Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2006/Failed

Failed

F-105 Thunderchief

Completely rewritten with citations and references, comprehensive overview of this Vietnam War workhorse. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose While the article is well written and appears to do a good job of covering the topic, the citations are really too few and far between. There are a number of (presumably) easily citable facts, particularly regarding technical specifications, that lack citations, and some paragraphs have no citations whatsoever. Carom 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Needs more cites Once this article is throughly cited, it will get upgraded to A-class without trouble. But at the moment, as Carom says, it's not at that standard. Buckshot06 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I've gone through and added references where appropriate. Please re-evaluate. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are not enough inline citations to warrent awarding A-class status to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me a guideline that indicates the minimum number of citations. Every claim and every significant statement has been cited, the rest of the material is assembled from sources in references. Please show specifically what needs to be cited. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the current project guideline on citations is here. Kirill Lokshin 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to view a reference/note section as needing about 15-20 different sources or notes to be what I consider "well written", since that has now become an accepted guideline for FA-class articles (and to my way of thinking, A-class articles as well). This is the figure stated at WP:IC, which recieves a considerable amount of traffic from new comers and first time A-class/FA-class people who are not sure how to add inline citations. I do make exceptions to this general policy of mine if an article draws heavily on one primary source for most of the information. Having brought USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) up to FA status, and having guided them through the FAR process, I know that there are times when an article can be well written and well cited with a small amount of citations, or a large number of citations to the same source, and I have adjusted my vote accordingly under such circumstances. In this case though, I feel that the article could be better improved on. Take the following examples:

• ...by March 1953 the USAF had reduced the order to 37 fighter-bombers and 9 tactical reconnaissance aircraft, citing the approaching end of the Korean War.
• By the time the F-105 mockup had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it was abandoned in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75.
• The first production F-105B flew on 14 May 1957.
• Nicknamed the Wild Weasel, these aircraft achieved 9 confirmed victories against North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile radars.
• Although the F-105D was withdrawn from Vietnam in 1970, the Wild Weasel aircraft soldiered on until the end of the war.
• The initial reaction of the fighter pilot community to their new aircraft was lukewarm.

None of these claims cite a source; there is no number at the end of the sentence or paragraph to back up these claims. Its not that I don’t think the article has potential; rather, the articles that we approve for A and FA-status should reflect the motto of the US Marine Corps: "The Few, The Proud", and this one is not quite there yet. I would encourage you not to give up though; I have absolute faith in your ability to get this article to A-class, or if you choose, Featured Status. As they say, the best things in life are worth working for :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I will address the issues you noted above. For future reference (yours, mine, and everyone else's), actually tagging the article with fact tags as was done with F-84 is by far the best way to give feedback on what exactly needs a citation. As I said in my F-84 comments, having done most of the writing makes a lot of the facts obvious and not needing a citation to me. I apologize for my frustration (I genuinely appreciate all constructive criticism) and I'll take care of the cites. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support Well written, did't notice major problems. I'd like to see more photos; the distribution of notes suggests there may be overreliance on a single source; but I don't think it should prevent the article from being rated as A-class. Bukvoed 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Multiple sources make sense for controversial topics with many opinions or for very complex topics. The majority of citations are for dates and hard numbers, not something that would be subject to controversy or heated debates. I can cross-reference every number across 10 different sources (I do verify all the specs between several sources) but that would be pretty insane, wouldn't it? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Of course multiple sources for specific details aren't needed typically. What I wanted to say is that the article seems to be based on Knaack with relatively minor additions from other sources, which is sort of a shortcoming... at least I think so. Perhaps I have wrong impression; or perhaps Knaack is the definitive source; or... etc. Anyway, I like the article, it is comprehensive and well written, it probably already qualifies as A-class. Bukvoed 08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article is a combination of about half a dozen sources. It's easier from the writing standpoint to cite all numbers from one source but I can see how that would create an impression of overreliance on multiple sources. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I really don't care how few citations there are, as long as the information is accurate. Of course, I have no idea if it is, which is the point of citations in the first place. But, for length, detail, style, etc, I'm happy to support it. LordAmeth 21:18, 30 December 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.

---

Article still meets A-Class criteria - Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Khe Sanh

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of Khe Sanh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Khe Sanh/Archive 1
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Khe Sanh/Archive 2
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Khe Sanh/Archive 3

