Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60

AutoCheck report for January

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Book Review re WWI/Gallipoli Campaign

I have a book review of a new New Zealand Defence Force book on the NZEF in the Gallipoli Campaign, irf someone wants to consider it Hugo999 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

G'day Hugo999, @Nick-D and Ian Rose: would be happy to look at it for a future issue of The Bugle if you can link to it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see my Sandbox page for book review. Hugo999 (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D and Ian Rose: can this be archived? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that we might have missed this one. @Hugo999: Sorry about this! Could you please post a direct link to the review? Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D, I think the book is this one. A review is here (on page 8) and news items about the book are here and here. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It looks like Hugo999 (talk · contribs) wrote a review which we missed. I can't see it at User:Hugo999/Sandbox Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Odd, that Sandbox page hasn't been edited since 2014. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Zawed and Nick-D: - I'm a little late to the party, but the book review seems to be at User:Hugo999/sandbox#Book_Review. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, I've just posted this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2021/Book reviews - @Hugo999: Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for February

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment. If you have a few free minutes, please check the assessment, strike it once done, and note the rating alongside the article if you have downgraded it from B:

* Chief of Staff of the French Army Start class. Uncited paragraphs and missing detail. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

MilHistBot (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Joining

Can I join this project? TheDeterminedDev (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)TheDeterminedDev

@TheDeterminedDev: - Yes! Add your name here, in alphabetical order. Hog Farm Talk 14:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mongol invasions of Vietnam

Would appreciate some thoughts on this ACR. The nominator has simultaneously listed it at GAN, ACR and FAC. The referencing is well short of what we would expect for ACR, I've suggested closing the ACR and allowing just the GAN to happen. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is even approaching GA at present, and have left a note on the nominator's talk page to that effect, suggesting a PR first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Given the circumstances and the quick racking up of opposes, I boldly failed the nomination, the bot should handle it. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , if anyone disagrees with this, just revert this and give me a slap with the old trout. Hog Farm Bacon 15:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Peacemaker - a peer review would be the best option at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and doing a quick fail of the GA nomination as well. I've left a note on the assessment page encouraging the nominator to go to Peer Review with this. Zawed (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Awards

@WP:MILHIST coordinators:  : seeing as it's now very late in November, I've gone ahead and added sections for the end-of the year awards to the milhist talk, pasting the text from last year and changing dates to fit. If that was out of place or I made mistakes (as I may have), don't hesitate to revert/edit/berate me. Hopefully I did everything correctly without stepping on anyone's (virtual) toes. -- Eddie891 Talk Work 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Eddie, I was going to do that tomorrow. Appreciated. I’ll take a look in a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Peacemaker67. Is it customary to send a mass message alerting people to the award timeline? Eddie891 Talk Work 18:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Eddie, yes it is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, sorry for not seeing this until now-- I'm not familiar with the procedure for sending out mass messages-- do you think you could handle that? It might make sense to extend the nomination period to 20 December. Apologies again-- Eddie891 Talk Work 02:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
No, that's fine mate. I'll do that now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Remaining batch list for February 2021

Relisting the unchecked ones here, so they stand out better than in the mostly-checked list above.

Should be 20, if I counted correctly. Hog Farm Talk 23:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Voronezh–Kharkov Offensive

Dates are inconsistent. March 3 and March 14 on same page.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Voronezh%E2%80%93Kharkov_Offensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:4081:7210:65F0:A0D:53D5:52E5 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Nostalgy question

  • @WP:MILHIST coordinators: It's still nine days left before our new team would be organised and the new terms would start. As always it's the time of the year we add the new team in the Coordinators timeline. However I've been passing by and reading to the past elections and one of them is an intresting one. In the 2010 elections (which is already ten years ago and was the first election we started to use one-year terms) the election got a tie between Parsecboy and AustralianRupert with both having 46 supports. However by the Coordinators timeline only Parsecboy became coord lead which raises the questions is there a reason why AR wasn't coord lead? Or if he was coord lead together with PB why wasn't he added in the timeline? This might be interesting to ask; I hope the back then coords like Tom and Ian can help us. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Another MilHist year rolls around

