Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2007

Promoted

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.

Evacuation of East Prussia

An article completely rewritten in the past month, which should meet all requirements for A-class in my opinion. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well Done, I commend your update of the article. A few questions though:
  • Why are there no causualties for the Soviet forces in the infobox?
    • Because there were no Soviet civilians killed during evacuation of East Prussia;
  • The caption for Image:3c13916v.jpg seems to be written in an odd font; it looks decidedly out of place with the other image captions. Is there any way to fix that?
    •  Done fixed;
  • In the section "Königsberg" you have the line "According to a NKVD report received by Lavrentiy Beria, the German civilians who left Königsberg and reached the Reich's territories, were not treated by far well, receiving only 180 grams of bread per day" Would it be at all possible to provide a standard unit measurement for this amount of bread?
    • What would be a standard unit measurement in your opinion??
      • I mean a measurement in pounds or ounces (a measurement in the standard system of measurement) to supplement the metric unit measurement. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
        • In the International System of Units the measurement unit for Mass is kilograme, which is 0,001 grames. I do not really know what "standard measurement unit" means.
      • What I mean is a unit of measurement that people living in the United States. I believe the U.S. doesn't adhere to the standards of the International System of Units, so I have no idea what 180 kilograms equates to in from a U.S. perspective. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Please consider WP:UNITS. I'm sure that in this article we are supposed to use only metric system units of measurement. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The first line in the section "Crimes" has the line "The mass rapes made by the Soviets in Königsberg, led to a severe psihological damage to the entire German population in East Prussia." Is "psihological" a misspelling?
    • Yep, correct.  Done
• Other than this, it looks like A-class material. Good Job! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll find my answers after each point. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of editorial items I'd like to bring up (I should preface, great job, overall just needs a tiny bit more work on English copy/style editing.)

1. re: the Nazis who "invited allegedly neutral observers" to bear witness to Soviet atrocities. This should simply list where the observers were from or who they were. Otherwise it reads as "invited likely sympathetic to the Nazis and who could minimally be expected to overstate the extent of alleged atrocities". If there's no further information on exactly who, then "invited observers" would be better.  Done
2. re: the "Crimes" section. The statement that Soviet acts of violence were essentially retribution for Nazi acts, while sourced (and I can't speak to the source), diminishes their impact. Soviets committed similar atrocities all over Eastern Europe whether they invaded first or invaded second. Same for the houses looted and burned, it's an overstatement to say this was a direct manifestation of propaganda. Both the Nazis and Soviets (once on opposite sides) used each other's atrocities for propagandist advantage. I think it would be more accurate to state events, state what reports/propaganda existed (on both sides), and that scholars have credited propaganda with having been effective to some degree.

Just some thoughts. Traveling the rest of the year so apologies I can't contribute more substantially. —PētersV (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• At the second point, I changed a bit there, but I would say I don't know if that actually needs anything else to be changed. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Cla68 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I do still find it a little bit confusing (crimes section) how Nazi propaganda provoked Soviet behavior (invasion is clearer of course). —PētersV (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose-one sided, dominated by just one controversial book, lacks sources to confirm several claims, lacks vital background information towards the existance and activity of the German population in the area. I will list detailed list soon.--Molobo (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For example:I am particulary interested in death toll estimate, and if there is any other estimate then Beevor's and if the word "killed" is proper one, or if the deaths were also made by famine, bad weather etc. --Molobo (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Why do you call it a "controversial book"?? Which claims do you believe they need sources? I also don't think that wiki is interested in your particular opinions. Please try to be more specific.. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think that wiki is interested in your particular opinions., it it wouldn't there wouldn't be an Assesment.Basically the whole article is about claims made in Beevor's book, perhaps it should be moved to an article about, while this article would be expanded with more sources ?--Molobo (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please have look more carefully at the article and see that we have cited another 10 historians/authors besides Beevor. While Beevor has certainly written the best book regarding this issue, I see no problem citing him all over the article. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any controversy that the German population of Königsberg was brutally treated and purged, that the territory was 100% Russified, and its Germanic heritage wiped clean. "Lacks vital background information towards the existance and activity of the German population?" There are doubts Königsberg was German? Would we need references to prove the French inhabit Paris?