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Khe Sanh/archive1

Nominating this for an A-class re-appraisal as unfortunately I don't believe it meets our current A-class criteria. It has been ten years since it was promoted and my specific concerns relate mainly to referencing as there are numerous "citation needed" tags throughout the article, and other areas that aren't tagged which need referencing. I can see that a lot of hard work has gone into writing this article, so my hope is that this reappraisal will actually stimulate a desire to find the references; however, my attempts so far to do so through posting on the article's talk page have not achieved this. Unfortunately, the article's original author, User:RM Gillespie has not edited Wikipedia for six years. My preference is that the article is retained as an A-class article, but only if it can be brought up to current standards. I am willing to help where I can, but it is not a topic I have much knowledge of, nor do I have much in the way of referencing material, so I would be grateful for any help I can get. A few years back we were able to rescue Operation Rolling Thunder with a team effort, so my hope is that we can do the same for this. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments: I have taken a quick pass over the article, and in addition to the referencing concerns raised above, list the following (some of which I have started working on myself): AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• the lead is too long at five paragraphs (probably a relatively easy fix)
• the citation style is inconsistent in places (e.g. some short and some long; additionally, in the Secondary sources list, compare Warren with Willbanks for instance)
• Some of the web citations are missing bibliographic information such as title, publisher or accessdates (e.g. ref 47 which is titled "Archived copy" instead of the actual page title; same same with "Australian War Memorial")
• some of the web citations are dead, and should be updated, or archive links added
• some of the references may not be to WP:RS, e.g. [1]. Where possible, these will probably need to be replaced
• the images need reviewing for licencing and other details (e.g "File:The Fight for Khe Sanh.jpg" is missing information, although this one can probably be rectified relatively easily). I have updated a few of these already, but not all of them as yet
• some of the language probably could be made more encyclopedic, e.g. " In response, General William Westmoreland, commander of the U.S. forces in Vietnam, reached for the nuclear button." As such, I suggest that this probably needs a copy edit for style, and also MOS compliance
  • @Dank: G'day, Dan, I know you don't usually take copy editing requests these days, but I'm wondering if you might have a little time to look over this article , even if it was just the lead? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• I am also concerned that most, if not all of the popular culture/in media references probably run afoul of WP:MILPOP AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: I've managed to find some refs, but am slightly confused by the similarity between the Wikipedia article and pp. 202–207 of this source: [2] (Gooch's Marines by Lou Giaffo). As this source was published in 2013 (and the wording in this article precedes that date), I think it is potentially a case of backwards copy (and not copyright violation by Wikipedia), but am not sure...if it is a backwards copy, then (and I'm not sure of this, so some other opinions would be great), I assume we need to remove the refs to Giaffo and find the original refs (which are currently elusive without the input of the original author)? @Nikkimaria and Diannaa: Apologies for the ping, but are either of you able to assist with this query? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Digging further, I'm also concerned about this passage in the article: "By any measure, the battle for Khe Sanh was finally over and this is the end date from the North Vietnamese perspective". It seems word-for-word the same as this: [3]. It appears to have been added on 26 January 2013, with this edit: [4]. As such, I am concerned about this being a copyright violation. I propose rewriting it. AustralianRupert (talk)
      • Searching WikiBlame for the phrase " thereby spreading out the defense" reveals it was added without a citation with this edit in 2006. The 2013 book has copied from us rather than the other way around.
      • The phrase "the sector remained relatively quiet" was added November 20, 2006 with no citation. This is a backwards copy.
      • The phrase "final evacuation and destruction" was added on January 26, 2013 and has been present in the Vanderbilt article since 2006. This whole paragraph is copyvio and will have to be re-written or removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, new citations will be needed for the material currently cited to the book copying from us, and {{backwardscopy}} should be added on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Thank you both, Nikki and Diannaa. I have added the backwards copy template and removed the citations to Giaffo with "cn" tags for the timebeing. I have also attempted to rewrite the passage identified as copyvio. Please let me know if you have further concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Further update: today I have worked through the article some more and found more instances of copyright violations, for instance this edit: [5] which violated this: [6]. I have tried to rewrite where possible, but have also had to remove quite a bit. Still working through this, though, and it will probably take awhile. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
              • I think I have managed to identify and remove or rewrite the copyvio text now, but it would be great if someone else could check to see if I have missed anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not worried about the lede length by default, rules are made to be broken. That said, I'm not sure this couldn't do with some snippage anyway. Do we really need a list of the units involved? That's detail that should be in the body.
  • I have reduced some of this detail now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• There is no discussion of NVA tactics Dien Bien Phu. This, IMHO, is a serious oversight. The NVA operation was attempting to repeat their artillery-and-trench success, and it failed. This really needs to be part of this article.
  • Agreed, the article hints at this but never really explains this. Where do you think would be best to cover this and how much would you like to see added? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Anotherclown: G'day, AC, unfortunately I'm a bit tied up at the moment (in and out of hospital for the next few days visiting my wife and little one). Just wondering if you have anything amongst your Vietnam War books that might be useful to add some more background to explain the Vietnamese tactics mentioned above, and maybe deal with the remaining "cn" tags? Anything you could add would be fantastic. Also, if you get a chance, I think a few of the images still need their description pages checked or updated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Added something about the arty and trench tactics with this edit: [7]. Do you think more is necessary? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• A lot of the cite-needs appear to be purely mechanical end-of-para crap. The statements in question all seem trivially easy to cite and we should do that instead of delisting.
  • I appreciate your involvement here, Maury, but I'm not sure I agree that these are purely "mechanical end-of-para crap" type issues. Some of these uncited sentences could initially have been original research/academic opinion given that the professional credentials of the article's original author. I am by no means saying this is definitively the case, and believe that ultimately we will most likely be able to cite most things through secondary sources. If you are willing to help with that, then thank you. If not, then I can understand your reluctance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• "after running roughshod over the Marines concerning the defense of the base at Khe Sanh" - this statement confuses me. Who did what to whom? And is this occurring before, during or after? Was the base surrounded in January? This is all very confusing.
  • I believe that there was a disagreement between Westmoreland and several Marine officers (including Walt and English) about the strategy of defending Khe Sahn in the firstplace. See p 131 of here: [8] AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • G'day Maury, I think I've fixed this concern now. I think it was a chronological error, or a case of hindsight being incorrectly applied. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

