Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2006/Failed

Failed

Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

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

---

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Webley Revolver

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Webley Revolver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver
• Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver/archive1

• Featured article review/Webley Revolver/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was just demoted as an FA, and it looks like C-Class to me at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delist not even close to the A-class criteria (t · c) buidhe 00:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist and assess as C-class. Not even particularly close to the B-class criteria. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist RIP Webley Revolver. I hope one of our Weaponry task force members will make the article its glorious days again. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist. Oh dear. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist - Closer to C-class than A-Class. Zawed (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Submarine

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Organization has gotten better since I last read the article, but I feel that it can be better improved on. Also, the inline citations are noticably lacking for an article that tops out at 70 kilobytes. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with everything TomStar81 has written above. The article is very well written, it just needs many more citations and a more logical organization. Might be better to move the history up a bit. Also, it just does not read right to have modern civilian subs as the first paragraph after the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose Needs Citations Raymond Palmer 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Why is there no mention of the legendary Yellow Submarine, with which the Fab Four bravely defended Pepperland from the Blue Meanies?! I don't think the article can be complete without at least a 20kb section on this venerable fighting machine! ;-) --kingboyk 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, inline citations lacking, {{cite web}} format needed, and the external links section needs pruning. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian Campaign

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Needs citations. Raymond Palmer 17:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Raymond.UberCryxic 05:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Battle of Marathon

Previous nomination

Renominating for Ikokki. Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support It seems to qualify.UberCryxic 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. I think the article is good but I have one problem. You have the KIA cross and a question mark next to Datis' name. Datis did not die in the expedition as can be seen in Herodotus book VI, 118-9. If you change this I will support. Kyriakos 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Support Kyriakos 10:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As it says in the article according to Ctesias Datis was killed in Marathon. Herodotus disagrees, as it says in the article itself. Hence the KIA cross with the question mark. If this is not a standard Wikipedia convention I will remove itIkokki 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Since I did not have a chance to write why it should be A-class I will do so here.

  It is sufficiently long without being too big

  It is well referenced

  It tries to include most theories over the battle

  It is readable (biggest stumbling block last time)

While I am sure that there are some things missing it is of sufficient quality to be A-class where after all perfection is not sought like FA but very high level Ikokki 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support A few minor quibbles about phrasing, especially in the Background section, but definitly of A-class quality. (One note though, the dashes used don't show up right on older computers *cough*.) - Aerobird 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs a thorough copyedit. Example:

But if the front had a density of 1.4 meter compared to 1 meters for every Greek and had a density of 40 to 50 ranks as seems to be the maximum possible for the plain

Battle of Plataea or battle of Plataea

Darius wished to take advantage of this situation to conquer Athens, which would isolate Sparta and, by handing him the remainder of the Greeks in the Aegean, would to consolidate his control over Ionia.

Other editors will correct me if I'm wrong, but there should be a seperate Reference section to clearly show the sources used. Secondly, the inline citations should come after the punctuation and without a space between it and the word.

Needs quite alot of polish Raymond Palmer 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Raymond Palmer's points are valid, and I think the images and maps may be a bit excessive - you can afford to cut down on those a bit. But otherwise, a lengthy, detailed article. Major plus points for drawing so heavily from original sources (I just hope that the proper allowance has been given for bias in those sources, etc.) LordAmeth 13:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I read several secondary sources that pointed to original quotations. Most secondary material I read (Kampouris being a major exception) basically say the same thing, in many cases with the same wording. I chose to reference to original sources because they are much easier to reference to. Gedeon or Glotz, for example, wrote interesting things but they did little more than to combine Herodotus, Cornelius Nepos, Plutarch and Suda in order to draw conclusions. Their conclusions are noted here but I prefer to reference directly to Herodotus' narrative than their own.

As I also said earlier A-class does not mean FA. I do intend to continue improving the wording, replace link citations and write a text reference section like the one in Trojan War. I think though that an A-class article can exist without those YET. Thank you everybody for your input.Ikokki 14:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support the German map and the map of Attica don't quite fit in and I think you will lose little if they are deleted or replaced. Very good to point out the social issues. Perhaps the social problems and their development in ancient Greece can be made into an own article. Wandalstouring 23:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

History of the Royal Australian Navy

Article is currently at GA and has been peer reviewed by the project. I think it is at A-class level now. I am withholding my opinion on its quality as I have done a large majority of the work. Hossen27 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is at least one place (under 'Malaya') where a statement appears to be a quote drawn from a source, but no citation is provided (and indeed, even if a quote is not being used, the information needs some kind of citation. There is also some unfortunate use of the passive voice that hinders readability in a couple places. Carom 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Content is excellent but I think that some major editing needs to be done to make it read smoother and more professional. --Looper5920 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Frederick II of Prussia

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are some problems with the footnotes (the format is poor) and I'm not convinced that there are enough. I also think some sections could be expanded, particularly 'Legacy'. Carom 18:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be more about his possible sexual orientation then his history. The tone of the article shifts radicaly form an Enlightened despot to military master mind to a hater of poles and jews. I also find that the article could be better partitioned in sections than what is currently laid out.--Dryzen 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I failed this for GA nom last month and I don't know if any of the issues I raised were addressed? --plange 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Iwo Jima

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, no inline citations and not enough refs. Is B-class easy, though... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Although I guess two oppositions are unneccessary. Carom 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose this article is missing something very important. Actual paragraphs about the battle. 90% of the article is about the preparation. There still needs to be info added on the actual course of the battle.--Looper5920 20:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Gallipoli

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs to (vastly) improve citation, and there are some spots that could use editing for readability. Carom 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object More citations would be nice, and the article is generally disjointed.UberCryxic 02:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose The article contains many assertions which require a citation and it isn't a very easy read. The graphics in the article are well chosen though. --Nick Dowling 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War

Previous nominations here, here, here, and here.