   Denouncing authoritative sources as needing to be cited as the opinion of one sole author (which is what Molobo suggests) is getting to be quite lame on the part of editors who don't like what an authoritative source says. —PētersV (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There are doubts Königsberg was German? Because it originally wasn't ? The place only became German due to ethnic cleansing and genocide of native population by Teutonic Knights and settlement of German colonists. The current version completely avoids mentioning the rather curious fact, that Germans removed from East Prussia weren't native people of the region and their existance there was result of ethnic cleansing and genocide.--Molobo (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

and its Germanic heritage wiped clean The correct sentence should be either 'heritage of German conquest of the region' or 'heritage of Germanisation of the region'. After all the Germans invaded, ethnicly cleansed and germanised the area later.

I don't believe there's any controversy that the German population of Königsberg was brutally treated and purged Brutally is POV-compared to what Germany was doing, the Geramn population was treated very humanly, neither was it target of mass extermination like Jews or Poles were for example by using gas chambers, nor was German population declared sub-human. Considering the circumstances it would be proper to name the treatment as "light under circumstances of Second World War and German attempts to exterminate whole nations, rather then face extermination and classification as subhumans like Jews or Poles faced from German hands, Germans themselfs were just moved or allowed to move to their new borders".--Molobo (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. However, it is not supported by the literature on this topic, which makes it clear that East Prussia's civilian population suffered terribly during the Soviet advance and during the early days of the occupation. As this article is focused on the experiance of German civilians in East Prussia there's no need for it to include detailed comparisons with the experiances of other groups of civilians during the war. I'd suggest that you read WP:POINT as you appear to be disrupting this review to push your opinions about European history - there's no doubt that the Germans did worse things overall than the Soviets did in East Prussia, however this isn't the forum for a discussion of that topic. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"That is your opinion"

Really ? Where can I find books claiming Germans originated in East Prussia and didn't arrive there due to earlier ethnic cleansing and conquest of the region ?

"which makes it clear that East Prussia's civilian population suffered terribly"

Suffered terribly ? Which books claim East Prussians were classified as subhuman as Germans classified other nations ? "As this article is focused on the experiance of German civilians in East Prussia there's no need for it to include detailed comparisons with the experiances of other groups of civilians during the war." The experience of German civilians is linked directly to German activity and goals in Second World War. And why the experience of Poles that lived in East Prussia during the war should be ignored ?

• Also from German exodus article:

"In The Volksdeutsche of Eastern Europe and the Collapse of the Nazi Empire, 1944-1945, Doris Bergen analyzes the immediate and long-term effects of population policy on the ethnic Germans of eastern Europe which, in her view, was disastrous. Bergen notes that the ethnic Germans of this area found their fate intimately linked to, and affected by, the German war effort and the regime's genocidal policy in more than material ways. Not only did Nazi resettlement policy cause a permanent shift of population transfers and ethnic boundaries, it also caused the erasure of ethnic coexistence. During the earlier years of the war, the Nazis emphasized racial hostility and competition, but at war's end, when it was fairly clear that the Germans would lose, ethnic Germans who had benefited from the earlier policy simply refused to abandon these ideas and found themselves, as a result, struggling to find a satisfactory place within their new communities.[17]" So it is clear the article has to be expanded on reasons of the conditions on the population and explain it under the context of WW2. -Molobo (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is a good article and I think that it's A-class. If you're interested in taking it to FA class it would need a bit of work first, however. I'd suggest that you give the article a rigorous copy-edit and merge the 'References' and 'Further reading' sections. The proportion of citations from Beevor's book is perhaps undesirable, but it is a very well regarded and recent book and counts as a reliable source. Christopher Duffy's 'Red Storm on the Reich' is excellent and is a standard work on the military aspects of this topic you might wish to consult. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, never expected I would support Molobo on anything. Sorry, but the language still leaves a lot to be desired: "also ... as well", "were ready in second half of 1944", "their houses putted on fire", "refugees trains", and no, I cannot correct them myself, because sometimes the error is not purely language-connected and I do not know what is meant ("This coupled with the panic caused by the speed of the Soviet advances, those killed in the cross-fire, and the inclement winter weather, resulted in the death of many thousands of refugees." - "Neisse region, of South Berlin"). Yes, there is a problem with Beevor (remember "every woman between 8 and 84 had been raped" - is straight from the Nazi propaganda about Nemmersdorf, and Polish and Russian women in concentration camps being raped, echoes the Nazi propaganda aimed at the inhabitants of Poland, warning them - before Nemmersdorf! - that the Russian soldiers would rape their women). The first map in the article shows the borders of Prussia in 1871, which are not coincidentally very close to the borders of Prussia inside Nazi Germany after the annexation of the corridor at the end of 1939: any use of such a map should be accompanied by at least a note that it was the Nazi view of things (East Prussia in its internationally accepted borders in August 1939 was actually a bit bigger than on that map). If you use Beevor to that extent, you must also make sure that you do not have him contradict himself: one reference has him say 8.5 million people left their homes in East Prussia (making the error worse by later stating that those were only the women and children), another one says "A population which had stood at 2.2 million in 1940 was reduced to 193,000 at the end of May 1945." In fact, both figurea are wrong: in 1940, East Prussia had 2.5 million inhabitants.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support nomination by User:Eurocopter tigre. Good job by all involved! The article is indeed much better than a month before, and has (almost) reached A-level: well illustrated, well documented, well referenced. Language and style still need some cleanup, and the constructive criticism and concerns raised above need to be addressed (especially if you want to take it eventually to the FA level), but this (I mean, the A-level tune-up) is surely solvable in the next few days, right? Turgidson (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, all can be done after the holidays :). However, some of the points mentioned by Paul Pieniezny were fixed. Other comments are quite controversial, and if you think Beevor would be incorrect, you'll better come out with better sources. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tomstar, as all the points mentioned by you were fixed, would you support the promotion of this article now? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I apologize for the extremely long delay in getting back here, I got a new PC for Christmas and have been working very hard to get programs I need onto the new tower. Fast work on the updates, BTW, I am happy with the article in its current form. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:21, 29 December 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 discussion.

