Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2006/Promoted

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment | 2006
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1509
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 41
Featured pictures 544
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 687
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,564
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
edit

F-84 Thunderjet

edit

A comprehensive overview of the straight- and swept-wing F-84s. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the references, please re-evaluate. There is not much more to say about air combat since the F-84 saw very little action against enemy fighters. The dam attack is described in great detail in the Wikilinked article.- Emt147 Burninate! 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good step in the right direction. However, for both the F-84 and F-105 articles you might want to take a look at the referencing in previously approved A-class articles, maybe for example The King's Regiment (Liverpool). These have usually over thirty citations right through the article. The only thing you have to do to get these promoted is to go and reference many things that may seem obvious to you (and me, for that matter). But that's the way the wiki-conventions have it. You've made a good start, and the dam attack article you linked has a number you could copy straightaway.
Cheers Buckshot06 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I'm not playing the "minimum number of citations" game. Every significant statement or claim has been cited. Please show specifically what you feel needs a citation. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a number of "fact" tags to indicate where I feel further citations are necessary. You are, obviously, free to disagree, but I think the tags represent locations where citations would be appropriate. Carom 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Carom on his placement of {{fact}} tags. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have addressed the fact tags. Thank you for taking the time to place them, it's far more useful than simply saying "more citations needed" since I did most of the writing and a lot of the facts seem obvious and not in need of citation to me. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback everybody! - Emt147 Burninate! 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat (U.S. subculture)

edit

I nominated this article for FAC about two weeks ago. Two people (Outriggr and SandyGeorgia) made some really good recommendations on the talk page and I realized some problems with the article that I decided I wanted to address, so I voluntarily withdrew the nomination. It probably would have passed if I left it on the FAC indefinately, but that isn't my style I wanted to get it right. One of the big changes was the decision to follow the Military Peer reviews recommendation and change the focus to be explicitly on U.S. Brats. Feel free to copy edit (or edit in general)... also, let me know any places where the prose is weak or needs to be improved (or feel free to fix on your own).

Withdrawn FAC and Previous Military Peer ReviewBalloonman 10:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian Civil War

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

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

*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)[reply]

Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)

edit

Respectfully request A-class review of this article about an operation in the Pacific War of World War II that had significant strategic ramifications. Cla68 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was closed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 06:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman-Spartan War

edit

I have improved his article and I want to see if it is of A-class standard. Kyriakos 06:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan War

edit
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
There was a discussion some people throught there were too many inline citations for five references. Kyriakos 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There was a request for these changes. Wandalstouring 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)

Operation Commando Hunt

edit

Recently did a revamp of this article and hope that it meets the criteria. RM Gillespie 17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    The criteria:
    1. It is well written. It seems well written, laid out nicely, organised well into various sections, it may have the air of a fictional thriller in a couple places perhaps but otherwise it looks encyclopaedic.
    2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Unfortunately, I'm not in much of a position to comment on this, having not been familiar with the topic myself, but you have a lot of good references, all from written works on the topic, which is a definite plus. There are plenty of facts in there.
    3. It is broad in its coverage. Same comments from number 2 apply here. It seems to cover all the aspects, possible if you put the casualties etc for both sides in the info box, and perhaps the flags of the combatants in the info box next to their names, minor aesthetic things like that possibly.
    4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Personally (and this is just me, by the way, i wouldn't be surprised if other users disagree, that’s cool) I feel that a section titled 'conclusion' makes the article sound more like your POV regardless of content, however you have put some references in that section to lessen the POV side of it somewhat.
    5. It is stable, according to the history, aside from the huge list of changes by yourself, the article seems stable.
    6. It contains images Good number of images, possible a little graph heavy and map heavy, perhaps some more photographs? Colour ones if possible, and aesthetically if you lay them out so they alternate to the different sides of the page, makes it a little more readable I think personally. Otherwise, images are fine.
    That's just my two cents, as the review guide states above, minor minor issues should not hold an article back from a higher class as they are easily fixed. I'll keep my report as a comment though cause I'm not sure how well I reviewed your article! --SGGH 10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sihanouk Trail