G'day @WP:MILHIST coordinators: as Peacemaker is on holiday and enjoying themselves - this is despite my pointing out a guideline depreciating such behaviour - Harrias has tidied up the election pages and I have handed out the stars and updated the coord page and the @MILHIST ping. If I have broken anything, could someone leave a loaded revolver and a bottle of whisky in my room; if I haven't, perhaps someone could do the business with my stars. Welcome to the new coords and welcome back to those who were re-elected. Here's to a great year! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've done the latter. Thanks, Gog the Mild. Hog Farm Bacon 17:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild I believe that Ian is now a coord emeritus? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
He is, yes. I am trying to find a volunteer for the traditional human sacrifice, and researching deep in the MilHist archives as to the correct procedures. I shall get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Gratz on another successful election. The table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators needs a new row. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Dank, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Last day

Hey everyone, since I'm still a coord until tomorrow per the Co-ordinators' timeline. Just wanna say thanks to my (former) fellow coords to leading me the way to becoming a coord. I admit I haven't done my coord duties that much mostly because I've reviewed most ARC to close them. I know a little bit ironically but still I've kept those sweet ARCs rolling.

I've started with my first term as an inexperienced coord and of course, we need to recruit inexperienced coords to keep the households rolling. If I could be honest my first term was stressful and hard to deal; I've sometimes felt side-lined with the other people. Why you may ask? Because I'm a reviewer and am not in a financial situation to buy the sources to expand my favourite topics. My goal is to improve MilHist and promote one day my first FA; but again that's a goal and not a plan. If I somehow can search for my books then I still the motivation to do so. Some of you know I'm pretty much a pessimist and an attack or negative incident could shut down myself from both online as off. Some could say I'm depressed and that's one of the things which holds me back. An example is my English; I hate it. I'm not near to the level of a native speaker. Anyway, in that year I've worked with great coords from the big chief PM to the lesser coords. I am happy that our bot is doing more than we've asked in the last few terms. I hope, it will make you all easier in the future, and I also hope the new team would find out how to organise a new backlog since the bot has taken the jobs of the regular backlogs. I'm happy to serve this project and it was an honour to work with you guys.

Since the past two months were the harsh of my term. Because of real-life stuff I first got a shutdown and later took some weeks off on holiday in Mother Nature. Which is really great I highly recommend people to do so. Anyway since real life isn't that positive at the moment I wouldn't be that much active for some time. That's one of the reasons why I'm not nominating myself (even though I wanted) and am happy to see some new coords. Anyway that's everything I believe so I'll be back around begin October maybe sooner or later. If I've time then I'll be online but as far as I'm considering I am sadly not gonna review or work on future projects in the coming weeks or even months. Anyway this isn't a farewell but it feels like it is. I hope some will know the feeling I am bearing today and I wish the team much luck. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

CPA-5, thanks for the message and for your contributions to the project. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing you all the best for the future and hopefully we will see you back here soon. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your coord contributions (and reviewing efforts) in the last year, CPA-5! And all the best with the RW challenges. Looking forward to seeing you back here when you can. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi CPA-5, it is good to hear that we are still in your thoughts and that you will be popping back in occasionally. Your contributions have been extensive: many of "my" articles have greatly benefitted from your detailed and knowledgeable reviews, and they are not the only ones. I have come to suspect that Wikipedia is an enterprise which is truly greater than the sum of its parts, and you have more than pulled your weight in contributing to that. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I've always looked with interest at your reviews, CPA, and will miss your contributions. Thanks also for your time as a coord, I hope all goes well for you and we see you back before long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Best wishes. Your contributions, both as reviewer and coordinator are greatly appreciated. Take care. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @CPA-5: It's been a difficult year for a lot of people, so I wish you the best. As for seeking to promote an FA, having reviewed some of your work I have complete confidence that you are able to accomplish this. What you did with Bakassi conflict is evidence of this. If you ever want to collaborate on an African milhist project let me know. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I likewise give my respects on stepping down as coord to the new elected coordinators. I wish you good luck in performing your duties. Векочел (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Векочел, appreciated. I am sure that our many paths will frequently pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Military History Writers' Contest