- the question for me is not whether this is still A-class, but how much work to get it back there? I strongly prefer to keep things on the list if possible, rather than having to go through the process again. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I agree with the nominator that the referencing no longer meets the standards of A class and have added some citations where I could find them; however, unfortunately there were quite a few I could not resolve.
  • The "In media" section was mostly unreferenced / insignificant trivia so I've removed it per WP:MILPOP.
  • I tried to check the licence for "File:The Fight for Khe Sanh.jpg", but I couldn't find it anywhere in the stated source (which I have .pdfs of). Perhaps this has accidently been misattributed?
    • Thanks, I will see if I can find it in some other source. I am a bit suspect of "File:The final evacuation of Khe Sanh base complex, July 1st 1968.png" also, as the original uploader was responsible for quite a bit of the copyvio text I've had to remove from the article. "File:1st Cav at LZ Stud.jpg" might also be problematic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I have removed the images above and replaced where I could with images that had workable source links and where I could verify licenses. I have nominated "File:The final evacuation of Khe Sanh base complex, July 1st 1968.png" for deletion on Commons as the source link provided unfortunately appears to be copyrighted (and the image itself not viewable there). I think that "File:1st Cav at LZ Stud.jpg" might well be the work of the uploader based on who they say they are on their talk page but there isn't sufficient evidence of this (i.e. no OTRS ticket proving identity). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • My changes are here [9]. I'll try to pitch in a bit more over the next week if / when I have some time but I'd say I've about reached the limit of my sources and expertise given I don't have much background here. We may need an SME to salvage this one. Anotherclown (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your work on this, I have found a couple more refs tonight and will keep looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I think I've gotten all the citation needed tags now. I have added a little bit about the Vietnamese commanders who were not initially mentioned in the article outside of the infobox, and have tried to work in the bit about the siege tactics employed being similar to Dien Bien Phu. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Another relatively minor issue I can see is the number of inconsistencies in presentation of reference styles (although this could be fairly easily addressed as part of this review). Anotherclown (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I think it would improve readability to potentially split the notes and citations. (This seems to come up pretty regularly at FAC, so it is probably a good idea to implement it here also). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes I agree that would be an improvement. Anotherclown (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I have implemented this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Given the improvements undertaken I think its sufficient to keep now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Not wild about this one.
• "The main US forces defending Khe Sanh Combat Base (KSCB) were two regiments of US Marines, although there were also elements from the United States Army and the United States Air Force.": "although" is wrong for the sentence as it stands. "with" would work.
• "also ... also". No.
• "These were also supported by a small number of South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) troops. These ...": A repeated pronoun is used to refer to different groups.
• "the KSCB": It was just "KSCB", without "the", in the previous paragraph.
• "autumn and winter": "autumn" is fine in Milhist articles if it's clearly referring to autumn maneuvers, or to something with a connection to autumn. Otherwise, WP:SEASON applies.
• "A build-up of US forces took place and actions around Khe Sanh commenced when the Marine base became isolated.": "isolated" seems ambiguous to me; I need more detail to get a clear image.
• "desperate actions": emotional language. A description of what desperate things they did would be better.
• "under constant North Vietnamese ground, artillery, mortar, and rocket attacks": Aren't the other attacks all ground attacks? (I may not be up on the lingo.)
• "used the latest technological advances in order to locate": I'm not on board with a blanket rejection of "in order to", but the meaning is off here, as well as later in the same sentence.
• "the logistical effort to support the base once it was isolated, demanded the implementation": Between subject and verb is pretty much the worst place for a (non-paired) comma.
• That's just the first two paragraphs, and one of the complaints at the failed FAC (a long time ago) was the excessive length of the article. I'll take another look in a week, but I'm not feeling enthusiastic. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Cheers, Dan, I appreciate you taking a look. I've had a go at rectifying these points. Regarding the length, this is indeed an issue and in fact, the article is about 2,900 words longer than when it failed FAC. I'm not really sure how to tackle this short of wholesale cuts, which I don't feel qualified to do, but will keep working on tightening the wording where I can. Thanks for your time. Any further guidance would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It will be a few more days before I can look at this again. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Just noting that I don't think I'll be coming back to this one. I can't give it a quick thumbs-up, there are still plenty of basic wording errors, even in the lead (the true intention Tet, until July 11 until). It would take a lot of work, and this is a bad time for me. Also, I'm not really sure how a reevaluation of A-class status is supposed to work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
      • @Dank: No worries, Dan, thanks for your time. I hope things improve for you. I've adjusted the lead a bit more, but overall I've pretty much done all I can with the article now. As such, I ask if the reviewers are of the opinion that enough has been done to keep the article's A-class rating, or if it should be delisted? (Essentially just like a WP:FAR). I personally think a lot of issues have been resolved, and would like to see it kept as an A-class article, but I know that I haven't (and can't) address the concerns of length and some of the more structural issues. Equally, I'm now probably too close to the article to make an objective assessment of whether it meets the grade, so I would ask for an independent assessment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
        • You've made a lot of improvements AR, and I don't object to keeping the A-class status, but I wouldn't be able to support if this were a new nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

cmnt

• Confused why this is in A-class review when already A-class, but whatever. Pisor missing from refs.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • G'day, Lingzhi, this is an A-class re-appraisal to determine if the article still meets the requirements (similar to a WP:FAR or a WP:GAR). It was promoted 10 years ago and a lot of issues had developed in the intervening period (addition of copyvio material for instance). My hope is that it will help bring the article back up to standard by getting fresh eyes on it and I think we have managed to fix many aspects since the review began. I have added Pisor in now. Thanks for taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article still meets A-Class criteria - Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Khe Sanh

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of Khe Sanh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Khe Sanh/Archive 1
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Khe Sanh/Archive 2
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Khe Sanh/Archive 3