edit

Just finished rounding this article off. Looking for some criticism. RM Gillespie 03:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks great to me. I fixed two minor spelling errors - there may be others. Vietnamization should perhaps be wikilinked the first time it appears, in "Operation Menu", rather than later. So, yeah, minor copyedit sort of stuff. But overall, it's very professionally written, very detailed and balanced, and seems as far as I can tell to touch all the important points. If there's anything to be fixed on the overall style, it's that it may be too professionally written - intimidating for the reader with those giant, dense paragraphs. Still, I gladly Support your bid for A status. LordAmeth 08:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I don't know that "Road to the Abyss" is the best name for the last section (it seems a little dramatic, and this is an encyclopedia, after all). Carom 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but this chapter could be rewritten to make more sense.

    Sihanouk, furious with the course of events, quickly assumed leadership, in absentia, of front made up of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, and the Laotian Pathet Lao, throwing his personal prestige in Cambodia behind the communists.[23] In the wake of the coup that toppled Sihanouk, the new Cambodian government turned over captured documents to the US disclosing the full extent of Sihanouk's participation in the infiltration effort. Between December 1966 and April 1969, Unit K-20 had facilitated the infiltration of 29,000 tons of cargo into Cambodia.[24] The unit had also purchased 55,000 tons of rice annually from the government and another 100,000 tons directly from Cambodian farmers.[25]

    Wandalstouring 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After rereading the passage, I agree that it was rather roudabout and confusing. Have corrected the problem. RM Gillespie 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Ground Forces

edit

Following peer review and much improvement, I'd like to self-nominate this article for A-class review. I'd also be interested in people's opinions of whether the 'dispositions' section should be via a table, as it's presented now, or by bullet points, as it was prior to a few revisions ago. Thanks very much Buckshot06 09:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support'. Beautiful. I look at every armed forces article and wonder why it can't be more like this. You've included not only the basic stuff, like history and organization, but a decent sized section on crime and corruption. I love the navbox of different Russian/Soviet armies throughout history. And I do, personally, think that dispositions (though I have no idea why they're called that) look better in a table. In far too many articles, the bullet point list gets way out of hand, and ends up greatly exceeding the text of the article (in length on the page). Thanks for your hard work. LordAmeth 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and soursed and a good read. Could use a few more images though, there's only 2 and a flag and im not as sure about the table as much as LordAmeth but ill let it pass as bullets look a lot worse. Nice article Hossen27 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick note. The other possible option for the units, which I'm leaning toward, is on the bottom of the talk page. What do people think? Buckshot06 09:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is certainly a good and very interesting article, but I don't think that it's A-class. My main concern is that the article is written as a commentary on the Russian Ground Forces rather than in an encycopedic style (for instance: "Reports such as these continue, and mean that the much increased funding allocated to the armed forces is going to waste: when a constant-readiness motor rifle regiment's tanks run out of fuel on the firing ranges, because petrol is being diverted to local businesses,[52] how can observers be convinced the extra funding is going to produce improvements?"). The article would also benefit from the addition of a table listing the major weapons holdings of the ground forces (number of tanks, helicopters, etc) and more photos would be nice. --Nick Dowling 00:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Response. I've examined the places Nick nominated for changes/cites and I think I've better represented the issues, as well as adding Spetsnaz units. There is information on women in the Armed Forces at Armed Forces of the Russian Federation; I've seen no recent info specifically on women in the Ground Forces; equipment has expanded at bit. Buckshot06 12:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo

edit

Respectfully request review of this article for A-class status. Cla68 10:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It does seem a bit short, not overall, but in individual sections. If this is more or less all there is to say on the subject, then so be it, and I'll fully support A-class status. But if the two battles and the aftermath section can each be expanded beyond a few short paragraphs, then I think that should be done before A-class status is awarded. LordAmeth 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more detail to the battle and aftermath sections, extending each by several sentences. Attempting to add more detail would likely involve recounting individual experiences in the battle, which I feel would change the article from an encyclopedic entry into an historical narrative. Cla68 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I'll lend my Support. LordAmeth 07:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Tenaru

edit

I believe and hope that this article is ready for consideration for A-class status. It's also currently under peer review. Self-nomination. Cla68 10:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm probably going to replace the infobox picture with another one that shows basically the same thing, but that doesn't clearly show the faces of the dead bodies, as soon as I can scan it from the book. Cla68 01:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS, that clears up the only issue on this excellent article. This is first rate work. old windy bear 21:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Chi Minh trail

edit

Have just completed this article. Looking for some constructive criticism. See what you think. RM Gillespie 14:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Civil War

edit

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)[reply]

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

Battle of Greece

edit
Previous nomination here.