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.

1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing

This article is about two South Vietnamese Air Force officers who decided to rebel and drop bombs on the Presidential Palace. It is a rather small event, since only two of them were involved and and there was not a lot of planning - instead of carrying out an air raid against the Vietcong they decided instead to bomb the Palace. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now Some further copyediting is needed, especially for the lead section. Some of the tiny details should be moved to the sections below. OTH, the first paragraph at the 'aftermath' section has to be moved somewhere up. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article and moved the first part of the aftermath, which was actually the result of the attack. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal posted this on my talk page. I hope he didn't forget to check back in here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No reason to keep my 'oppose' stance as i believe the issues discussed at this page have been dealt with. Thanks Blnguyen. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comment Agree with FayssalF's analysis. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure whether this is under-cited or not. Do people think it needs more citations, as there are good historical sources listed at the bottom? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Citations seem ok to me. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Citations seem appropriate to me. It does need a quick copyedit though, and a bit of rearranging. Good work so far, (as always). Woody (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. this does it for me. Good work Woody (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not a member of the Project, but I support per Woody's comments. The copyedits by Blnguyen are simply excellent. — Rudget _{Contributions} 19:31, 13 December 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 discussion.

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.

Yen Bai mutiny

The most notable attack of the Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang (A class) - in 1930. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article doesn't have a concise lead section, and lacks images/other supporting materials. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have found an infobox, a few images that a relevant and fixed the content issues. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