Worked on the suggestions made in the last assessment and have added more synonyms for the most frequent words. Kyriakos 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The tone could still use some work, but A-class articles are not supposed to be perfect. I dislike the manner of the citations, however: why, exactly were the changed back to the original format? I find them unnecessarily confusing. Carom 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current format is both confusing and, aesthetically speaking, rather unappealing. However, I'm not going to object over it, and if the weight of opinion is on the side of the current form, I won't complain any further. Carom 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There is some poor phrasing and/or punctuation:

It also led to an Aetolian defection and invasion, which was suppressed by Philip and Macedon's Greek allies, the Achean League, defecting to Rome and Philip's defeat in the Second Macedonian War.

• This is also a bit confusing and definitely needs re-wording, otherwise it may come across as a bit comical:

While Philip was walking around Abydos, he saw people killing themselves and their families through stabbing, burning, hanging, and jumping down wells and rooftops. Philip was surprised to see this and he published a proclamation announcing that "he gave three days' grace to those who wished to hang or stab themselves."

What is confusing about this bit. Kyriakos 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thers are still some typos and spelling mistakes. It needs a careful re-read - many sentences are too verbose,

Philip saw that Pergamum was undermanned and he advanced with his army and started besieging the city.

• others are missing words eg:

With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then began their assault Ptolemy's territories in Thrace.

Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign had added additional strength to the city walls.

• I don't think the satelite picture of the region adds anything to the article. Raymond Palmer 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I power read the entire thing in about five minutes. What I saw looked good: nice sources, good images, etc, but I am with holding my full support until I can find the time the read the entire article with my history/wikipedia-critical eyes, rather than my 11:18 PM Oh-my-God-why-did-I-put-off-studying-for-this-exam-until-the-last-minute eyes. :O TomStar81 (Talk)

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

---

Battle of Fort Donelson

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous nomination

This is a resubmission of an article previously considered for A-Class. Prior nomination is archived here.

The criticisms of the article at that time have been corrected. I believe that it fully satisfies all criteria. My contribution has been limited to correcting one typo and editing out two discontinued templates, so I think I have no conflict of interest in promoting it. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, although again with comments -

• I'm not a fan of the image gallery of generals and commanders under "opposing forces" - it leaves a huge white space. I changed the width to 100%, although you can change it back if you don't like it. I would get rid of it altogether, but some might not agree with me.

  I agree with Catalan. To me, the gallery just doesn't sit well with the rest of the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said in the other review, I think the first instance of brigadier general should be spelled out and the abbreviation included in parenthesis.
• I have the same suggestion for the citations.

Other than that, it looks really good. Again, good job on the maps. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support (but tweaks, per above, needed for FAC). Very nice work. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support While I am again unhappy with the style of citation in this article (see my comments on the A-class review for Battle of Fort Henry), it still meets the criteria. Joe (Talk) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Battle of the Scheldt

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Too few citations. Otherwise, it looks acceptable. Carom 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As above. The layout at the end need sorting. Notes: References: External links. Raymond Palmer 11:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me, although some of the sections (i.e. Gettysburg) might benefit from a link to the main article. Carom 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support KingPenguin 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object - whole sections lack any inline citations and there are places where refs are appearing before punctuation and I'd like to see the trivia items re-worked into the prose. Also, Notes should go before References, right? --plange 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose It's very well written, but I'm troubled by the lack of citations and the use of only three sources (the sources are themselves good, but given the wealth of literature on this topic, I think a more complete list is necessary). Carom 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Personally I feel there are far too many headings and sub-headings (I counted 54!) – it needs a major reorganisation. Also the info box is lacking in detail. A lot of quotes but no citations. Only three references. Raymond Palmer 23:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Pontiac's Rebellion

For procedural reasons, other project members submitted this article for A-class review twice before: here and here. People left some very nice comments, but because the article was written back in the days before all the cool kids were into footnotes, it was not rated "A class" the second time around. (Don't ask about the first.) The article now has all the citations we've grown to love, so let's see if it rates an "A". Thank you! —Kevin Myers 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support for the third (and hopefully final) time. Carom 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Of all the A-Class nominees, it's my belief that this one is probably the best. In addition, I've checked at what it was criticized for last time, and I believe that all the changes that they've asked for have been made. Climie.ca 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support I definately believe this article is now an A class article... possibly even FA. ALthough I believe that the refs probably need to be cleaned up some before making it into an FAC. Generally, my experience is that you don't need to list the book name every time you use the ref. The authors name is sufficient unless you are dealing with an author who wrote numerous books/articles that are being cited.Balloonman 03:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  FWIW, the Chicago Manual of Style recommends the Author, Title, Page format for short-form footnotes; so I suspect this varies among different style guides. Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely. I believe it's ready for FA nomination. I think the use of the quote box early in article is a nice touch. The project's community's insistence on extensive in-line citations may be an overreaction to outside criticisms of Wikipedia's reliability and credibility, but, that's how it is. Cla68 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's a great article and excellently written. I agree that it is ready for FAC. Kyriakos 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Third Servile War

Previous A-Class nomination failed, and is archived here.

The article has been re-vamped based on this, and other reviews. The minor objection voiced in the previous nomination has been addressed: A description of the slave's status, numbers, treatment, and a mention of the previous Servile wars has been incorporated into the article, setting the pre-conditions, and the pattern of the Servile wars which this conflict follows.

Ideally, I'd like to see the "Aftermath" section revamped to include what changes in the Roman institution of slavery, or body of Roman law regarding slavery, that this conflict triggered (if any). However, this is beyond my current research materials, and I believe that the actual history of the Third Servile War is complete as it stands.