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

Józef Piłsudski

edit

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

Links to PR, FAC and MHPR can be found on article's talk page. Of those, I'd recommend reading FAC as it has some interesting - if unsourced and perhaps POVed - objections I'd very much appreciated further comments on. I am currently reading a biography of JP which I plan to use to expand the article, possibly addressing some of the mentioned objections (if I can find any reference to their claims), and renominate the article for FAC in the near future. Any comments or edits you can make to help the article will be very appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axis naval activity in Australian waters

edit

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

  • Support Very accurate, extremely well sourced, and well written. It deserves A status. I would agree yet again with Carom that the notes-links-references sections needs to be reorganized, but it should still get A status. old windy bear 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As a person who has done a lot of work on this article I won't vote on this, but could you please provide more details on your prefered organisation of the notes-links-references section? Thanks, --Nick Dowling 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The prefered order is, to the best of my knowledge, Notes, References, External LInks/See Also. This is slightly more intuitive and more closely mirrors the form of academic works. Carom 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred order is notes, references, external links. old windy bear 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Battle of Schellenberg

edit

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

I did make a note in the article (note No 19) "Christian Welsh, known also as Mother Ross or Mrs Davies, had concealed her identity and enlisted in the army as a man in 1693." Raymond Palmer 14:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group

edit
Previous nomination here.

The author would finally like to nominate this article for your perusal. Thanks to Vedexent for the earlier comments. See what you think. RM Gillespie 13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support oldwindybear I think the author has done a fine job of research and writing, with careful sourcing. I personally would like to see a little more cites - but it has enough. In it's previous incarnation, the article had too much "military speak," which has mostly been corrected. I would like to see the title changed to something that more people would recognize, but I am not sure what we could replace it with that was hirtorically accurate! This is a good, solid article. It skirts talking about the political climate that forged so many of the military decisions made, but again, I am not sure how it could have been done better. In the end, I think it deserves A status for it's overall excellence. old windy bear 20:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the review was closed and archived at this point. Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Webley Revolver

edit
Previous nomination here.

The article previously failed over objections that the citations were insufficient, but there have been concerns raised that the places where additional ones were needed were not specified. Rather than fighting over this point, the best course of action seems to be simply relisting the article; please make sure that any objections over citations are specific. Kirill Lokshin 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support There's a lot of information on Webley Revolvers in this artcle, it's been extensively researched and cited, and the information is presented in a clear and accurate way. --Commander Zulu 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Execelent article, well written and comprehensive. Someone has definatly poured a lot of work into this, and it shows. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But citation numbers should always come after the punctuation Raymond Palmer 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Important material. I think text a teensy bit dramatic ("be they warriors or Germans"; "Sun never set..."), but the substance is pretty strong and well-sourced. I love the work and see the construction has been carefully considered; IMHO it comes across as being written by an enthusiast, and that's less encyclopedic than the current neutral ideal. Sometimes one can grow too attached to the work, and not allow the tone to soften. If this were going to FA, that would be a factor. Irregular use of parentheticals (and way too many of them--I know, I often find myself writing out loud instead of tightening to remove the parentheses). This section might better be served as a table, but that's a taste thing. Strong, but not FA yet. BusterD 22:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus the Great

edit

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Carom 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comment The last paragraphs of the conquest of Lydia should be reveised to correct the Pactyes/Pactyas mix up, wich is hte real one or are they two different people. Also in the prior paragraph the pointform of Cyrus' conquest of Croesus should be worked over. As well, why is it mentionned " including Syria and Palestine", their modern names, while the rest of the article speaks of the states and territories' names as known then? Lastly the map should be moved higheri nthe article, due to all the movments and cities mentioned (If possible indicating these cities would be appeaciated).--Dryzen 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kyriakos 21:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gettysburg, First Day