*Comment you should provide some refs for the numbers in the infobox. Still, this article needs more images/supporting materials, especially in the lasr 3-4 sections. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply:Okey doke. I did provide refs for the numbers in the box explicitly. I didn't originally since it just repeated the part in the main body. Unfortunately, the second half of the article is about the military reforms and safeguards and new military regulations introduced after the mutiny to stop further uprisings. As such it did not really discuss any people, so there weren't any people pics that are relevant (I did look up French Governor General of the time, but all the books at User:Blnguyen/Viet library and others at my uni library focus on what the Vietnamese did against the French rule, rather than the more mundane things of the the French bureaucrats going about their day to day business. I googled "Pierre Pasquier" up and didnt find anything except his name on a list of governors. The textbooks I have don't even mention him at all let alone a picture, only the research paper did. So there's no pics of any French people. I went to the VNQDD website and they don't have any pics of VNQDD people at all. The VNQDD were a secret org - Yen Bai was their first attack - so there are no photos of them, except one of the leader, which is already there. This left me with only the possibility of using maps in discussing the geopolitical things of the troop transfer – I added two of these. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - major improvements have been made so i'm supporting it now, even if I don't completely trust this last-minute adjustements. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comment. There's a lot of good information in the article and no major grammatical mistakes. The issue I see is that the "French Reaction" section is way longer than the section on the actual mutiny. In fact, it looks like the reaction section could be a separate article. Perhaps the article would look more balanced if you moved the "Background of Vietnamese troops in the French colonial army" into the "Background and Planning" section. If you have any pictures, even recent ones, of the locations where the actions took place, you could use those as images. Also, you might include how the mutiny affected Vietnamese history up to the point that the French left Vietnam altogether. Cla68 (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the section about military reforms caused by the mutiny was much longer than the section about the mutiny and the resulting direct punishments, so I significantly pruned the reform section so that it only contained most of the big facts rather than all the reasoning into them. That increased the picture density, simply from the article shrinking by 25%. As for the images, I went to the Vietnamese wiki-article on Yen Bai province and followed the link to the provincial government website, which was broken. So that rules out PD-gov images from Vietnam.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I left the background of using native troops in the second half, since it was more related to the resulting military reforms rather than being a root cause of the mutiny. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I reiterated the total lack of impact the mutiny had in damaging French control on Vietnam. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, A-Class material. Flows well, cited well, lack of images understandable. Well done. Woodym555 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 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 discussion.

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.

Truong Dinh

A mandarin from Vietnam who gained fame by disregarding the Treaty of Saigon which ceded territory to France and battled on against the wishes of Emperor Tu Duc. His miltary activites are discussed, along with the ramifications of his disobedience. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • Under the section "french Invasion of 1859" you have the line "Napoleon's aims were primarily imperial, strategic and commercial, but he found it convenient to cloak in the reasoning of "freedom of religion"." Unless this is cited to reference #5 at the end of the paragraph could I bug you for a citation? The line sounds borderline POV without one.

I got about four from differnet books for you. :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Some parts of the article, particualrly the lower half, appear to be unwikifed. Can anything be linked to that hasn't already been linked previosly?

Most of the second half of the article is about Truong Dinh and his correspondence with Emperor Tu Duc and Phan Thanh Gian and his defiance of their orders. Most of the article is dissecting their letters and so forth. Not many properly nouns etc crop up that could be linked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Otherwise everything looks good! Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. But I would suggest you consider adding an infobox at the start of the article, either a mil bio or another type of bio infobox. Cla68 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Done, thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Woodym555 (talk) 11:13, 30 November 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 discussion.

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.

2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident

Respectfully submit this article for A-class review. It has undergone a peer review which has been archived [1]. Cla68 (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Those date ranges are still a bother but probably not much can be done. Other peer review comments acted on so I stick by my earlier contention that it's ready for A-class. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - nothing jumps out at me that needs attention. -MBK004 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 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 discussion.

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.

Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang

This article is about the Vietnamese Nationalist Party, a revolutionary militant organisation that fought against the French colonisation of Vietnam from 1927 until 1954. It's most notable attack was the Yen Bai mutiny. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support.Comment. If you'll cite the two paragraphs in the "Assassination of Bazin" section I can support. Very well-written and informative article. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it'll take two seconds, but I originally didn't per SS, but ok.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I supported this some days ago, although apparently my save did not save. Sorry about that :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 23:47, 22 November 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 discussion.

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 Vaslui

A very nice article on the one of Stephen III of Moldavia most famous battles. Currently a GA, but it should easily become an A-class. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A very good article, the only suggestions I have is that the orthodox table of content is used. Kyriakos (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. One suggestion is to move the quote from the intro to the aftermath section, but it's no big deal. Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 19 November 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 discussion.

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.

Le Quang Tung

The commander of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam Special Forces under Ngo Dinh Diem. It is quite short, but this is all that I have been able to find from all of User:Blnguyen/Viet library (but it was pointed out to me that Tent pegging is an A-class). Unfortunately there is one image of him on the internet, but its source cannot be confirmed, so I have only added pictures of his contemporaries. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Meets all criteria. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 19 November 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 discussion.