Minor restucturing, expansion, a copyedit for english grammar and spellinmg performed by UberCryxic.

I think it stands as an A-class as-is. Hopefully others will think so as well :)

Vedexent 06:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support as before. I'm no expert on Roman slavery, but the changes look good to me. Carom 15:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - please merge some tiny paras into larger ones.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: which paragraphs did you have in mind? - Vedexent 03:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support well written and well referenced--Looper5920 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

505th Parachute Infantry Regiment

Article includes nearly all of the regiments history, is well sourced and cited, contains additional information about the regiment including blazon and heraldry, and links to official regimental pages. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose It is indeed well cited, but I think some of the sections are a little bare, and I would be very surprised if one could not locate information to bulk them up. Carom 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a good article, but it's not A class. As noted by Carom some sections lack detail and I think that it would benefit from the addition of photos to illustrate the Brigade's history. --Nick Dowling 23:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Objection well sourced, but a bit limited. Give more info or links to other articles containing more info. Wandalstouring 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• comment with 3 objections, I'll consider this failed. However, I'd like some help finding the photos (I'm no good whatsoever at finding fair-use or pd images) and bulking up some of the more recent history (i.e. post ww2). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

---

Promoted by The ed17 03:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [1]

---

HMS Hood (51)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel_66 (talk)

I'm nominating this article because I think that it's ready for A-class. That said, I've worked it over until my eyes are crossed and there's probably still plenty of things wrong with it because I've incorporated much of the original text. I look forward to new sets of eyes helping to improve it as there are probably numerous overlinks and other small problems. Hopefully I've taken care of the larger issues, but perhaps not; belike, I'm a bit too close to judge.