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Khe Sanh/archive1

Nominating this for an A-class re-appraisal as unfortunately I don't believe it meets our current A-class criteria. It has been ten years since it was promoted and my specific concerns relate mainly to referencing as there are numerous "citation needed" tags throughout the article, and other areas that aren't tagged which need referencing. I can see that a lot of hard work has gone into writing this article, so my hope is that this reappraisal will actually stimulate a desire to find the references; however, my attempts so far to do so through posting on the article's talk page have not achieved this. Unfortunately, the article's original author, User:RM Gillespie has not edited Wikipedia for six years. My preference is that the article is retained as an A-class article, but only if it can be brought up to current standards. I am willing to help where I can, but it is not a topic I have much knowledge of, nor do I have much in the way of referencing material, so I would be grateful for any help I can get. A few years back we were able to rescue Operation Rolling Thunder with a team effort, so my hope is that we can do the same for this. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments: I have taken a quick pass over the article, and in addition to the referencing concerns raised above, list the following (some of which I have started working on myself): AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• the lead is too long at five paragraphs (probably a relatively easy fix)
• the citation style is inconsistent in places (e.g. some short and some long; additionally, in the Secondary sources list, compare Warren with Willbanks for instance)
• Some of the web citations are missing bibliographic information such as title, publisher or accessdates (e.g. ref 47 which is titled "Archived copy" instead of the actual page title; same same with "Australian War Memorial")
• some of the web citations are dead, and should be updated, or archive links added
• some of the references may not be to WP:RS, e.g. [10]. Where possible, these will probably need to be replaced
• the images need reviewing for licencing and other details (e.g "File:The Fight for Khe Sanh.jpg" is missing information, although this one can probably be rectified relatively easily). I have updated a few of these already, but not all of them as yet
• some of the language probably could be made more encyclopedic, e.g. " In response, General William Westmoreland, commander of the U.S. forces in Vietnam, reached for the nuclear button." As such, I suggest that this probably needs a copy edit for style, and also MOS compliance
  • @Dank: G'day, Dan, I know you don't usually take copy editing requests these days, but I'm wondering if you might have a little time to look over this article , even if it was just the lead? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• I am also concerned that most, if not all of the popular culture/in media references probably run afoul of WP:MILPOP AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: I've managed to find some refs, but am slightly confused by the similarity between the Wikipedia article and pp. 202–207 of this source: [11] (Gooch's Marines by Lou Giaffo). As this source was published in 2013 (and the wording in this article precedes that date), I think it is potentially a case of backwards copy (and not copyright violation by Wikipedia), but am not sure...if it is a backwards copy, then (and I'm not sure of this, so some other opinions would be great), I assume we need to remove the refs to Giaffo and find the original refs (which are currently elusive without the input of the original author)? @Nikkimaria and Diannaa: Apologies for the ping, but are either of you able to assist with this query? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Digging further, I'm also concerned about this passage in the article: "By any measure, the battle for Khe Sanh was finally over and this is the end date from the North Vietnamese perspective". It seems word-for-word the same as this: [12]. It appears to have been added on 26 January 2013, with this edit: [13]. As such, I am concerned about this being a copyright violation. I propose rewriting it. AustralianRupert (talk)
      • Searching WikiBlame for the phrase " thereby spreading out the defense" reveals it was added without a citation with this edit in 2006. The 2013 book has copied from us rather than the other way around.
      • The phrase "the sector remained relatively quiet" was added November 20, 2006 with no citation. This is a backwards copy.
      • The phrase "final evacuation and destruction" was added on January 26, 2013 and has been present in the Vanderbilt article since 2006. This whole paragraph is copyvio and will have to be re-written or removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, new citations will be needed for the material currently cited to the book copying from us, and {{backwardscopy}} should be added on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Thank you both, Nikki and Diannaa. I have added the backwards copy template and removed the citations to Giaffo with "cn" tags for the timebeing. I have also attempted to rewrite the passage identified as copyvio. Please let me know if you have further concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Further update: today I have worked through the article some more and found more instances of copyright violations, for instance this edit: [14] which violated this: [15]. I have tried to rewrite where possible, but have also had to remove quite a bit. Still working through this, though, and it will probably take awhile. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
              • I think I have managed to identify and remove or rewrite the copyvio text now, but it would be great if someone else could check to see if I have missed anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not worried about the lede length by default, rules are made to be broken. That said, I'm not sure this couldn't do with some snippage anyway. Do we really need a list of the units involved? That's detail that should be in the body.
  • I have reduced some of this detail now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• There is no discussion of NVA tactics Dien Bien Phu. This, IMHO, is a serious oversight. The NVA operation was attempting to repeat their artillery-and-trench success, and it failed. This really needs to be part of this article.
  • Agreed, the article hints at this but never really explains this. Where do you think would be best to cover this and how much would you like to see added? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Anotherclown: G'day, AC, unfortunately I'm a bit tied up at the moment (in and out of hospital for the next few days visiting my wife and little one). Just wondering if you have anything amongst your Vietnam War books that might be useful to add some more background to explain the Vietnamese tactics mentioned above, and maybe deal with the remaining "cn" tags? Anything you could add would be fantastic. Also, if you get a chance, I think a few of the images still need their description pages checked or updated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Added something about the arty and trench tactics with this edit: [16]. Do you think more is necessary? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• A lot of the cite-needs appear to be purely mechanical end-of-para crap. The statements in question all seem trivially easy to cite and we should do that instead of delisting.
  • I appreciate your involvement here, Maury, but I'm not sure I agree that these are purely "mechanical end-of-para crap" type issues. Some of these uncited sentences could initially have been original research/academic opinion given that the professional credentials of the article's original author. I am by no means saying this is definitively the case, and believe that ultimately we will most likely be able to cite most things through secondary sources. If you are willing to help with that, then thank you. If not, then I can understand your reluctance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• "after running roughshod over the Marines concerning the defense of the base at Khe Sanh" - this statement confuses me. Who did what to whom? And is this occurring before, during or after? Was the base surrounded in January? This is all very confusing.
  • I believe that there was a disagreement between Westmoreland and several Marine officers (including Walt and English) about the strategy of defending Khe Sahn in the firstplace. See p 131 of here: [17] AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • G'day Maury, I think I've fixed this concern now. I think it was a chronological error, or a case of hindsight being incorrectly applied. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

- the question for me is not whether this is still A-class, but how much work to get it back there? I strongly prefer to keep things on the list if possible, rather than having to go through the process again. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I agree with the nominator that the referencing no longer meets the standards of A class and have added some citations where I could find them; however, unfortunately there were quite a few I could not resolve.
  • The "In media" section was mostly unreferenced / insignificant trivia so I've removed it per WP:MILPOP.
  • I tried to check the licence for "File:The Fight for Khe Sanh.jpg", but I couldn't find it anywhere in the stated source (which I have .pdfs of). Perhaps this has accidently been misattributed?
    • Thanks, I will see if I can find it in some other source. I am a bit suspect of "File:The final evacuation of Khe Sanh base complex, July 1st 1968.png" also, as the original uploader was responsible for quite a bit of the copyvio text I've had to remove from the article. "File:1st Cav at LZ Stud.jpg" might also be problematic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I have removed the images above and replaced where I could with images that had workable source links and where I could verify licenses. I have nominated "File:The final evacuation of Khe Sanh base complex, July 1st 1968.png" for deletion on Commons as the source link provided unfortunately appears to be copyrighted (and the image itself not viewable there). I think that "File:1st Cav at LZ Stud.jpg" might well be the work of the uploader based on who they say they are on their talk page but there isn't sufficient evidence of this (i.e. no OTRS ticket proving identity). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • My changes are here [18]. I'll try to pitch in a bit more over the next week if / when I have some time but I'd say I've about reached the limit of my sources and expertise given I don't have much background here. We may need an SME to salvage this one. Anotherclown (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your work on this, I have found a couple more refs tonight and will keep looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I think I've gotten all the citation needed tags now. I have added a little bit about the Vietnamese commanders who were not initially mentioned in the article outside of the infobox, and have tried to work in the bit about the siege tactics employed being similar to Dien Bien Phu. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Another relatively minor issue I can see is the number of inconsistencies in presentation of reference styles (although this could be fairly easily addressed as part of this review). Anotherclown (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I think it would improve readability to potentially split the notes and citations. (This seems to come up pretty regularly at FAC, so it is probably a good idea to implement it here also). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes I agree that would be an improvement. Anotherclown (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I have implemented this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Given the improvements undertaken I think its sufficient to keep now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Not wild about this one.
• "The main US forces defending Khe Sanh Combat Base (KSCB) were two regiments of US Marines, although there were also elements from the United States Army and the United States Air Force.": "although" is wrong for the sentence as it stands. "with" would work.
• "also ... also". No.
• "These were also supported by a small number of South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) troops. These ...": A repeated pronoun is used to refer to different groups.
• "the KSCB": It was just "KSCB", without "the", in the previous paragraph.
• "autumn and winter": "autumn" is fine in Milhist articles if it's clearly referring to autumn maneuvers, or to something with a connection to autumn. Otherwise, WP:SEASON applies.
• "A build-up of US forces took place and actions around Khe Sanh commenced when the Marine base became isolated.": "isolated" seems ambiguous to me; I need more detail to get a clear image.
• "desperate actions": emotional language. A description of what desperate things they did would be better.
• "under constant North Vietnamese ground, artillery, mortar, and rocket attacks": Aren't the other attacks all ground attacks? (I may not be up on the lingo.)
• "used the latest technological advances in order to locate": I'm not on board with a blanket rejection of "in order to", but the meaning is off here, as well as later in the same sentence.
• "the logistical effort to support the base once it was isolated, demanded the implementation": Between subject and verb is pretty much the worst place for a (non-paired) comma.
• That's just the first two paragraphs, and one of the complaints at the failed FAC (a long time ago) was the excessive length of the article. I'll take another look in a week, but I'm not feeling enthusiastic. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Cheers, Dan, I appreciate you taking a look. I've had a go at rectifying these points. Regarding the length, this is indeed an issue and in fact, the article is about 2,900 words longer than when it failed FAC. I'm not really sure how to tackle this short of wholesale cuts, which I don't feel qualified to do, but will keep working on tightening the wording where I can. Thanks for your time. Any further guidance would be greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It will be a few more days before I can look at this again. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Just noting that I don't think I'll be coming back to this one. I can't give it a quick thumbs-up, there are still plenty of basic wording errors, even in the lead (the true intention Tet, until July 11 until). It would take a lot of work, and this is a bad time for me. Also, I'm not really sure how a reevaluation of A-class status is supposed to work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
      • @Dank: No worries, Dan, thanks for your time. I hope things improve for you. I've adjusted the lead a bit more, but overall I've pretty much done all I can with the article now. As such, I ask if the reviewers are of the opinion that enough has been done to keep the article's A-class rating, or if it should be delisted? (Essentially just like a WP:FAR). I personally think a lot of issues have been resolved, and would like to see it kept as an A-class article, but I know that I haven't (and can't) address the concerns of length and some of the more structural issues. Equally, I'm now probably too close to the article to make an objective assessment of whether it meets the grade, so I would ask for an independent assessment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
        • You've made a lot of improvements AR, and I don't object to keeping the A-class status, but I wouldn't be able to support if this were a new nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