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 the Gebora

This is a very new article, only a few weeks old, but is fully referenced, comprehensive, has PD images and I don't think there are any outstanding MOS issues. Hope to take it to FA eventually, so help on a copy-edit if anyone wants to volunteer would be appreciated, if the prose isn't quite there. Carre 08:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, as it meets all criteria. --Eurocopter tigre 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Eurocopter tigre. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:21, 16 November 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 discussion.

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.

USS Illinois (BB-65)

After recently expanding this article from a Stub to B-class along the lines of the other canceled Iowa class battleship, USS Kentucky (BB-66), and consulting with the Iowa class guru, I've decided to put this article up for an A-class review in preparation for Featured Article Candidacy and also bringing the Iowas to Featured Topic status.-MBK004 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A few things I see that may help improve the article:
  • Find a cite for the NROTC note; that can probably be accomplished by checking the University of Illinois' webpage. Without a cite I fear that information may come under the larger heading of popular culture, and that will create problems down the line.
  • If I were you I would consider removing the second to last battleship paragraph; in this particular case the information there isn't particularly notable to the ship.
  • Check to see that all information in the ship table is correct; I usually find one or things carried over from the last ship I happened to be working on.
  • See if you can find out anything about why Illinois wasn't considered for a rebuild; I doubt anything will turn up, but you never know what you may discover without really meaning to (NOTE: I won't hold this suggestion against you if nothing turns up).
• Other than that, everything looks to be in order. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

NROTC cite: I have taken a look at the webpages for the university, the stadium, and the university's military science department with no luck in finding any blurb at all about the bell, let alone the traditions associated with it. The bell and its location are notable, but do I need a cite for it even with the picture? I have also left a message at the talk page of the editor who added the information to the article. Hopefully it isn't original research, because the bell itself is notable. Thanks a bunch, Tom.

Second to last paragraph: Removed.

Ship Table Figures: I haven't seen any irregularities.

Why no rebuild?: Unfortunately I don't have access to my library of maritime history books for another week, and the university library is severely lacking in this subject. I would guess that since the Illinois was only 22% complete when canceled compared to the 73% of Kentucky, that would be a major factor along with cost of completion. NOTE: This is just speculation, but it probably isn't far from what really happened.

-MBK004 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. As soon as you cite the University of Illinois information at the end of the article, I'll change this to a support. Cla68 07:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See the above part that Tom has raised.Tom has found your cite.-MBK004 16:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Found an NROTC cite for the bell. Everything else appears to be in order. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I found it very irritating to have all the common properties of the Iowa class repeated in conjunctive form: "Illinois’s main battery would have consisted of nine 16 inch (406 mm)/50 caliber Mark 7 naval guns, which could hurl 2,700 lb armor piercing shells some 24 miles (39 km). Her secondary battery would have consisted of ten 5 inch (127 mm)/38 caliber guns, which could fire at targets up to 9 miles (14 km) away....". Since the ship never received its armament, I think a reference to the Iowas should be enough. --Stephan Schulz 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How do the others who have reviewed and lent their support feel about this?-MBK004 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Under normal circumsances I would agree with you and support the reccomendation that these refernces to the armament be removed; in this case though, the armament information helps the article by giving it more meat than it would otherwise have. I therefore do not see a reason to remove the information in this case since there is no service history for the ship. Thats my opinion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:34, 16 November 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 discussion.

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.

Phan Dinh Phung

An article on the 19th century Vietnamese guerrilla leader who battled the colonisation of French Indochina. Has pics, infoboxes refs and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets all criteria. Good Job. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work. Cla68 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --Eurocopter tigre 21:26, 14 November 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 discussion.

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.

Pre-dreadnought

I've just been developing this article as part of my series on battleships (battleship and ironclad warship already FAs, dreadnought next on the list). I think it is now pretty comprehensive and comprehensively sourced - am very happy with the way it's turned out. A peer review was brief but helpful. The Land 18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment — Fascinating stuff. Something that might be helpful is expanding the lede to include more about the development of the type. As the article says, the history of the class is somewhat confused. That being said, you might find it useful to change the first paragraph of the lede to something like this:

A pre-dreadnought is a battleship of the type designed between the mid-1890s and 1905. Designed as replacements for monitor-type ironclads, typical characteristics of the class include X, X, and X. The X-class ship best typifies the class, and was built in X.