This had an ACR back four years ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Hood (51)/archive1, but there's not much meat there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments It's good to see that the article on this interesting and important ship has been brought to a high standard. I think it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
  • The piping of the link to Mackensen-class battlecruiser in the lead para looks a bit untidy (the piped text is probably longer than the name of the article it links to)
    • Agreed.
  • "She was refitted twice before being stationed with the Mediterranean Fleet due to the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War" sounds a bit awkward
    • Cleaned up.
  • "and later as an intercept force" is also a bit awkward (particularly as the intention wasn't to intercept the invasion force - which was impossible for Scotland-based ships, but rather to attack the follow on forces)
    • How does it work now?
  • " the resulting orders from Prime Minister Winston Churchill to the Royal Navy to "sink the Bismarck" culminated in a naval battle on 26–27 May that ended in the sinking of the Bismarck" - 'sink the Bismarck' is effectively repeated in this sentence
    • Recommend: "...culminated in a naval battle on 26–27 May that sunk the German battleship." bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed, but I like the new wording better. What do y'all think?
  • "Partly because of the manner in which Hood was lost in World War II, the battlecruiser remains a popular subject for naval history, with extensive research being done into the reasons for the loss of Hood and into the subsequent chase of Bismarck by the Royal Navy, which deployed nearly 100 ships of various types in the effort to locate and sink Bismarck" - this is a long sentence and it's a bit repetitive
    • Deleted the whole paragraph as not relevant.
  • "She was the only ship to carry these guns in the hydraulically powered Mark II twin turrets which were designated 'A', 'B', 'X' and 'Y' from front to rear." - did other ships carry these guns in a different configuration of turrets as this implies, or were the turrets given different names on other ships? (or both?)
    • Rewritten.
  • "The gun house for this mount was larger than the previous mountings" - what were these previous mountings? (eg, were they fitted to Hood or, as I assume, earlier BBs/BCs)
    • Cleaned up.
  • The paragraph with begins "Construction of Hood began" seems to repeat much of the content of the 'Protection' section.
    • How so? This section talks about the layered scheme of the deck armour, which isn't well covered in the protection section.
  • The sentence which begins "She was launched on 22 August 1918" is a bit over-long and should be split
    • Done.
  • Hood and her companions during their world cruise was designated the 'Special Service Squadron'. You could note that this squadron was present at the scuttling of HMAS Australia (1911) during its visit to Australia.
    • Happy to, got a cite?
      • Yep, in the HMAS Australia article Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The article refers to the "reputation and legend of the "Mighty Hood"", but doesn't actually explain what this was. From memory, she was considered one of the more significant symbols of the RN and British Empire (her visit to Australia was considered a very big deal at the time) and this explains why her loss was such a shock (except to people who actually knew how obsolete she was).
    • I second this one and expand on it below. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "This lasted until January 1941" - it's a bit unclear what the 'this' is here (patrol work or being dispatched against reported German raiders?)
    • Where? I'm not finding this phrase.
  • "Holland’s ships caught up with Bismarck and her consort" - this implies that they over-hauled the German ships in a chase, when they actually intercepted them from the south.
    • Agreed.
  • Do the sources allow anything to be said about Hood's crew? (including her habitability). At present all that's specified is how many of them there were and that they once participated in a mutiny. Given that she was the RN's most prestigious ship for much of her career, did she receive unusually high quality officers (including captains)? Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Uncertain about the quality of her officers, although I suspect it was a plum assignment. I can add some stuff about her habitability. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Everyone of Hood's captains made flag rank so I've added them in, mostly as a bunch of redlinks. See how well I've integrated them into the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support My comments have now been addressed. I'd suggest looking for further details on the ship's crew before this goes to a FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Done a bit of a copyedit, undo anything you disagree with
• In the lead, 2nd para (and again, in para 3 of "Inter War Service"), the status of the ship in relation to the Mediterranean forces is unclear. Was she deployed for the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, left, then came back for the Spanish civil war, or does the claim that "When the Spanish Civil War broke out, Hood was officially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet" mean that she'd 'unofficially' been with the fleet since the Italo-Abyssinian War deployment, and had just been hanging around before being formally integrated into the order of battle?
  • This is spelled out in the main body. She was attached to the Mediterranean Fleet shortly afterward and stationed at Gibraltar at the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. Hood returned to Portsmouth for a brief refit between 26 June and 10 October 1936. She formally transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet on 20 October
    • Although its definitely clearer in the body (although a date associating with the posting at Gibraltar or the war's outbreak would be a good addition there - I've added "in October", but feel free to remove/change), I think the lead could do wit a little tweaking to make clear the 'go, come back' sequence of events clearer. May I suggest She was attached to the Mediterranean Fleet following the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War in 1935. After returing to England in mid-1936 for refit, Hood was officially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet shortly after the Spanish Civil War broke out. She remained in the Mediterranean until she had to return to England in 1939 for an overhaul. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Honestly I don't really see a need to get this level of detail in the lede. It's only a summary.
        • Its that the 'attached', then 'permanently assigned' thing reads to me as really confusing. Let me try a less-detail version: She operated with the Mediterranean Fleet during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War and the Spanish Civil War, and remained in the Mediterranean until 1939., dropping the 'status' of her operation with the Fleet, and the "return for overhaul" bit. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• I've copied in the boiler and turbine details from the infobox to the second paragraph of "Description". Can you doublecheck and cite if necessary?
  • Done
• The broadside torpedoes tubes: were three facing off each side, or could one (or more) be reaimed to fire in the other direction? This is probably a stupid question, but it needs to be made a little clearer in the article
  • Added fixed to the torpedo section.
    • Unfortunately, now it reads to John 'Idiot' Landlubber that all six tubes fire in one direction. May I suggest Six fixed 21-inch torpedo tubes were mounted on Hood, three on each broadside. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed.
• In "Fire Control", the 'fore-top' where the supplementary secondary rangefinders were fitted: was that the same place as the second primary director was located (spotting top of the foremast)?
  • Yes, spotting top, fore-top, control top; the usual multitude of names for the same place.
    • Would this be worth specifying? -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Would it be worth renaming the "Protection" section as "Armour"? That's all it seems to deal with
  • It also mentions the anti-torpedo bulges, though I think one could argue that it is a type of armor. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Because it includes the bulge info, I prefer to use protection.
      • Fair enough. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Any particular reason for the inconsistent use of the {{Convert}} template for armour thicknesses?
  • Each number is only converted once.
• In the fourth para of "Protection", were the two torpedo tubes removed to allow for more armour in addition to the six mentioned in "Armament", or was it reduced to four?
  • It was reduced to four.
• Is there somewhere the single-paragraph "Aircraft" section could be merged into. Maybe "Armament"?
  • I wouldn't recommend that. The recon/observation function of these aircraft mean they don't fit under armament or fire control very neatly. Most other battleship/battlecruiser articles maintain aircraft as a subsection of the design section, so we ought to keep it consistant. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Second para of "Inter-war service": A couple of sentances describing the actions of the Special Service Squadron (specificly Hood's actions) during the cruise would be valuable.
  • I can add her intinerary, but it's not like she did much other than "she saw and was seen".
    • Maybe a list or numbers of the nations called into which would fit nicely after They returned home ten months later in September 1924... with ...having visited A, B, C... or having called into X ports in Y nations. If there was a sort of goal or 'mission statement' behind the cruise (the Cruise of the Special Service Squadron article indicates the aim was to make port visits to Britain's WWI allies), that might be good to add. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The purpose would be better than the stopovers, not least because it's a shorter list.
• Third para of "Inter War": Was there much damage to Renown? If it was only light, could maybe rephrase as "...the ship collided with the battlecruiser HMS Renown on 23 January 1935; both ships suffered only minor damage." Is there also any indication of specificly what/where the damage happened on Hood?
  • Hood was rammed by Renown at her quarterdeck. Her left outer propeller was badly damaged and her hull had a bunch of plates started by the impact as well as a dent 18 inches (.45 m) deep. Renown was more badly damaged, although I'd have to look to see how long she was under repair and what exactly was done to her.
    • Maybe rephrase/elaborate as While en route to Gibraltar for a Mediterranean cruise, Hood was rammed in the portside quarterdeck by the battlecruiser HMS Renown on 23 January 1935. [Although Renown was out of service for X months because of main problem-my idiot guess is bow damage?], the damage to Hood was limited to her left outer propeller and an 18-inch (460 mm) dent, although some hull plates were knocked loose from the impact. Temporary repairs were made at Gibraltar before the ship sailed to Portsmouth for permanent repairs between February and May 1935.? Your call if you feel the need to specify Renown's damage or not. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed.
        • I've added a bit on the court-martial and its verdict.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Fouth para: "new, lighter machinery"...does this refer to propulsion machinery, or something else?
  • In this context it almost always means boilers and/or turbines/engines, but I've specified it.
    • Always better to specify for John Landlubber. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Operation Catapult", para 1: Does it specify what means the French were to take to stop their ships falling into Axis hands? I imagine either scuttling or disarming. It would be good to specify.
  • Somerville's ultimatum actually told the French to sail them to a port (suggesting Britain, a French colony, or other neutral place) where the Germans couldn't get at them. He never suggested the French actually damage or destroy the ships themselves. But I'm not entirely sure it's especially relevant to the Hood's history. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Expanding the sentance Just eight days after the French surrender, the British Admiralty had issued an ultimatum to the French Fleet at Oran to ensure they would not fall into German or Italian hands. a little to indicate the expected measures would be good context; simply 'to ensure' is very vague and the reader is left to wildly speculate if Hood and others firing on the ships is an adequate response to the refusal or not. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed. How does it read now?
        • Tiny tweak made. Maybe condense ...fall into German or Italian hands. to {{xt|...fall into Axis hands. if you become worred about an overly-long sentance. -- saberwyn 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• There's a quote reference in "Aftermath of the sinking" that's been tagged as dead since September last year (and still is). Are you able to find a replacement, or alternatley provide a different cite for the quote?
  • Fixed.
• In "Modern Theories", the quote from Anthony Prestion does not have ending quotation marks, so its unclear where it ends.
  • Fixed.
• For "Wreck", a little more information on the finding of the ship (what effort went into locating the wreck, had there been any previous attemtps, and if so, why had they been unsuccessful) is needed. To that end, I have a book Mearns wrote following the search for HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran (which contains content on some of his previous disoveries, like Hood) that may help (although you may get more from his co-authored book with White). I'll hammer some notes together in userspace over the next few days, and you can integrate them if/as you see fit.
  • User:Saberwyn/Hood search...Here's what I got. There wasn't much detail on the condition of the wreck itself, but that's fairly well covered already. -- saberwyn 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Wreck" also needs some rejigging: at the moment its a two-sentance paragraph, a block of text, and another two-sentance para. This will probably fix itself as information is added, but keep it in mind.
• There's two books cited to Anthony Preston. The second (published 2002 by Conway), lacks a title.
  • You've fixed it. Thanks -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• There are a fair number of citations to the website for the Hood veterans association. I don't know where it falls on the scale of reliable sources, but the question will probably be raised at FA (if not here), so you may need to start thinking about responses.
  • I'm not too worried about it qualifying as highly reliable. It's an organization and most of what I'm using are copies of Admiralty documents.
• There's a glut of images in the "Battle of the Denmark Strait" section, and not too many elsewhere. If you can, address the balance. I'd suggest finding image examples of some of the features discussed in "Description" and subsections, because I get almost three screens of text between the profile drawing near the top of the section and the Sydney Harbour photo in the "Inter-war Service" section.