cmnt

• Confused why this is in A-class review when already A-class, but whatever. Pisor missing from refs.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • G'day, Lingzhi, this is an A-class re-appraisal to determine if the article still meets the requirements (similar to a WP:FAR or a WP:GAR). It was promoted 10 years ago and a lot of issues had developed in the intervening period (addition of copyvio material for instance). My hope is that it will help bring the article back up to standard by getting fresh eyes on it and I think we have managed to fix many aspects since the review began. I have added Pisor in now. Thanks for taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2017 (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.

Cambodian Civil War

Previous nomination can be found here. Carom 18:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a few citations. RM Gillespie 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Raymond Palmer 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Cla68 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*Support. I fixed a few things, like "the" in section hdgs and unlinked full dates. THere are still several dates that are "date month" but most are "month date". With a little work, this could be an FA. Would be good if some web refs were found. Rlevse 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Withdraw my support. Rlevse 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a few clarifications that I have requested on the article's talk page. Some tone issues exist that will need to be fixed prior to any FA nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Caesar's invasions of Britain

I would like to self-nominate this page, it having been suggested to me by User:Kyriakos on my talk page. It has easily made B class and he and I both feel it has the potential to be GA / A class, or is there already. Any suggestions welcome - or even better, please improve it so it can make it.User|Neddyseagoon 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support but my only suggestion is that you put in your sources. Kyriakos 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the article needs a thorough Peer Review first.

Set up here. User|Neddyseagoon 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My initial thoughts -

• There doesn't seem to be any modern references used.

See new Sources section, now being expanded.User|Neddyseagoon 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion the trivia section should go - Carry On Cleo and the Goons?

Renamed and expanded, in line with this suggestionUser|Neddyseagoon 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Palmer 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection some chapters need to be expanded, otherwise they have little connection to the article. Wandalstouring 14:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

For example? Do you mean the Discoveries one principally? User|Neddyseagoon 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The following chapters: Success?, Technology, Religion, Economic resources Wandalstouring 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I see nothing in particular that needs fixing or changing... In my book, it makes A-class, but maybe just barely. It's long, detailed, cites its sources... LordAmeth 20:29, 12 November 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.

---

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

T-26

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

T-26 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/T-26

• Featured article review/T-26/archive1

I am nominating this for reassessment. This article rightly lost its FA status in 2014. This article was promoted to A class in 2007, when standards were much lower. This article has many issues with verifiability and I don't see them being resolved any time soon. Schierbecker (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delist - the (unsourced) list of individual surviving examples can probably be culled, but there are still 17 other CN tags outstanding. Hog Farm _Talk 21:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delist Almost all of the citations are to Russian language sources. The article is comprehensive but needs revision and more sourcing. Without specialized sources, to which I assume most editors do not have access, I think the shortcomings of the article are unlikely to be fixed any time soon. I agree with Schierbecker and Hog Farm. Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2024 (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.

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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 07:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Kongō

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

Kongō was the first fully-modern battlecruiser of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the last capital ship they had constructed outside of Japan (built by Vickers in England). This article has gradually undergone a rewrite over the last few weeks. Passed its GA earlier this week (thanks to Jim Sweeney for reviewing it), and has had some minor copyediting done since. I believe it meets the A-Class Requirements. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with some commentary below,

• The lead image is the same as the one for the class's article. Perhaps it would be better to interchange it with another image from the article?

Working on that. Cla68 has promised photo uploads. Once they're here, I'll shift the images around significantly. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• On 16 August 1913, Kongō was completed and formally commissioned into the Imperial Japanese Navy. Twelve days later, she departed Portsmouth for Japan. — Not that important, but formerly it's written that the Kongō was laid down at Barrow-in-Furness. Was the ship commissioned in Portsmouth? When did she move from the former to the latter?

We must assume fitting out happened at Porstmouth, though none of my sources say when. I've added a note that she transferred to Portsmouth for fitting out. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• On 3 October 1915,Kongō and Hiei participated in the target-sinking of Imperator Nikolai I, a Russian pre-dreadnought captured in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War that had subsequently served as a Japanese battleship. — To a non-layman such as myself this sentence actually came off as slightly confusing. I don't know what target-sinking is (well, after looking up the article for Imperator Nikolai I I was able to guess), so while it's clear that the article had been captured by the Japanese in 1905 this is only after you mention target-sinking. So, for someone with no prior knowledge on the topic, it seems as if the Japanese sunk a Russian ship (although, the Japanese and Russians were not at war), and only then does it specify that it had been captured by the Japanese. Like the last comment, this is borderline ridiculous, but I figure any detail is worth mentioning if it's unearthed.