That's my suggestion, and it'd help give an overview of the kind of ship we're looking at here without going into the complex development history. JKBrooks85 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • Concur with the above; I would rework the lead to read something like "A predreadnought was a battleship design implemented in 1890s to replace monitor-type warships. Pre-dreadnoughts were characterized by two heavy turrets at the for and aft ends of the ship and an array of secondary battery guns aligned on either side of the ship. They were rendered absoletle in 1905 with the commissioning of HMS dreadnought, the first battleship to have an all big gun layout arrayed along the ceter of the ship, and were subsequently phased out in favor of dreadought type battleships. Although considered absolete, a few predreadnoughts did see service in WWI and WWII."
  • Alternate you pictures; you have a butload of photos on the right hand side of the article and very few on the left; on my moniter (I think about 1200xwhatever-the-number-is) the result is a rather large area of blank white space.
  • I will add any other suggestions I can find tommorow should the oppertunity to do so present itself; right now though it is hard to see my computer screen (unsuprising since I have been staring at it for the last eight hours nonstop). It looks good though, keep it up! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I've moved the lead about to bit so it's clearer from the first paragraph what the article is about: also I've alternated some of the pictures. Thanks! The Land 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. Cla68 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support good article, enjoyed reading it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Just one comment: I'd recommend including the fact that the Royal Sovereign had barbettes instead of turrets for its big guns. Otherwise, the article doesn't include any reason why it shouldn't be considered the first pre-Dreadnaught battleship. JKBrooks85 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  You mean, like, "The subsequent Royal Sovereign class of 1889 retained barbettes" ;-) Thank you anyway! The Land 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Fascinating and well written expansion to an important article. I corrected the two red links that you had remaining in the text. --MChew 16:48, 7 November 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 discussion.

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.

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

In my ongoing quest to improve the Iowa class battleship articles here I have recently expanded the article USS Kentucky (BB-66), and although there is little chance it will clear FAC I would like to see the article improved to A-class. To that end, I have decided to make use of our A-class review as well as the WP:SHIPS review to get additional input as to how the article may be improved upon. Note that I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here have patients [patience]; its likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Oppose for now this is a very promising article, but it's not yet A-class. I spotted spelling mistakes throughout the article and the half-paragraph speculating on what she would have been armed with if she'd been completed and had survived until the 1980s seems to be crystal ball gazing given that she was cancelled over 20 years before any such upgrade would have occurred (do the citations here support the claim that more than 4 Iowas would have been reactivated and upgraded had they existed?). Also, is it possible to expand the discussion of the proposal to complete her as a BBG? - this looks really interesting but the current text doesn't say what kind of missiles it was proposed fitting her with or how serious this proposal was. A discussion of why the Navy remained at least semi-committed to completing the ship after 1944 given that it was clear that BBs were obsolete might also be interesting. --Nick Dowling 11:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On a first come, first adressed basis: My spelling errors are legendary; it wouldn;t be the same if I updated an article and did leave 3200 mispelled words and phrases in (incidentally, thats why I have my own spelling award :) I base the updating on the rhetoric of the 600-ship navy; Reagan wanted as many capital ships as he could get in the field into the field to bring back the power of the Navy. This factored into the recommissioning of older aircraft carriers to form CVBGs, it stands to reason that the USN would have reactivated the other to Iowas to gain an additional pair of BBBGs. I will conceded your point though that this is speculation, although I prefer to think of it more along the lines of an educated guess. My own research into the BBG idea has turned up artwork showing Kentucky with two forward mounted turrets and a pair of what look like Mk 26 twin ar missile launchers in the back; I am working to track down the weapon systems. The missiles would likely have been terriers (based on post WWII testing with the converted battleship USS Mississippi), and as before I am looking into tracking that down. On the last note: I have no idea; it remains a mystery, but the sense I get from reading the material is that the Navy was trying to get a 3/4 complete battleship completed becuase it was 3/4 of the way complete (illinois was only 22% complete when scrapped). I intend to look into it more; this is just a for starters kind of thing (mostly to cheer me up; I feel like I been out of the loop lately) :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 11:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'll change my vote to support if you take out the material about what Kentucky would have been armed with if she had been built then reactivated in the 1980s. This appears to be your speculation as it doesn't address the possibility that even if she had been built she could have been retired and scrapped, reactivated but not not rearmed or simply not reactivated. For the material to be included I think that you need to find a reference which confirms that more than 4 Iowas would have been reactivated if they had been available and that the ships would have all been re-armed with that armament. --Nick Dowling 07:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Alright, you win. I have (reluctantly) removed the information about the hypothosised reactivation of the 600-ship Navy. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Yep - I've changed my vote to support the nomination. --Nick Dowling 08:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I've cleaned up a fair amount of spelling errors and made some minor grammar improvements this morning, but this still needs some work. I made two content-related changes that you should review to make sure I'm not off my rocker: (1) I've reworded the bit about considering Montana-like design to avoid the awkward "protection system...for protection"; and (2) I changed "President Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary John Lehman's 600-ship Navy plan" to "President Ronald Reagan's 600-ship Navy plan" for brevity. A few questions I had:

• I wasn't clear on why half of the specs box was filled out, but the armament, armor, etc was not.
• "Kentucky was the second to last battleship constructed by the US Navy" This would benefit from rewording to make it clear; 'constructed' reads as though she was finished.
• "holds the unique honor of being the highest numbered battleship hull to have been under construction but not completed" Sure this is unique, but how on earth is it an honor?

This is an interesting article; I'd be happy to give it another go-over once it's had a few more eyes on it. Maralia 15:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you for correcting my god-awful spelling. I wish I could say I was a great speller, but I ain't, and thats all there be to it. In answer to you comments/questions: Your content related changes are fine, they don't change the meaning any. On the issue of the spec box: It would be easier for logistical reasons to think of this article as the third in a series of three articles: the armament article and class article disucss in length the particlaurs of there respective fields; hence the reason why this articles seems short. I will reword the other two lines you tagged for calrity as you suggested.
• Comments - glad to see another Iowa article from TomStar, are you going to get around to Battleships in World War II any time? ;)

I have removed the Neon Genesis Cruft.

I am not sure www.voodoo.cz is a reliable source; nor www.navysite.de; nor hazegray.org. They all seem to be basically self-published.

Structure: Much of the material in 'history' overlaps that in 'construction' - unsurprising perhaps since her history is the history of her construction. Is it worth merging these sections?

Regards, The Land 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm getting there (eventually :-) I forgot to remove the evagellion part, thanks for doing that. navysite.de is an unofficial US navy site but does have information on incidents that US ships have been involed in that DANFS tends to omit. Hazygrey.org, navysite.de and voodoo.cz are used to verify the DANFS and NVR material, if everyone agrees with everyone else then I know that the sources are reliable, and thats why they are present. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• And you caught a huge error I made; all instances of "voodoo" were supposed to have been cited to an essay by a retired US Navy officer, these have since been corrected. Thank you! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article is definetely too short and it certainly doesn't look like an A-class in my opinion. --Eurocopter tigre 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I don't think we've ever insisted on a particular length as a requirement for A-Class status, provided that all the other requirements were met. We do have some quite short articles that have passed the review successfully, in any case. Kirill 18:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • As I noted above, it would be easier to think of this article as the third article in a series of three, with the class page discussion the general history and characteristics of these six battleships and the armement page discussing the weapon systems used by these battleships/ When viewed like this Kentucky is actually very well sourced, with rougly 100 citations across three seperate pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Comment. I think the article is almost there. I believe if you added some background text about the development of the Iowa class battleship you would then have enough material (two paragraphs) to add a "Background" section to the article. Then, you could follow that with "Construction" and rename the "History" section as "Fate" or "Scrapping" or something like that and the article would be complete. Length doesn't matter as long as the subject is covered. Cla68 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I moved a couple of things around. I may have screwed up a couple of the citations and I can't figure out how to fix them. Sorry about that. Cla68 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I took a stab at implamenting your suggested changes, I may play the wording in the sections now since it does sound wierd. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:46, 5 November 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 discussion.

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.

