for We do not need a "1916" here.
  • Withdrawal in Southern Luzon, Philippines in December 1941 in the File:Withdrawal South Dec 1941.jpg add "the" before "Philippines".
  • himself using a halftrack from Company C Halftrack needs a hyphen between half and track.
  • During the engagement the halftrack became Same as above.
  • the Mexican border, World War I was being fought Link World War I here.
  • Beginning in mid-December 1918 No need to use 1918 here.
  • crew to carry the halftrack's machine it is "half-track's".
  • In the File:Manila declared open city.jpg image, "Picture taken of an open city sign in front" --> "Picture was taken of an open city sign in front".
  • as an advance force of the main line Merge main line here.
  • additional combat which lead to significant You mean leads?
  • never shipped to the Philippines causing Link the Philippines with Commonwealth of the Philippines's article.
  • deploy overseas, during World War II Link WWII and unlink the second one in the body.
  • The page number in ref 33 should be "151–172".
  • the rest of the battalion on 12 December 1941 Remove the unnecessary 1941.
  • On 23 December 1941, with the advances Same as above.
  • Most US related articles use the month/day/year instead of day/month/year system.
  • into World War II by the Japanese Link Japanese to the Empire of Japan's article.
  • unit fighting a delaying action.[c][85] Switch the note and the ref here.
  • Don't forget that a pdf should have page numbers in the sources.
  • Some ISBNs have hyphens other don't maybe we should standardise the ISBNs here.
  • Standardise two-digit or four-digit numbers in the infobox. I think we can use two-digit because we have limited space here.
  • Philippines --> Philippines campaign in the infobox.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: I have made most of the changes requested above. Where the pdf references have multiple enumerated pages, and which are not articles in journals, I have attempted to add specific pages. I am not changing the date format per WP:MILDATE & WP:MILFORMAT. I have changed the ISBN format as requested, as well as modified the infobox, while keeping the four year format.
Please let me know what else I can do to improve the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Kges1901

[edit]
  • The article should mention that the 149th Armor/149th Armored was a parent regiment under the Combat Arms Regimental System from 1959 and the United States Army Regimental System from 1989, to avoid giving the impression that it was a traditional regiment. As a parent regiment, it didn't have a traditional 3-battalion structure, with regimental headquarters being set at zero strength. According to the 340th Spt Bn's lineage, cited in the article, only the 1st Bn of the 149th was active from 1968; this needs to be clarified to avoid giving the impression that it was a traditional regiment to readers not familiar with the CARS and USARS systems.

194th Tank Battalion

  • Is there any information pertaining to the summer training of the 40th Tank Co during the interwar period in your sources? The 40th Tank Co period would work better under a separate 'Between the wars' section instead of the 194th section
  • Since only Company C of the 149th is part of the lineage of the 194th, and since Company A of the 192nd is continued by the 194th Armor of the Minnesota ARNG, the 194th should probably have a separate article. Overall though, you've done a good job focusing only on Co C, 194th instead of the entire unit.

Post-World War II

  • Both in the infobox and in this section you should mention what tanks the unit was equipped with postwar. For example, in 1962 they had M48 Pattons.
  • Annual training locations should be mentioned in this section
  • I recommend that you delve into the California Adjutant General's Reports from this period so that more detail can be found, such as home stations of units other than the 1st Battalion (whose HQ was at Salinas until 1996, I presume?)
  • and then elevated to a parent regiment within the Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS) in 1959 - Clarify the impact of CARS on the 149th Tank Bn - that it was consolidated with the 170th AAA Battalion and that both the 1st Medium Tank Bn and 2nd Reconnaissance Squadron existed
  • The National Guard restructuring of the 1960s and its impact on the 149th should be mentioned, specifically the 1963 and 1968 reorganizations and the brief existence of 4th Battalion
  • detached from the 49th - Article should mention that Robert McNamara's elimination of several National Guard divisions resulted in the 49th being inactivated, and thus the 1-149th becoming a nondivisional unit. In addition, the fate of the 1st and 4th Battalions as a result of the 1968 reorganization should be clarified.
  • After 1968, when the article says 'the regiment', what is really meant is the 1st Battalion as the 1st Battalion was the only active unit assigned to the 149th
  • one of these sent the regiment's third battalion to Camp Ripley, Minnesota, for winter training in 1982 - The 149th Armor had only 1st Bn active from 1968 according to the lineage.
  • Did anything noteworthy happen during the deployment in response to the 1992 LA riots?
  • regiment saw an increase in its size - 'regiment' should be changed to 'battalion' and increase in size needs to be more specific - was it an expansion from three to four lettered companies?
  • M60A3 to the M1IP - M1IP should be 'M1IP Abrams'
  • providing security at potential targets and airports in the United States, in 2003 Presumably airports and potential targets in CA?
  • Is there more information available on what exactly it did during the KFOR deployment? Was this a deployment of the entire battalion, as ref 67 claims that 80 soldiers went to Iraq?
  • On the redesignation to the 340th BSB, it should be noted that the 149th's lineage consolidated with the 340th Support Battalion's and thus the current 340th BSB perpetuates the 149th.
  • regiment being disbanded, and redesignated Disbanded has a technical lineage meaning that did not happen in this case.