I have wrapped up most of the September contest's details. If someone would check my points tally and issue the second place award we are done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Awarded. What do we need to do with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#July to September 2020 reviewing tallies? Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
G'day Harrias, all you have to do is change |status = nominated to |status = approved on all the entries (except for your own), and ask one of the other coords to approve yours, then the bot will hand out the gongs when it runs. And put a brief summary in The Bugle for October (see the July one for an example). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A-Class Reviewing Drive?

Feel free to send me to Leavenworth if this is stupid, but what does the idea of trying to organize say a month-long A-Class reviewing drive at some point in the future? MILHIST A-Class is pretty much the only reviewing level exclusive to this project, so it makes sense to me to especially push that reviewing level in the project. Don't know if this has been tried before, or if anyone else actually sees a need or not, but just thought I'd throw that out there. Hog Farm Bacon 20:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Could be a good idea-- esp now that we have tackled most of the drive-able functions with the bot. People (me) also threw around the idea of a destubathon at some point, but I don't know if anything ever became of that. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think since the bot got most of the tagging and such, reviewing may be something to try to coordinate. A destubathon would be a worthy task, too. I guess see what there's any interest in. Hog Farm Bacon 21:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
One thing I could do is have the Bot re-examine our Stub articles and re-classify ones that are no longer stubs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Now there's a good idea! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
yes, please do! That’s a great idea. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm assuming you know how to pull that off, Hawkeye, and I also agree that that would be a good idea. From my experience, the project class isn't updated when an article is worked on very often. A couple years ago, I had to take a coding class for my university. I accidentally created an endless loop and crashed the system. Hog Farm Bacon 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course I know how to do it! In fact, I already have instructed the MilHistBot on how to do it. But since there are 51,000 stubs, it might be best to file a WP:BRFA. When I was an undergraduate (last century), the Science Department decided in their wisdom that computers would be everywhere by 2020, so it would be a great idea if all Science student completed CompSci 101. I thought it was fun but many of my classmates thought it was sadistic. The idea was abandoned a few years later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
That is a good idea. When do you think we should run it, Hog Farm? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 - As by far the least experienced coord, I'll defer to others' judgments on this, but I wonder if November or January would be a good time. I'd say December's probably a bad time to run something, as there's probably gonna be a lot of people busy with Christmas and other such holidays. Hog Farm Bacon 23:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
(new coord's opinion) I like the idea of January, sort-of cleaning out the old year's lingering nominations? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Generally we have steered away from scheduling drives during exam periods for uni students in either hemisphere, and from "busy periods" like the Christmas holidays and the election month, but any other time is good. Of course, any time works for me, so I tend to defer to the younger editors who may have preferred months to avoid. Maybe not November, as that is exam time in Australia. January would work AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Works for me. I'm one of those university students with exams, and yeah, November's gonna be weird (exams got moved from December to November due to COVID). Hog Farm Bacon 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, if you are keen, why don't you start working on a drive page using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2020 as a rough guide? Happy to give you a steer as you go as needed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll start working on it over the next couple days (I've got time). If I manage to screw it up any, feel free to rewrite it. Hog Farm Bacon 00:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • CPA-5 True. If we're gonna run March Madness again, that rules out both that month and the preceding, because running two in a row is liable to lead to reviewer burnout. So we're probably gonna have to bit the bullet and either pick a subpar month or scrap it or push it off for quite a while. Hog Farm Bacon 15:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the need for March Madness is much reduced due to Milhistbot, so maybe we could do this instead of March Madness? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, to me at least. I'll start on creating a project page for it soon. Hog Farm Bacon 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Was there somewhere you could post a request for reviewers? Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United States war plans (1945–1950) has three supports and an source review, and just needs an easy to do image review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