I understand what your issue is, but I have to confess that I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. Prose-wise, I think this is the best we can do without getting into the overly-convoluted minutia of Imperator Nikolai I and the Russo-Japanese War. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "With the defeat of the German East Asia Squadron by the Royal Navy at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, the need for combat operations by the Japanese Navy lessened" — The second part of the sentence doesn't read well to me. Perhaps it should read, "...there was a lesser need for Japanese naval operations in the Pacific." I'm not sure, I've never been good with these type of things.

Changed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Excepting the above pedantry, this reads like a great article and certainly within the guidelines of milhist's a-class.

JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support with the caveat that I have had some previous input to the article.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment "Launched on 18 May 1912 before transferring to Portsmouth, Kongō's fitting-out began in the summer of 1912.[6]" I assume that is Portsmouth, England? If so, can we wikilink that? Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC) --I went ahead and fixed that as I found a wikilink for Portsmouth later in the article, so I moved it to the first appearance. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"By, Kongō's secondary armament was reconfigured to eight 6-inch (15 cm) guns, eight 5-inch (13 cm) guns, and one hundred and twenty-two Type 96 antiaircraft autocannon.[12]" By what? Some date I would guess. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Questions

• We usually don't mention Sanskrit word origins ("vajra"), but if the Sanskrit word is particularly relevant to the Japanese word and you want to include it, then it would be best to explain the relevance. Btw, Conway's (p. 234) says that all 4 ships in the class were named after mountains, but it doesn't say which mountains; can anyone confirm or deny, and if true, do we have a link for the namesake? - Dank (push to talk)

I included this particular one here because this one wasn't named for a mountain, though Haruna was (which I mentioned in that article). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• "they have been called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin." Conway's says: "The design is usually described as a battlecruiser version of [Erin]." Should we always attribute it when a noted author says some variant of "People say such-and-such"? Anyone? This language was in Japanese battleship Haruna, which passed FA recently. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Quick note, FYI: Chicago (16th edition) is now out, and it's very influential among publishers. They're recommending "US" instead of "U.S." (and UK, and two-letter state abbreviations). Many people follow the 2009 AP though, which recommends "U.S." in text and "US" in headlines. "US" is much more common outside the US. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

updated to 16th ed style. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• When there's this much text repeated from a sister ship's article (Haruna), some will suggest that a hard look is needed to see if we can move the overlapping text to the class article. I don't have a position. - Dank (push to talk)

In the cases where it's repeated, it's because they did the same stuff. I figured it was a waste of time to rewrite entirely when they were involved in the same action. Hiei and Kirishima mostly operated together, while Kongo and Haruna deployed in a pair. I figure keep it in each ship article. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For stuff that this ship has in common with Haruna but not with the others, I agree, repeat it in the two ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• IIRC we decided at Haruna's FAC that muzzle flash is not a great link for "flash"; I'm not sure that we know what "flash tightness" is supposed to mean. Let's either find out, or lose it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. Forgot about that. I think we've dug this issue endlessly w/o success. I'll lose it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with "First Reserve"; a quick definition or a link would be nice. Or, "reserve" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Your source says "The thickness of KONGO's horizontal armor over her magazines and machinery spaces is increased." That's different from "Kongō's horizontal armor near her ammunition magazines was strengthened, and the machinery spaces within the hull were increased." Is there a different source that supports your statement? - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's back in Ottawa at the moment. I'll have it by Tuesday. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

K, source 2 says armour over machinery was increased, not machinery itself. My bad. I'll change it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Searching quickly through for "Kongō" gives me a lot of hits ... that sometimes means it would be better to replace some of them with "the ship" or "the battlecruiser" or "she". - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to change. I'll see what I can do. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Kongō bombarded Christmas Island on 7 March 1942, then returned to Staring-baai for 15 days of maintenance and rest.": not clear whether the ship or the crew is resting. The source says "Although on standby alert ..., the crews are allowed some rest and relaxation." "Rest" seems too informal to me ... maybe "15 days leave on standby alert"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Changed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• "suffered several near misses but remained undamaged": a ship can "suffer" near misses if it's damaged by shell fragments, but "suffer" is the wrong word if there's no damage. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• What's "Taffy 3"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Escort-Carrier Group they happened upon. I've reworded it to be more specific. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I took the quote marks off "numerous hits"; if you add them back, direct quotes require a citation at the end of the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. My bad. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Done with copyediting for now. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• "... dry-docked for a large reconfiguration of her anti-aircraft suite. Four 6-inch guns and a pair of twin 25-mm mounts were removed ...": Not wrong, but I don't usually hear "large reconfiguration", since "large" could possibly mean anything from replacing 20% to replacing 100%. If "most" (say 50% to 75%) of the anti-aircraft guns were replaced, it would be better to say that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

removed "large" from the sentence. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• "separate dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships": any idea why? - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of radar fire-control, it made targetting easier, especially in large surface-actions, since you could tell which shells were being fired by your guns. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like everything is done except for finding a source for "the machinery spaces within the hull were increased", or rewording that in line with the ref you've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per usual disclaimer. Everything's been resolved, nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

There's numerous inconsistencies with the armaments and Conway; I would reference Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946 p. 173 for the WWII stats, and I think you could add another heading for the 1937 refit. The secondary armamaent was originally 16 6" guns (16x1) not (8x2) & it appears most were replaced by 5" DP guns by 1944. Kirk (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've used Stille's accounts of armament changes for the kongos, since those are the ones I have access to on a permanent basis. Fixed the 8x2 mistake. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • in the 1942: Early War Service section, this sentence needs a citation: "On 20 September, the fleet was ordered to return to Truk Naval Base in the Caroline Islands (now Micronesia)."
    • Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that the subsection headings are not correctly capitalised in the Service section. For instance I think "1942: Early War Service" should be "1942: Early war service";
    • They seem to have all been fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • sometimes you use spaced endashes (e.g in the 1942: Early War Service section) and then unspaced emdashes (e.g. 1929–1935: Reconstruction section). These should be consistent;
    • Done as best as I can. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I've fixed the only one I could find. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Boyle appears in the Citations but not in the References;
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • some of the citations have years but some don't - is there a reason for this?
    • The ones by multiple authors usually
      • Okay, I'd suggest making it all uniform, but it is not really a major drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in Citation # 4 you have "Parshall, Jon; Bob Hacket..." in italics but in Citation # 5 and 8 you don't;
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • are Parshall, Hacket etc the authors of the website? If they are they shouldn't be presented as they are which currently makes it look like they are the publishers (or in one instance that they are the Work that the page is a part of);
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Morison appears in the References but you don't appear to specifically cite the work;
  • same as above for the work by Frank;
  • same as above for Moore;
    • Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • the Advisor script reports a possible error with the ISBNs for the Schom and Wilmot works;
    • Both fixed
  • here is an inconsistent representation of accessdates (i.e "Retrieved 2010-09-10" and "Retrieved 26 February 2009"AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe fixed
• Can you please check my last couple of unstruck comments above? Otherwise looks fine and I'd be happy to support. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2010 (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.