Source review

  • Sources are reliable for the subject. However, many of the page ranges in the rp format are too long to be easily verifiable; one should not have to go through an entire chapter to verify references. This concern applies at least to refs 8, 20, 33, 54 and 57.

Kges1901 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901: I have attempted to make the changes requested above.
I have made use of the notes more to provide documentation of most of the unit reorganizations, as well as the note about the reasoning behind the 1960s reorganizations.
I do not have any specific event information regarding the 1992 riot response, or the unit's actions in Kosovo.
Where is the information about 80 going to Iraq as part of the unit stated; I did not find it in the references, and to the best of my knowledge ( at this time) most of the unit's Soldiers saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through them previously being in other units, but not the unit itself.
As for where the unit served during its activation during Noble Eagle, I have not found any references to give exact sites where security was provided.
I still need to go through the Hathi Trust documents to see if I can expand the article any further with what is there.
I have attempted to reduce down some of the citation page lengths in the rp templates. If there are others which can be further reduced, please let me know and I will endeavor to find more specific page numbers; except for "[55]:432–437" because the events from 4-7 April on Trail 29 are interspersed with mentions of events happening for other units during this time period, thus the reason for the longer page range.
--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see it

    The 149th has about 250 active soldiers, about 80 of whom returned from Iraq on Feb. 10, said Master Sgt. Leonard Formosa. Another 100 soldiers are stationed in Kosovo on a peace-keeping mission with NATO.

    — Stahl, 2005
That said I am not seeing any corroborating reliable sources, and the unit was not given credit for the deployment. I can include a note about it, and the deployment likely would have occurred in the 2004 time frame given that they returned in February 2005.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be possible that these 80 were attached to 81st Armored Brigade (which included 1/185th AR during the deployment (another CANG unit)), which deployed as part of OIF II (sources: FAS, HSDL.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901: OK found a non-reliable source which verifies the speculation, but insufficiently for the purposes of Wikipedia. This forum post, which drew from a now deadlink source from the California National Guard website, indicates that Company A (from Madera) did attach to 1/185th during its deployment to OIF II.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:44, 2 August 2019 (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/George Gosse Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Calais (1349) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Gaulois Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Settepozzi Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Bill Kibby Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/23rd (Northumbrian) Division Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Iéna Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United States Zouave Cadets Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Elliot See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese battleship Yashima Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Douglas Albert Munro Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Peter Badcoe Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Silesian War Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Bulwark (1899) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Mallow (K81) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship France Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Sluys Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Inter-Allied Women's Conference Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rhine Campaign of 1795 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Nymphe (1863) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Cape Ecnomus Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Gildroy Grant Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Kharistan Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Albona-class minelayer Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Project Excalibur Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Ramillies (07) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Calais (1346–1347) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Leak Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/William Hardham Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Normandie-class battleship Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Carlos Castillo Armas Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Andrassos Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Friedrich Carl Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Roy Inwood Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Lukaya Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Jauréguiberry Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav torpedo boat T8 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wittelsbach-class battleship Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/David Scott Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Blanchetaque Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Braunschweig-class battleship Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Petroe Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of screw corvettes of Germany Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Caen (1346) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation PBFortune Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Obviate Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Samuel Forsyth Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Masaka Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Jean Bart (1911) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Park Woods Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Midland Railway War Memorial Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bergerac Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Jacobite rising of 1745 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Milorad Petrović Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United Nations Command-Rear Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Bretagne Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Michael Collins (astronaut) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Southampton Cenotaph Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Buzz Aldrin Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mary Bell (aviator) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Entebbe Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Soviet cruiser Marshal Voroshilov Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Hulao Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Aiguillon Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gascon campaign of 1345 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German torpedo boat Albatros Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arch of Remembrance Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Samuel Frickleton Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fall of Kampala Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Vrbanja Bridge Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Azaz (1030)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2019/Promoted&oldid=933256184"