B-class reviews

  • Since we all agree that an A-class review drive is coming, and our bot is running multiple articles at one moment, isn't it a better idea to combine both ideas? If we add all our newly Bs from the bot into a user sandbox and at the reviewing drive the participants review them whether or not they are Bs. Of course like the current ongoing GAN Backlog Drives and our regular backlog drives coords can have a quike double check if it's indeed B. I mean the bot regular add them here review but since there are getting a lot recently in, it might be better to add them in a separate user page. If it's stupîd, I'll throw it away in the bin. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Interesting idea. The original idea was to focus on A-Class, which is getting fairly backed up at the moment, but we could get ambitious and expand it into an overall reviewing drive, with different points for B-class, Ga, A-class, and Fa reviews for project tagged articles, so basically the old March Madness idea but without the project tagging element? Hog Farm Bacon
  • That's good idea. At the moment, ARCs struggle to have reviewers but this issue also occurs in the GANs division. But since there is no backlog drive or any contest for GANs at all, but they got covert by the GAN backlog drives some nominates have to wait a half year or even almost a year before they got reviewed. But if they make a GAN backlog drives every half year and we have our backlog drive a couple of months before/after theirs then we surely can reduce our GAN amount and they have the time to reduce the non-MilHist long-waiting GANs. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm also lucky to have a COVID-free bubble. Every one of my family has negative (am the only one who hasn't been tested). Much luck to you. Anyway, I have another suggestion for the drive about the point system. What about giving extra points for reviewing extra long articles and old nominates? I mean in my opinion, it's not fair to give not extra points for those articles. I mean it's possible that everyone will just pick the new GANs, ARCs, or FACs while they're not long and I think older nominates who bearly get attention should also been given more points because in my view the drive is to meant to reduce all of our nominates. wheter or not they are old or new, long or short. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History/March 2021 Reviewing Drive. The points/awards system is currently flawed, as I just put some numbers down for the points and left the awards point plateaus the same from last year's March Madness, so that'll need some work. (Frankly had no idea how to handle that). At the moment, there's no bonus for long articles, but only because I'm still thinking of how to best implement so that logistical hell doesn't result. Gog the Mild - You've been involved in GOCE drives before that weight article length, so maybe you have an idea on how to implement that. Hog Farm Bacon 04:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    Hog Farm, if the idea is to drive down the ACR queue, then I would make ACR and FAC reviews both worth 20 points; they are about the same amount of work.
    Re bonuses for length - good idea. GoCE just count the words, which isn't going to work for us. Suggestion: 20% points bonus for every complete 2,000 words of the reviewed article's length, capped at 100% (10,000 words)? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Are we talking about bonuses for the length of the article, or the review? If the article, then "I tend to quote extensively when discussing prose issues in my reviews. Those aren't my work, but it makes it very difficult to breakout my own comments from my quotes." would make no difference. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I find a GA review harder than an FAC or ACR because for GA you are expected to review prose, images, sourcing, and tick all the boxes, whereas for FA you are reviewing as part of a whole and I might just comment on sourcing or just images or just prose. I think gog's suggestion wrt length works well (it's the length of the article and not the review) and maybe for how old the nom is +25% for every four weeks (ish) the article has been waiting, capping at 100% for four months? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, I agree, to an extent, re GANs being - sometimes - more work than FACs. It depends what our objective is; if it is to get the ACR backlog down, that is where the points should go. I like the idea of a age bonus, and that could be applied to all reviews. 25% seems a bit high; 20%? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We always can try it out and if bonuses don't work or are too chaotic or too much work then we can brainstorm for another type of drive next year. If we do length bonuses then I think the scores are a little bit low and should be lifted a little bit. It's just because we use bonuses and the points, in general, are higher than our last backlog drives. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I've updated the page to reflect 20 points per ACR review. After thinking it over, I think there should definitely be a length bonus. Reviewing Albert Kesselring and Battle of Roan's Tan Yard are intrinsically different things (the reasons will be obvious once you take a look at the articles). An age bonus would also put some incentive to review where they're needed most. Before I start updating the page, I do have one question: How are the two classes of bonuses applied? It makes the most sense to me to apply them separately, based on the base points total, rather than the length bonus being based off of the sum of the base and age points, but this should probably be codified in the rules for consistent application. Maybe it's just my lazy American mind, but I also think that there's a certain level of ease of calculation that's important, so a 10% bonus sounds the easiest to me, with decimals rounded up for generosity's sake. Hog Farm Bacon 16:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • See, I thought the same. Everyone is sidelining the long nominations especially the GANs. About the age bonus, my idea was most old nominations aren't interesting or are too long for most reviewers. That makes it interesting for people to see there are bonus points for long and bonus for old and since those old nominations are mostly long makes them more worthful than an old 30,000-byte nomination. If indeed follow your 10% then a long and old nomination would gain 20% which sounds okay for me. Also, side note: I've added all of our not-yet-reviewed Bs here for the drive, and Hawkeye is it possible to let the bot add the Bs of the coming months to that page instead of here? If so then we can stake our B nominations for the coming drive. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle October 2020