Battle of Greece

Previous nomination here.

Renominating for Periklis*; no comment on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support for A class status although I found the article to contain some bias and POV for the Allied/Greek side with words like "brave" used in uncited passages to refer to the Greek forces. However, the article is well-cited and fairly easy to understand and follow. Cla68 05:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per everybody else. Though each indiv section is rather small, and that tends to bug me, this article seems pretty thorough overall, and has lots of pics and citations and all the other goodies that I love to see in an article. LordAmeth 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support oldwindybear Two things I would like to see improved though, there are a few weasel words, "brave," etc. And the sections could be a bigger. However it is well cited, and well written. So I will support.
• Support Medains Though I'm concerned about a wider issue that this article butts up next to... There's a link to the Battle of Leros, which provides a little idea of what happened later - but there's very little anywhere on the liberation and aftermath (Germany withdrew from Greece in 1944 AFAIK). Even the Axis_Occupation_of_Greece_during_WWII article has nothing... :(
• Support of course.--Yannismarou 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  The review was closed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though I've been involved in editing it and might be 'too close' to it. User:Buckshot06
• Support Good article.UberCryxic 17:54, 14 October 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)

American Revolutionary War

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 19:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The article has limited citations. I might be convinced that this is acceptable if the linked articles were well cited, but they are not. More specifically, all the sections on the various campaigns like citations, as do the main articles on those campaigns. Carom 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• OpposeThe article's citations are way too limited - this is one of those articles which needs citations practically every sentence. Nor, as Carom noted, are the linked articles well cited - they are not either. This has the makings of a good article, but it does have some major weaknesses historically:
• The Battle of Saratoga may well be one of the great turning points of history - certainly Sir Edward Creasy thought so, when he named it one of the 15 Decisive Battles of History. (Modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson agrees, among others) It is given relatively short shift in this article, and it does not mention Benedict Arnold's role at all, when most historians believe that without his leadership, the American Revolution would have been lost at Saratoga.
• The article's section on the western theater of the war is accurate, but not anywhere close to being in depth enough. The effect of the death of Jane McCrea before Saratoga should not only be mentioned there, but emphasized greatly in this theater as it, and similiar tragedies brought in hordes of undecided frontiersmen to fight on the rebel's side out of fear of the British Indian allies.
• The sections mentioned need major expansion, and the entire article desperately needs citing throughout.old windy bear 18:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fort Bliss

This is an article I have spent some three monthes overhauling in an effort to take it all the way to featured status. As it stands the article meets all preexisting requirements for A-status, so I am placing it here to gain consensus. Objects, if any, need to be specific, because I do not have time to conduct a through investigation to find the problems in the article (school work comes first). If your objects are not specific then I will ignore them. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object Several sections, including "Reconstruction and the Pershing expedition," "Fort Bliss today," and "Base realignment and closure" have no citations, or the existing citations are insuffcient. For example, the article states that the base was realigned in 2005, and gives detailed information about the changes made, but gives no source. Carom 15:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectThis is an article which has excellent potential, but again, as Carom said, it lacks citations. For it to be A status, it needs the citations. I like the article, consider it well written, informative, and as far as I know, it is correct. BUT, it has to be sourced throughout. Once that is done, I would support it for A status, but not until then. old windy bear 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you spot any sections aside from the three Carom pointed out that need citations, or were those three sections it? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of the information in Early Fort Bliss needs sourcing - for instance, the information on "8 September 1849 the garrison party of several companies of the 3rd U.S. Infantry, commanded by Jefferson Van Horne, arrived in this area. On the noth side of the Rio Grande they found only four small and scattered settlements." What source gave this information? Also the entire Following September 11 needs sourcing. For instance, that section states "Fort Bliss has served as one of the major deployment centers for troops bound for Iraq and Afghanistan. This mission is accomplished by Biggs Army Airfield, which is included in the installation's supporting areas." What sourcing says so? What source do we have for the training of the Afghans later in that subsection? I believe the information is accurate - but we need sourcing. I realize this may seem trivial, but I think we need to point out specifics where we feel sourcing is necessary. This is a good article, but for A status, it needs much more sourcing. old windy bear 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I know its not trivial; you are in the right as far as sources are concerned, but in some cases the sources are hard to come by, especially for the more recent things. To be frank some of the information comes from my own observations about the post since my family moved here lo those many years ago. At other time information comes from news broadcasts in the city, but those are not print sources and finding a copy of adio/visual information is difficult. I will do some further research into the material and see if I can find any sources for the information, but at the moment I have backlogged school work that I have to see to, so this project will have to take a backseat for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

TomStar81 Please do not be discouraged! You have done an excellent job, but you just pointed out the biggest problem we sometimes encounter. We just cannot use information you simply observed - it violates the bann on original research. If I may make a suggestion, check with your local paper. Also the chamber of commerce. Also the Fort Bliss public information officer. The local paper should have articles on the updates and upgrades on the post, and they could give you the day of the article, why there you have your souce! As to the information on the early years, again, check with the Post information officer, he or she may have a good book that will give you the sources you need. You have an excellent article here that you have put a great deal of time and hard work in. I really do commend you on that, and suggest you check with the local paper, the chamber of commerce, and the Post Information Officer, and I believe you can come up with your sources. Additionally, if you remember which news broadcast it was, you could check with the station, and if they have the date, again, you have your source. old windy bear 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, that will be easy. The UTEP Library has a very generous collection of newspapers from the El Paso Times and the now defunct El Paso Herald Post, so I am not short for resources; however, finding and securing enough time to look through the archives is hard due to conflicting interests. At the moment, I am checking the online archives from the Fort Bliss Moniter to find BRAC info for 2005; since the moniter is the official Fort Bliss paper I know that I will find something in there that I can cite. Checking the Fort Bliss public information center will be tricking since the security at the base has been increased, I have heard horror stories of people waiting an hour just to get on to base, but I will take that suggestion under advisement. Thanks for the kind words ans suggestions! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