Hope this helps. -- saberwyn 01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your efforts so far. My apologies if I'm being unclear or nitpicky. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all, I'll probably be responding only sporadically for the next week or so. Finals week, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• You use Second World War in the lead, and World War X in every occurence in the body. Probably needs to be standardised. -- saberwyn 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.

I still think the "Wreck" section needs some reorganisation of the info to make the paragraph size more consistent. but that should only a light copyedit. Support for A class. -- saberwyn 08:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from baha (who is pissed that he got a BSOD while typing this and has to do it all again):

• The image imbalance is rather clear. Of the nine images (including the lead), four are of Hood's loss, and one is a bit of her wreck. It shouldn't be too hard to find images of specific components in the description section, like the guns or an aircraft flying off the ship. The phot and sketch of the explosion can be combined side-by-side using {{double image}}. This will free up space to move the Schmitz-Westerholt painting down, because it's sandwiching (boxing) text between it and the Prince of Wales photo.
  • You've done some work here, and I've taken care of the left-right jogs and double image. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Nick is entirely right about the impact of Hood's sinking. If I were a reader who didn't already know, reading this article would leave me wondering what the fuss was about, why Churchill was so upset at her loss that he demanded the Bismarck be sunk, and why the RN devoted so many resources to the task. Her status as the pride of the fleet needs to be expanded, possibly into a subsection of the aftermath section (which could also use some wordage on the subsequent hunt for and sinking of the German battleship). This would be a great place to display the Schmitz-Westerholt painting, kind of a pop-culture impact. There should probably be some more written about the sinking of the Bismarck in the aftermath section, since it is more or less directly related.
  • • Done.
  • You did mention more about Bismarck, but I think you really need to emphaise the importance of the Hood outside of just the Royal Navy more. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • How does it work now?
• I echo Nick again in talking about her crew. Surely she had notable captains besides Tomkinson and Kerr over her twenty one years (and I actually had to search for Kerr's name, John Leach's name was more prominent IMO, and he commanded a different ship!). The only others mentioned are the three survivors.
  • Excellent, I'm happy with the names now. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• The logical organization needs a bit of work. For one, the lead is a tad long, and you can probably move some of the info on the ship's history out or cut duplication. The background in the lead (i.e. unfinished sister ships, Emergency War Programme) and the "construction" subsection should either be in the sections regard the ship's history, or in a background section between "description" and "inter-war service". The "surviving relics" section should be a subsection of the "wreck" section, even though they aren't from the wreck itself.
  • Improvements are done. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• It seems like two sentances on the collision with Renown are not enough. Wouldn't such an incident be followed with inquiries, firing the captain, and maybe a court-martial? "lightly damaged" is rather vague, and it was significant enough that she needed to be serviced more than once (and they picked bits of the propeller from her bilge).
  • Good idea about the court-martial. I'll add something about it when I get a chance.
    • Excellent, Much more clear on the incident. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• The last sentance in the "inter-war service" section ("Her condition meant, among other things, that she was unable to attain her top designed speed.") should state what speeds she was actually capable of in her degraded state. You mention it in the next section, so it's probably best to move that sentance up.
  • Unfortunately, I think that her maximum speed would change depending on how long since she'd had her bottom cleaned and when her last machinery overhaul had taken place. Furthermore, I don't know what it was at any time except when given.
    • OK, I'm happy with the follow-up info. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Is there more information about the damage she took in September 1939? Was this a German attack (if so, where the devil did the aircraft come from?), or an accident... was there a battle/skirmish or just dumb luck?
  • Lemme look.
    • I like the expansion; very good info. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• In the "description" section, you mention Hood being chosen to chase down the Bismarck due to her speed, and it's probably worth repeating that in the "Battle of the Denmark Strait" subsection.
  • Rephrased as it more a question of availability than anything else.
• "This was followed by a devastating magazine explosion that destroyed the after part of the ship." Maybe I'm confusing my naval terminology (or perhaps an ENGVAR thing), but shouldn't it properly be "destroyed the aft part of the ship"?
  • Indeed.
• "Memorials to those who died are spread widely around the UK..." and on should probably be moved to the aftermath section, or wherever you expand upon the imact of the Hood's sinking.
  • Done, thank you. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• In the second theory, about the underwater shell strike, how far would a shell have had to penetrate to reach the magazine?
  • Not sure, but I've added the available info.
• What kind of boats/launches did she carry? I think it's worth mentioning in the "description" section, since the impacts to the boat decks are significant to the accepted theory.
  • Honestly don't think that it's that important. As you can see from the one aerial photo, the answer is lots of boats.
• The line "...as by his estimation the angle of fall of Bismarck's 38 cm shells..." seems inconsistant since the Bismarck's shells are described as "15-inch" everywhere else.
  • Fixed
• There are a few spots where you use the degree symbol (°), and some where you spell out the word. Is there a reason for the inconsistancy?
  • Nope, fixed.