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Good day everyone, is there a reason why The Bugle's October edition isn't published yet since the last edits were made four days ago? If it's not ready shouldn't we put a little bit more effort to publish it, since it's mid-October, and I believe we are a little bit late with publishing it? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but am new enough I didn't feel bold enough to say something. I'm willing to do some work to try to get it ready, if I can get pointed to what needs done. Hog Farm Bacon 15:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
It is usually published by the 15th at the latest, it depends on Ian and Nick’s availability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
In a way it's gratifying to see that people miss it if it's not there...! Nick-D and I still have a few finishing touches to do but I daresay it'll be done soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Ian Rose - If you're ever needing a book review, I recently read Stephen W. Sears's work on the Battle of Chancellorsville and would be willing to hammer out a book review for say next month's or something. I can't guarantee I'll remember much of the finer points after the turn of the calendar, though. Hog Farm Bacon 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
That'd be great Hog Farm, if you want us to see a draft, add a new section at the bottom of the Newsroom talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: - Done, although since it's my first one there may be some issues, particularly on the formatting end. Also, my mother tongue is redneck, so I can't guarantee that the writin' is any good. Hog Farm Bacon 04:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Many thanks - I've posted it. It reads well, though do note that Ian and I are Australian so we're not well placed to judge the proper use of the English language! Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup the task list

The coordinator task list currently includes the line If a review has been open for seven days without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page. Given that the median time for a review to be completed is much closer to seven weeks than it is to seven days now, this guidance seems to be a bit outdate and should probably be removed. Hog Farm Bacon 16:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Maybe update it to three weeks or some other date? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We've currently got twelve that have been open over a month (including all three of mine), three of which have been open at least two months. My recommendation would be a month, although, frankly, the posts for additional reviews on the project talk page haven't scared up many reviews. Hog Farm Bacon 17:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The closing instructions table at the nominations page also says that nominations are closed after a maximum of 28 days. That, too, needs corrected, as it is clearly no longer policy, nor is it feasible for it to be so. Hog Farm Bacon 01:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with both of these comments, but have three editors start a review is different from the completion time, I think a month is a good timeframe. I suggest we go with the following wording: If a review has been open for a month without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate:. As far as the noms page issue is concerned, do you mean the ACRs for closure section of this page or something else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: - At the main nominations page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review there is a collapsed table with the heading A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators. The table includes the statement "Closure takes place after minimum of five and maximum of twenty-eight days"; following the columns over, it says that nominations with less than three comprehensive supports, outstanding criteria-based objections, or no consensus to promote should be failed after 28 days. This clearly isn't followed (although when I was new here and made my first A-Class nom, I saw it and was worried than my nom would be failed after 28 days; it wound up being open for about 2.5 months), so this needs reworded somehow. Since we aren't keeping hard caps on how long a nomination can be open anymore, my instinct would be to just remove the phrase giving a maximum time before closure, and then just leave the rest of the table as is. Hog Farm Bacon 05:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hog Farm: BRD! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Generally we are talking about three months, but some have stayed open for longer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