TomStar81 I grew up as a military kid - an army brat, actually! - and served myself during Vietnam, so I know how the information officers can be! But you seem like a nice person, and they generally respond to nice people who are trying to portray the post in a positive light, which you certainly have! Your access to the libraries is outstanding, and I will be surprised if they don't resolve most of the needed cites. I think you have written an excellent article, and don't kill yourself, but as you can, do the things you are talking about, and I would wager you will find the sources! Again, please don't get discouraged, because you have done a fine job, with a lot of hard work and genuine interest in this subject - and it will get sourced, and rated as it deserves! old windy bear 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to failure to cite sources in all sections. Carom 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: You'll find that inline citations are a de facto requirement for an article to even attain good article status these days, much less A-class standing or featured article status. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Not ready yet.UberCryxic 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacks citation in all sections and has small base of reference for such a well published subject. As well it needs to be more pressice on the number of soldiers presented in the early sections, was this the number of soldiers over the course of the years or the regular enlistment every year of the conflict? the Napoleonic wars were not the first instance of state runned armies instead of mercenaries. Louis IV's french army was a standing army long before Revolutionary France. The Seven Years' War saw professional, pan-europe state funded armed force engaged in war half a century prior to Napoleon... --Dryzen 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

United States Navy

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Prose and organization are pretty good; in many places was my model for the now-FA USMC. A few suggestions:

• Good sources but more citations needed. Judgemental statements like "are roughly equivalent in striking power to most foreign aircraft carriers." definitely ought to be cited.
• ToC is a bit loosely organized; there are too many top-level items. Relationship with the Marines and the Coast Guard could be tied together, perhaps under organization. Items like Special Warfare, MSC, and Coastal warfare can similarly be placed under "organization".
• Some of the lists could be converted to prose, e.g. the list of fleets. I know it's inviting to tabulate them, but it does break up the flow of the prose.
• The prose needs some fine-toothed combing before FAC but it's good enough for A-class. --Mmx1 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article and a very good model for the development of other articles on branches of an indidual nation's armed forces. The only suggestion I'd make is that the section headings could be tweaked a bit to make it clear that the article is focused on the USN as it currently stands. --Nick Dowling 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Chancellorsville

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to insufficient citation of sources in all sections. Carom 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object Very few citations.UberCryxic 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal Barca

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose due to insufficient citations, particularly in the section on the Second Punic War. Carom 01:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not bad, but lacks citations, particulary when the first five citations deal with the same issue. There's also an error in the section called 'Stalemate'. I think there's a picture missing. Raymond Palmer 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Currently Oppose The final legacy to the modern world could use some work and the Military History segment some citations (in particular, but not only, the 3 demands)as well as the bogeyman comment. As Raymond Palmer described there is some mauled code for an image. An enjoyable read and quite informative on his rather overlooked out-of war years.--Dryzen 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose still lacks content in the biography section. Hannibal wasn't only a general. (I'm working myself on the issue). Wandalstouring 19:16, 26 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 discussion.

---

• Not promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group

Nominator(s): Fifelfoo (talk)

Prior nomination: here (downgrade discussion).

Talk:Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam_-_Studies_and_Observations_Group/GA1 is the last review conducted of the article, a GA review.

Being from outside of the project, I came across this article as a B; fixed the GA review elements, then decided to put it forward. The standard of this article is high, citations are to the point and support the narrative, the narrative is sufficient as a description of the organisational function of the group. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - since you are not the primary contributor, RM Gillespie (talk · contribs) has 299 edits to the article as I write this, did you even attempt to ask him if you believe the article meets the criteria and be nominated here? If this were at FAC this would be speedily closed because of this fact. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See that editor's wiki-fatigue at: Talk:Battle_of_Khe_Sanh#Time_to_try_FA_again.3F Fifelfoo (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I've printed out RMG's 15 As and this delisted one and am reading some books and working through and scribbling down refs to book pages, but some of the unsourced bits that people complained about before are still there. Also some of the refs only cover part of the preceding information, or just list a book without any specific page or chapter, and I'm still in the process of chasing it down. I haven't started reading about SOG or the bombing campaigns/logistics trails, mostly the less technical ones: Tet, Easter, 1975, Cambodian Civil war etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also notethe previous GAC was an arbitrary driveby YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Good effort, however, unfortunately I do not believe that this article at the moment meets A class standards. The main area it falls down in is citation. These are my comments:

• • External links are okay according to the link checker;
  • Images are missing alt text and need it per WP:ALT;
  • There are a couple of dab links that need fixing (Green Beret and KIA);
  • The following needs citations:
    • Last paragraph in Foundation section;
    • 2nd, 5th and 7th (last) paragraph in Gulf of Tonkin section;
    • Last paragraph in Shining Brass section (there is a citation at the start, but a large number of sentences after wards that give the impression they are uncited);
    • 5th, 6th and 8th paragraphs in Daniel Boone section;
    • 1st paragraph in Commando Hunt section
    • There is a citation needed tag that needs dealing with in the Third Indochina seciton.
    • 1st and last paragraphs in Withdrawal section need citations;
    • The MOH recipients list in the Recognition section needs citations, as does the last paragraph of that section.
  • There are a large number of hatnotes in the Withdrawal section which I feel impact on the article's style, is it possible to work these links into the text?

I am unable to discuss content as it is not a field of which I have any knowledge. If these issues can be addressed and someone with more knowledge of content is prepared to voucher for the article, I could be convinced to change my vote. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. While it mostly reads OK, it could use a copyedit for some jargon, especially in the last couple sections. Also, the sourcing must drastically be improved before it will meet the requirements. – Joe N 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• So this old warhorse is up for A-class again? Already had the pleasure (fleeting on wiki) of getting it an A-class. Then along came a bot that deleted the illus. that were clearly sourced as US govt. docs - reducing it to a B). I'm pretty much through with wiki and tired of constantly re-editing or revising what should make common sense to an informed reader (eg the "uncited text" in the 3rd Indochina War section). Leave the poor thing alone and leave it for readers who have a working knowledge of the material (they being the only ones that will bother reading it in the first place).RM Gillespie (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2009 (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.

Finnish Civil War

Failed a previous nomination, but it has since been vastly improved, and has also passed to GA. I think most of the concerns from the previous review have been addressed by the editors working on the article. Carom 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support All opposing comments' suggestions in the last nomination were fixed along other additional things. Has been completely copyedited. --Pudeo (Talk) 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. LordAmeth 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 06:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The nomination was closed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • The lead is too long even for a very big article.
  • The inline citations should have page numbers for verifiability purposes.
• Other than that, a nice article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:01, 17 November 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 closed. 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) [19]

---

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)