It's mostly small issues, and shouldn't be too hard to fix for a support from me. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; like I said above I'll only be able to sporadically respond for the next week or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the issues have been addressed, and some not. Please follow up on your thoughts as to the ones that you haven't acted on yet. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Compelling writing so far, Sturm. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• "She had a metacentric height of 4.2 feet (1.3 m) at deep load, as well as a complete double bottom. The additional armour added during construction increased her draft by about 4 feet (1.2 m) at deep load, which reduced her freeboard and made her very wet.": A suggestion here. "As well as" has a connotation that what follows amplifies what comes before. There's a connection between those two things, but it seems to me there's a stronger connection between the extra weight of the double bottom and what comes after; is there a way to move the double bottom into the next sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The double bottom did not relate to her overweight problem. Lemme see if I can find another place to put it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• What's an "F IV H catapult"?
  • Deleted as superfluous.
• "the US continued with their established design direction, the slower but well-protected South Dakota-class battleship": I think a reader is likely to come away with the impression that there actually was such a battleship ... there wasn't, just a design. Is there a way to reword?
  • How does it read now?
    • Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• "armour/protective arrangement": see WP:SLASH.
  • Fixed.
• Done for now. I stopped at HMS_Hood_(51)#Construction. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work so far. See how well the double bottom info fits; I'm not really happy with it right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, HMS_Hood_(51)#Construction. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Hey guys, I'll finish this one as soon as I'm done with Vyborg. On the list question, the best link is WP:EMBED#Appropriate use of lists, and that's one of the Good Article criteria. I'll get to this soon. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oops, have to do some FAC work before this one, but it will be today for sure. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Got a little farther, I'll finish up tomorrow morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• "HOOD V RENOWN OFF AROSA 23–1–35": See WP:ALLCAPS. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• IMO the list format in Modern theories on the sinking is supported by MOS, specifically WP:EMBED.
• "; a world first": what was it that never happened before? Underwater video streamed to a website, or video from a certain depth, or underwater video streamed to a national broadcaster's website, or .... ? - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• What's the difference between a messdeck and living quarters? I think you should just have living quarters, or specify which mess (probably the enlisted one) which was drenched.
  • The messdecks were the living quarters for the junior enlisted men. Some NCOs and all officers had separate living quarters, most all of which got wet. There were different messes for many specialties and I don't propose to detail all of them.
    • Messdeck could use a link; anyways I guess even with the jargon its clear enough to the reader that some parts of the ship where some subset of the crew ate and/or slept were uncomfortable.
      • Linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Which page of Taylor (pp. 92, 94 or 123) says she was "the largest submarine in the Navy"? I think you should cite that individually.
  • Done.
• You kind of mention this obliquely regarding her high speed and armament earning her a nickname, but that sounds kind of POV-ish to me; wasn't there an actual story how the Hood received the nickname "Mighty Hood"?
  • Nope, just consensus as to why.
    • Hmm, ok just checking. Hood is not the only ship with a nickname of dubious origin.
• Super-long third paragraph in Inter-war service should be split; it will make the last image format better.
  • Done.
• Sinking; wasn't there a story how each of those three survived that massive explosion?
  • Sure, but not really relevant to this article; it's more appropriate to articles on the fellows themselves, if they're notable in their own right.
    • I think simply surviving the sinking makes them notable; anyways, you have a one sentence paragraph that easily could be expanded. I'd redlink the names, add their ranks, and detail the 3 hour wait to be rescued by Electra, then mention all three testified in the official inquiries. Kirk (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I've followed the same procedure that I used on the battlecruisers blown up at Jutland where I provide numbers and the ships that rescued them. I don't feel that simply surviving makes them notable in any way. I've added their ranks and corrected their time in the water before rescue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Per WP:BULLET I don't think you should have the bullet points in the theory section and you should summarize the 6 theories in the lead paragraph.
  • I disagree. The bullets nicely organize the theories, especially as several of them are really too short to stand on their own as paragraphs. I've added a discussion as to the investigations into her loss and some, but not all, of the theories. I only covered those that disagree with the board's conclusion; those that only focus on how the magazines exploded are left for later. See how it reads.
    • The section doesn't even have a lead sentence, just a sentence fragment, and if you didn't have the bullets it would read the same to me; which is what the MOS says Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. I don't think Dank got this far in the article, he might have a comment or two once he gets here.
• The motto is not cited.
  • Done.
• I'm confused about the torpedo tubes - they removed the two underwater tubes ahead of the A-turret but why did she have 2 torpedo tubes in 1941 - shouldn't it be 4?
  • Look again, 2 x 2=4
• Good work, very interesting and comprehensive article. Kirk (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I crossed off a few; more comments added...Kirk (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support but here are a few comments: Would it be too much to ask for a separation of notes and citations? I find that much easier to read. What I found particularly interesting are the slight discrepancies in timing when I look at the German sources about who fired when during Hoods final battle in the Denmark Strait. The distance between Hood and Bismarck was also judged differently by Von Müllenheim-Rechberg in comparison to the numbers stated here. But all of this is minor. This may be difficult to address but not much is mentioned about the crew and its structure, such as how many officers, how many men per gun or for driving the engines were needed, etc. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I've updated the crew numbers based on the best info I've got, but I can't break out the info on them to the level that you want, nor do I ever expect to be able to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object The only referenced or cited source is a very old Britannica, and I would imagine it is possible to get more recent (and potentially more reliable) information about the subject. Carom 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose more sources needed. Wandalstouring 06:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are plenty of printed reference sources on Turenne; using a single source is never sufficient, particularly when many printed sources can differ on the 'facts'. Also needs citation. Raymond Palmer 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above --plange 15:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above.UberCryxic 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. --Laserbeamcrossfire 02:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written, although I wouldn't complain if it were slightly better cited. Carom 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Some issues with citations and pictures. Is this picture legal? Image:Alexanderbattle.jpg Wandalstouring 06:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm almost sure that it is not, seeing as how it comes from the video game Rome: Total War. I believe there was a discussion a few weeks ago, and it was determined that such images did not comply with the proper Wiki rules on images. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It may be; given that the article is explicitly discussing how he's depicted in modern culture, there's probably a valid fair use claim for such an image here. Kirill Lokshin 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object picture missing (redlink?) and there are several sections where there are no inline citations at all --plange 15:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now. Insufficient in-line citations.--Yannismarou 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Krasny Bor