General of the Armies

The article's got its OR and uncited tags back again, which means we need to go through it and weed out the uncited, speculative, and original information to get it back to where it needs to be to be useful to the project. I'm gonna try and take a stab at it tomorrow, time permitting, but if anyone in a different time zone gets a chance to jump on it earlier please be my guest. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and gutted most of the article, keeping only what was or appeared to be the cited information. Anyone care to look and see if I missed something there? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I don’t have time at the moment, but a ton of the sources you readded when you restored the last version (such as the Army times article and almost everything post WWII) were determined to be fabricated information by OberRanks. I'll take a stab at it tonight, but I’d take a quick look at the talk page there and at Admiral of the Navy for context. Garuda28 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions about combinedfleet.com

Many of the naval articles that we manually check assessment on, especially IJN submarine ones, rely on combinedfleet.com. What is the reliability of this source? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

In A recent GA discussion, the justification was "Run by published authors Anthony Tully and Jon Parshall." by Sturmvogel 66, who may have more to add? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
From experience with it, its generally accepted as decently reliable. However, some of these ship articles are sourced almost entirely to combinedfleet, or have only one citation to a non-combinedfleet source. In my opinion, if combinedfleet is the only source, or if 95% of the article is sourced only to combinedfleet, then b1=no due to overreliance on a single source. It's not a bad source; we just need other sources besides it, like with any source. Hog Farm Bacon 18:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with using combinedfleet for the majority of the service section as that's usually poorly or sporadically covered in English-language sources. The description section should be mostly sourced to in-print books as most Japanese warships are well covered in English. And don't be deceived by how often the cites appear as some cover full paragraphs while other paragraphs have practically every sentence cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
We should strive for a standard when assessing articles like Japanese submarine Ro-114 (confirmed by Sturm) and Japanese submarine Ro-115 (downgraded by Indy). Is heavy reliance on this source enough for B1 or not? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed this discrepancy and this is why I asked this question. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Hog Farm. We should not have GAs that are mostly sourced to combinedfleet.com, and use of a single source should mean b1=n automatically, and GA criteria 2b=no. If the vessel is truly notable, there should be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A detail here and there from combinedfleet.com is one thing, but most of the article is another. I appreciate there are sometimes language barriers with accessing sources, but we need to do better than accepting this as the main source for a GA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The editor of Ro-114 used three different sources for the description section and then the rest of the article was from combinedfleet with a torrent of cites as practically every individual sentence is cited. The construction section could have been easily sourced to one of the three books used earlier and at least a few details about the sub's career could have been sourced to Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945. And info on the sub's fate is almost certainly available elsewhere. But those are issues for a GAN, IMO, not B class. Y'all may disagree, but I confirmed Ro-114 as B class because it wasn't just single-sourced, even if the predominance of combinedfleet cites in the construction and career sections is less than ideal. I'm not too concerned about consistency between assessors at B-class level as I myself go back and forth on how an biographical article can be considered reasonably complete if it lacks any and all info on the subject's family life.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Often all I have is the name of the subject's partner. Many of the subjects are uncooperative in this regard, despite providing copious details about other parts of their life. Case in point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I figure that as GA requires that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic", and B-class is lesser than that, family life is almost always unnecessary to meet this criterion. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think 114 is just barely diversified enough to be B (although I'd expect more from a GA). However, I'm not sold on 115. There's way more information at 115 than 114, so 115 really feels like an imbalance towards one source to me. Hog Farm Bacon 03:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I can see why all that extra career material for 115 might influence you that way. But both articles use the same exact four sources, so I don't see them as fundamentally different and neither one of them are single sourced, by definition. Y'all can do whatever y'all think is best; I'm not going to get too fussed about it either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ARCs clean up

  • Hey everyone, I'm recently reviewing more ARCs in the past few days and I saw there are some ARCs which needs some attention. These are all older than or almost 2 months old. Which is in my view a really long procedure esspecially if there's no progress for weeks like a few nominations have. I think if we all can help these out then they are cleaned up. Especially now that 2021 is knocking on the door it may be is a good time to clean it up and start the new year fresh.