edit

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Grande Armée

edit

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It appears to be well written, certainly covers the topic in great detail, and I have no real problems with the format. However, the citing is sparse, which I find problematic. Carom 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comment I am impressed by the sheer quantity of information presented on the Grande Armée. A truly marvelous job of research and the sectioning was also much enjoyable. Yet there where a few instances that could use some last minute polish: the render of french cannons as the image of the grand armée is disapointing. The Général de Division is said to have been the commander of a Division and at the same time possibly in charge of a corps? For the later's explinative sentence it could be made a little clearer. "nicknamed Picadors of the Hell or "Los Diablos Polacos" (The Polish Devils) by the Spanish" could the former be veryfied or fixed, of the hell is a rather strange adjective and I am not at all familiar with Picadors. Why are the infantry paragraph built diffrently than the cavalry paragraphs (this I can normalise)? It is by far, though, a long read and could benifit from seperate articles, when detailing the Army and its history, possibly for the tactics as well.--Dryzen 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comment Agree with Dryzen that some sentences need polish. It is also lacking in citations, for example - Were it not for the poor quality of French cavalry following the Russian campaign, these triumphs may have been decisive enough to permanently conclude the war there and then. I would like to see details like this cited if it goes for FAC. The picture in the info box is very poor. Great work overall though. Raymond Palmer 20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

edit

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 15:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is some inconsistency regarding the citations - in some places, points of minor importance are cited (and even have two citations) while larger claims (or claims that maight prove contentious) are not cited at all. The article has a lot of citations, but I'm not entirely sure that they are well distributed. Otherwise, it is well written and appears to treat the topic fairly well. Carom 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I make no comment to agree or disagree with Carom; I'm not sure on the quality and distribution of the citations. But there are quite a few of them, the article is quite lengthy and seemingly thorough, and there's lots of good images. LordAmeth 18:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Concur with LordAmeth on this one. Article is well written and very informative.--Looper5920 19:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kyriakos 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day

edit

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Servile War

edit

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)[reply]

First Macedonian War

edit

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Regiment (Liverpool)

edit

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

Daniel Boone

edit

Just peer reviewed this for Kevin and it appears A-class to me --plange 00:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tent pegging

edit

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

Second Battle of Kharkov

edit

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Longer, more detailed, with more maps, pictures, and footnotes than many articles on far larger topics. As with the other articles, I must admit I have only skimmed and read nearly nothing, but I would very much imagine based on the length, the section headers and the maps, pictures, and diagrams, that this is a fairly exhaustive analysis of the battle. Few battles have this long and detailed an article. LordAmeth 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Trigg

edit

pre-review A class article. No comment on quality as I'm the main editor... --plange 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Persian Wars

edit

I have remedied the weaknesses pointed out in the peer-review and I hope it is worthy of A-class status. I would also like to to know what more in necessary for FA-status. I hope the arguments I have added to the large number theory for Xerxes troops are not considered POV-pushingIkokki 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "in both cases, the Greeks united successfully to defeat the invasions." in the header is simply wrong. Take any decent book on the topic, the Greeks split up in a supporting faction and an opposing one. The opposing one defeated the Persians and the supporters. Wandalstouring 06:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed thatIkokki 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not. I fixed it now. Wandalstouring 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixIkokki 12:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sections that lack references are the lead section, Importance of Marathon (that has a quote though) and later conflicts. As for the mix, I would have made the links ref style but I do not know how.Ikokki 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "we" is actually a common impersonal form used in Greek. Obviously in English it is bad form, thank you that you pointed this to fix it.Ikokki 12:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love the impersonal "we". I use it all the time. Just not in this context. Sorry. LordAmeth 13:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basiliscus

edit

Submitting pre-review A-Class article for consideration; no opinion on its quality. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I recently did a peer review of this article and my concerns were handled. On a side note, Kirill, can you take a look at the comment I had on citation method in the peer review. I don't know enough to answer him on that :-) --plange 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2006/Promoted&oldid=1216279709"