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. A nice, long, and detailed article. But not quite as long and detailed as I personally believe A-class should be. LordAmeth 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs more citations to be A-class, although otherwise, it seems ok. Carom 03:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, more citations. Wandalstouring 06:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Good article, not A-class. See comments above. Raymond Palmer 19:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

M1 Garand

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I have zero knowledge or expertise as regards firearms, but a cursory examination seems to indicate that this article contains exhaustive coverage of the subject. Pictures, tables on variants, diagrams, and a fair number of references. LordAmeth 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I think it should probably cite sources a little better in a couple of sections, but I'm not too troubled. Carom 03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose more sources, especially if quoting somebody. Wandalstouring 06:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Charlemagne

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm afraid I have to vote "oppose" for now. Though well beyond many B-class articles for length and detail, this article has a very short introduction, and not nearly enough references. LordAmeth 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Far too weak on citations (only three in an article of this length is really not quite right). Carom 03:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Missing citations. Wandalstouring 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Operation Barbarossa

Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!)

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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I want to see it reach FA-status. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments -- I don't know if I'll be able to post a full review here but on a quick glance:

• No dablinks according to the toolbox checker (no action req'd).
• I see several harv errors; you can install this script to view them.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Ian. What does "harv errors" refer to exactly? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 10:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• It usually means inconsistencies in your referencing -- install the script and find out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Have to install stuff now? ... going to be a loooong day! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 10:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• G'day, I did a few of these for you. There are still a few left, though. The script can be found here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Cheers matyyy. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment
• The lede is confusing. It jumps around from topic to topic in single paras, repeats itself, and doesn't seem to follow any plan in terms of being chronological or explanatory. Suggestion: basic intro describing entire concept, para on reasons/background/planning, para on forces and initial success, para on the problems in the winter/bogging down, concluding statement as it is.

I moved things around. Did it get better? EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Did Barbarossa ever "end"? I know the term covers "the invasion", but isn't it correct to say that it ended in the winter with the counterattacks? If so, this would be useful in the lede.

It wasn't specifically called off, but it did end, because the operation was abandoned. The offensive was defeated before most of the goals outlined in Directive 21 could be achieved. And effort towards most of those goals were suspended indefinitely. It's akin to the outcome of Operation Brunswick, which was never specifically called off, but clearly ended with the German defeat at Stalingrad. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• The map immediately following the lede purports to show the Nazi's anti-slavic policies, including Norway and Sweden, but not Finland. I'm certainly no expert on this, but I don't think they gave a hoot about Scandanavia - is it even mentioned in Mein Kamf? The text beside it certainly doesn't mention it, nor does the invasion plans section.

I noticed the map didn't include any of the Axis nations and co-belligerents. Also, Hitler's ultimate enemy were the Slavs. The map was modelled after this ONE. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "German invasion plans" jumps around chronologically, and I think would be improved if it was laid out that way. Currently it goes summer, december, unrelated essay (should be in previous section?), autumn.
• "German military planners" should be in the planning section?

Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Although the Soviet High" should be separate para?

Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The importance of the delay" should be separate para?

Done. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• "153 divisions for Barbarossa, which included 138 divisions" I'm not completely sure I understand the distinction here, a little extra text would be helpful.

Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The whole "German preparations" section also seems to be in need of a moving-about to make it read more linearly, especially the entire bit on the delay, which seems should be at the bottom.
• Perhaps mention where Luftflotte 3 was? Or not.

It was in France and the Low Countries, because Britain was still a significant target up till late 1941. Not sure if that deserves a mention. No? EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, doesn't deserve mention. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• "But during Stalin's Great Purge", I'm not sure this is a "but", as the para before it doesn't really lead into this one.
• Am I incorrect in believing that the Purge was instigated, to some degree, by Germany?