Needs attention

Getting closer to the two-month mark

I know that December is a hard month to make progresses and promotions, but, if everyone reviews a couple of nominations then we are probably done for this year. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I certainly will be picking up a couple here in the next few days, but at least one I have already reviewed has an intractable issue and I can’t support unless it is resolved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
CPA-5: Good idea, but I have done three ACR reviews already this month (plus seven at FAC), so more from me might have to wait. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild Yeah understandable, I'm planning to review Manuel Kamytzes since I'm still struggling to find time or motivation to finish my FAC reviews. Most of them are pretty long maybe after I've finished those FACs I will review one of the long nominations. Since it's mid-December we all have still some time to make a proper review instead of rushing them. If you find a good spot of spare time and the motivation then you are always welcome to review these. Father Christmas/Santa Claus would give us these as great presents if these all passed before the year ends. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also doing more FAC reviewing than ACRs these days, unless I have more than one article at ACR. I don't think these timelines are actually too bad, some of these noms are a bit stuck for various legitimate reasons, and I usually don't start a review until the previous reviewer's comments are mostly addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

MH historian of the year voting

Does one of us need to start a new thread for this soon, based on my reading of the nominations thread? Hog Farm Bacon 20:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm: I think I started it correctly, based on what gog did last year. And I've managed to send about 25 pings in the process :P -- Eddie891 Talk Work 21:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891, well, I can see where you are going wrong there, straight away. ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67: do you think you could you send out a mass-message? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll give it a couple of days. Could you change the message on Template:WPMILHIST Announcements as well? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

How did Hawkeye end up as a nominee for Newcomer of the Year? Did somebody move his entry from the Historian of the Year section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, It was this edit. I did a bit of rearranging because I don't think Buckshot meant to vote for Hog Farm, but I think everyhting else should be GTG. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Just a note that I have extended the voting period of one by a day to coincide with the other, as they were different. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Two nominations at the same time

  • In my experience having an article at GAN and ACR at the same time is strongly discouraged due to possible confusion it could cause if they are actually being reviewed at the same time, and that the nom might be making changes due to the GAN that contrast with what an ACR reviewer is saying, resulting in obstacles to promotion by either or both. This could occur because there can be a tension between the higher content standard at ACR and the arguably greater focus on style at GAN, although some reviewers like me don't really make that distinction in their reviews. However, it isn't verboten AFAIK, and I'm not sure there would be a consensus amongst project members that there should be a strict policy on it. It could result in the odd situation where an article was A-Class for Milhist but B-Class or lower for other projects, but that is purely a bureaucratic issue IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Having a rule against it seems to be excess standards creep to me, although I would recommend getting the GAN done before nominating for ACR to make sure it was properly prepared. Hog Farm Bacon 21:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The main reasons for GAN are to qualify for DYK or to build up a featured topic. When I started out I nominated US-related articles at GA and Australian ones at A-class, but wound up having to nominate a series of A-class articles at GA. I once accidentally nominated an article for both at the same time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

ACRs and source reviews

I would like to discuss a more fundamental point, but first a minor niggle. A class criterion 1 reads:

The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.

It may be me, but I am struggling to see the difference between "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources" and "are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate." Am I missing something? Or could it be slimmed to

The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, all claims are appropriately verifiedable against reputable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

    • I see a bit of a difference between "are verifiable" and "are supported with specific evidence". The former could be read to suggest that the information just needs to be probable and not cited inline, while the latter and current expectations are for inline citations. I'd prefer the latter phrasing, as verified is more of the expectation, not verifiable. Hog Farm Bacon 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
      • My concern with “verified” is that this puts the onus on a reviewer to do this. The WP-wide requirement is verifiability, not actual verification. The issue of what needs to be done in source reviews needs to be kept separate from the criteria in my view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Last year's contest