"Instigated" wouldn't be the correct characterization. Stalin was extremely paranoid, and the accusations layered on the incarcerated officers were often related to spying for Nazi Germany. Most of the evidence brought against these officers are now known to have been concocted by Stalin's cronies, but others are still debated. Because in some cases, the Germans took advantage of the situation and leaked falsified evidence that only helped seal the fate of the officers, e.g. Mikail Tukachevsky. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Soviet preparations" generally has the same problem as the other sections, as it jumps around from date to date. Some of it seems best put into earlier sections entirely. Generally, any text that doesn't involved actual preparations probably shouldn't be in this section.
• "most of which were still seriously understrength, but it was undetected by German intelligence" confusing statement, and probably should be elsewhere.

Hopefully alleviated the difficult read by splitting the unwieldy sentence in two. EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Stopping at "Invasion" for now. From what I have seen so far though, this article needs a lot of copyediting. Mostly the issue is simply re-organization to make it read more linearly, but it does seem that it would not suffer from the removal of perhaps 15 to 20% of the text. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose WP:V isn't met

• Given the discussion on the article's talk page, it's disappointing that the article still repeatedly references TV documentaries. Given the vast and high quality literature on this topic, there's no need to use such low quality sources.
• Moreover, the many references to the documentaries aren't even very useful - they simply point to the entire episode, instead of the point at which the claim appears.
• Some of the references to book page ranges are also overly broad. For instance, Glantz 2012, p. 290-303 and Thomas 2012, pp. 12–14. are each cited seven times, and there are other instances of this. It's unlikely that these page ranges are needed on each and every occasion.
• What makes http://ww2stats.com/ a reliable source? There seems to be no information on who created and maintained the site, and its content appears to be primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - @WP:MILHIST coordinators: this looks to me to be a candidate for a quickfail. There is a huge amount of high quality academic material on this subject. TV doco's and a non-RS website just don't meet the standard of citations needed at Milhist ACR. I agree with Nick's comment regarding some sources not being verifiable. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Per Nick above. --Molestash (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that I've actioned the quickfail suggestion above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Landing at Anzac Cove

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 11:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as not citing any sources or providing any references (not even weblinks). Carom 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, with no sources at all, no way it can be A-class. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose no sources. no A-class. Wandalstouring 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Central Asia

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support (is that even an option?). I'm a little troubled by the low number of references. Carom 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong objection needs some quality sources.

"Even his invasions of China, to that point, had involved no more bloodshed that nomadic invasions such as the Huns had previously mounted, had caused.[1]"

This claim can be severely contested. Chinese sources in other articles say 100% different.

"but Genghis Khan introduced the world to tactics that would not be seen again until the Germans used them so well in World War II - indirect attack, and complete and utter terror and slaughter of populations wholesale as weapons of war."

Seems to forget the Boer War and the Confederate Cavalry, while slaughtering of population was an ideological motivated instrument of German warfare in the Nazi era and served very contraproductive to the efforts of establishing a stable German rule (partisans). For the Mongols it was an instrument of establishing a rule and so say all contemporary sources.

"(It must be noted that Genghis Khan eventually abrogated every allegiance he ever made, but in the short term, he probably did not intend to invade the Khwarezmid Empire when he did) [3]"

Alliance with equals or rebellions of allied minors who had to serve?

"Genghis then sent a 500-man caravan, comprised of Muslims to officially establish trade ties with Khwarezmia. However Inalchuq, the governor of the Khwarezmian city of Otrar, had the members of the caravan that came from Mongolia arrested, claiming that the caravan was a conspiracy against Khwarezmia. It seems unlikely, however, that any members of the trade delegation were spies. Nor does it seem likely that Genghis was trying to provoke a conflict with the Khwarezmid Empire, considering he was still dealing with the Jin in northeastern China.[3]"

Needs some more sourcing about Mongol spying practice and intelligence gathering.

"The city leaders opened the gates to Bukhara, though a unit of Turkish defenders held the city's citadel for another twelve days. Survivors from the citadel were executed, artisans and craftsmen were sent back to Mongolia, young men who had not fought were drafted into the Mongolian army and the rest of the population was sent into slavery. This was to be Genghis' typical treatment of captured cities throughout the rest of the campaign. As the Mongol soldiers looted the city, a fire broke out, razing the majority of the city to the ground.[7]"

Did this happen to the cooperative population of Buchara or did someone misquote?

"After the fall of Bukhara, Genghis headed west, towards the Khwarezmi capital of Samarkand and arrived at the city in March 1220. Samarkand was significantly more fortified and there were as many as 100,000 men defending the city. As Genghis began seiging the city, his sons Chaghatai and Ogodei joined him after finishing off the reduction of Otrar and the joint Mongol forces launched an assault on the city. Using prisoners as body shields, the Mongols attacked. On the third day of fighting, the Samarkand garrison launched a counterattack. Feigning retreat, Genghis reportedly drew out a garrison force of 50,000 outside the fortifications of Samarkand and slaughtered them in open combat. Muhammad attempted to relieve the city twice, but was driven back. On the fifth day, all but an approximate 2,000 soldiers surrendered. The remaining soldiers, diehard supporters of the Shah, held out in the citadel. After the fortress fell, Genghis reneged on his surrender terms and executed every soldier that had taken arms against him at Samarkand."

These claims really need sourcing. So many defenders in a city? How did the Mongols win so easily if they mistreated all allies all the time, this needs really more sourcing and an expert. Wandalstouring 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Breaker Morant

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - not a single footnote in the text. No way should any unsourced article ever be rated more than Start in my opinion.Michael Dorosh^Talk 02:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per MD, though I'd say it's B-class -plange 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per MD. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, although I also think it's B-Class. Carom 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's B-class only. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)