Last month's contest still needs to be closed out. As well as the overall totals, etc. If someone could find time, of their kindness, to do all this, that would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, I think have sorted all this without screwing it up, just need someone to dish out the Writer's Barnstar for second place for the December contest. Zawed (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I can do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Automated statement quality predictions

Hi, we are working on an AI to automatically identify issues in statements along the lines of neutrality, clarifications and citations. The AI learns from statements in low quality articles that are problematic. We need some help evaluating the predictions to make them better and prepare for community use. I'm providing a few example predictions for neutrality. The statements below were identified by the AI as having minor POV issues (weasel words and inflated/ambiguous language). Please let us know inline if the statements below indeed have NPOV issues. We believe that the AI has potential to ease article quality review and welcome conversations on how to best evaluate and put this to practice for aiding in review of low quality articles. See the discussion on FAR for more information. Sumit (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Book review if you need it

I've written one at User:Hog Farm/Book review/Perryville. I'm fine with it being used whenever (or never). Not the smoothest writing in the world, but I think it's passable. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: thanks a lot - posted. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021 Military History Writers' Contest

Hi all, I have initiated the Feb table and dished out the award for second place in the Jan contest. If someone could do the honours for the first place getter (ahem)...thanks! Zawed (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Zawed, thanks for sorting that out, and done. Congratulations. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

March reviewing drive, revisited

Way back in October, we had a discussion about possibly holding a reviewing drive in lieu of MILHIST March Madness this year, as the excellent bot now does many of the project tagging etc. tasks. Is there still interest in doing this, now that it is around February? I've got a (very) rough draft I kinda started on during the October discussion stashed somewhere I cannot recall, but as rough as it was, if there's interest, it might almost be better to not use that draft. Any interest in possibly doing that this year? Hog Farm Talk 23:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Maybe triple points, and/or a barnstar for editors reviewing their first B class article, ACR or FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm Yes, I think this should be run. here's the draft you are presumably thinking of. It looks decent to me, though I think the point thresholds needed for barnstars should be adjusted. What do we need to do in the next four days? Send out a mass message, perhaps? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I've created the worklist page, though the headers may need tweaking. We could always push to april if this is too soon. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , what do you all think? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I assume that we are not concerned about running at the same time as the March GAN drive? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd say these are more likely to have constructive interference than destructive interference. I don't think the GA drive will draw too many reviews away from ACR, B-class, or FAC MILHIST reviews, and if reviews are getting done, that's the end goal, even if some go non-MILHIST. Hog Farm Talk 17:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I will be rather busy in RL for the next couple days, so while I agree that the points thresholds need fixed, I won't be able to give that issue much attention. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I have had a stab at adjusting the number of points required to reach each award level. Intended more as to initiate a discussion than anything I feel very strongly about. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this should definitely go ahead, and agree with Gog about pumping up the points. Given the imminence of March, and the existing March GAN drive, I suggest making this an April thing. That way we can advertise in the March Bugle and send out a mass message a week before as well as on 31 March. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, April's a good idea. What would be y'all's recommendations on points? Hog Farm Talk 23:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The one's there now look good to me. I reckon let's get it up and running, making sure it is advertised in the Bugle. If you ping me at the end of the month, I'll do a mass message to project members. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, might be a good time to send a mass message? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Why does the Reviewing Drive reward assessing articles from the AutoCheck report but not tagging and assessing against the same criteria manually? If anything the latter is both more laborious and serves exactly the same purpose.--Catlemur (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Catlemur, The aim of the drive is to clear review backlogs. There are about twenty-five articles eligible for what you are mentioning by my count. We could add it, but I'm not sure there's a huge need. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891 There are dozens of articles that are MILHIST related that are neither tagged nor assessed. I assume the bot is going to tag and assess them at some point but its just going to build up future backlogs since its not very accurate. I have a list of 30-40 of them in a Word document. Now I am going to tag and assess them at some point anyway but getting points for it would be nice.--Catlemur (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Catlemur, added it to 1 point. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_56&oldid=1232552027"