Morotai Mutiny

Self-nom for an article that's been around for a bit and garnered some favourable comment from colleagues. It describes a little-known but fascinating episode in Australia's military aviation history. Believe it meets the B-Class criteria pretty easily and could well be worth a nod for the next level. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — Fascinating stuff. Is there anything about MacArthur's reaction to the incident, if he had one? If not, what was the Australian public's opinion, or was the incident too small to get wide coverage? JKBrooks85 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hadn't come across any recorded reaction from Macarthur before and after rechecking refs today, still nought. However, as noted in the final para, the incident was reported at the time - will see about incorporating a quote or two from the Australian press. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Some press reaction now incorporated. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. There is an infobox you could use for this article if you want to. It's the infobox that's used for military accident or friendly fire articles like the 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident. Otherwise appears to meet the criteria and is a very interesting article. Cla68 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate. I suspected there might be an infobox that could suit but never discovered one in my occasional searches - will check that one out. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support An excellent article which does a great job of explaining a complex and somewhat ambigious topic. --Nick Dowling 09:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a well written article, but an A class article is supposed to have almost all the requirements of an FA article, and I'm afraid this one doesn't quite qualify. As mentioned earlier, the infobox would be a good addition for the article. Also, it needs more in line citations, as the first isn't until half way through the 'Background' section. I would also suggest breaking down multiple citations by page number where available. Finally, are there any related articles that can be listed at the bottom?Cromdog 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's worth pointing out that infoboxes are not a requirement for FA candidates, and the presence of see-also links is actually a common objection to them. Kirill 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I was not aware of that...however, I think it still needs more inline cites. If others think that's not enough to hold it back from A-class, so be it, but I think it's enough.
      • Regardless of it not being a requirement, I did check out the infobox and appropriate parameters and I really don't think it adds much to the article that isn't succinctly put in the introductory paragraph. The request for citations for the first para of Background was perfectly valid and I've added a couple. I do think the article is well-stocked with citations; on the odd occasion that only one is used for an entire para, that's simply because one source covers all that info. Re. page numbers, again I think the granularity is pretty reasonable, many being individual pages or fairly narrow ranges. The main exception is Alexander's "Cleaning the augean stables" which has no page numbers but is available online. Given the above, Cromdog, do you still have serious/specific objections that I can try and address? Cheers, Ian Rose 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• I like the improved citing. I don't see any problems right now...I'll re-read the entire article when I'm a bit more awake to double-check the grammer and prose. I checked that info-box and agree, it's useless here (possibly everywhere...seems pointless), however, since this incident was related to WWII, are there any category boxes that might be added? Just curious, and I withdraw my objection. It seems to me that the whole thing has been fully explained out, fairly well.Cromdog 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Well worth the reading. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:36, 1 November 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 discussion.

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.

Richard Williams (RAAF officer)

Self-nom: this article is currently rated B-Class and has undergone a peer review which produced some useful observations and modifications. Believe it's ready for A-Class and would be aiming for FA if it passes the next hurdle, so any comments that could help to achieve that end are very welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good text flow, good lead, good use of images, well referenced

Images

• Recommended that free images use the {{information}} template to ensure that all of the required information is in place
• Ensure that images tagged as {{PD-because}} are properly tagged
• Image:Richard Williams.jpg is marked simply as public domain and has no source; ensure this is correct, update it or find another image

References

• The References section uses citation templates; very good use
• But, the actual cites are a mix—some use templates and some don't; templates should be consistently applied

Content

• "Air force" is used in upper and lower case; ensure this is proper
  • There are a couple of instances where it could be read as either the Air Force or an air force, but none I believe where it could be taken solely as an air force - therefore I've made all instances proper case.
• In several places, ranks not used as a specific title are upper case—normally these would be lower case (this may be one of the British English differences though)
  • I'll admit to not being certain of the standard in WP:MILHIST articles so have consistently used proper case whether it's part of a title or simply mention of the rank in general. Happy to modify if someone can point out the relevant guideline or convention. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You want WP:CAPS, see the lead and Titles.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support — Gadget has pointed out the few problems with this article, but they're all minor stylistic concerns. The article is well-written, has excellent flow, and seems to be lacking any of the spelling or grammar problems that crop up even in FACs. Excellent all the way around. In a general sense, however, if you wish to see this as an FAC, I'd suggest lengthening it some. There's no problems with it, but the article left me wanting more specific details in addition to the wider scope of the RAAF. JKBrooks85 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Gadget's recommendations above, and those should definitely be addressed before nominating this article for FA. I would also recommend not having mid-sentence inline citations, but instead grouping them at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Otherwise, I think it's a complete, well-referenced, informative and well-written article that meets the criteria. Nice work. Cla68 21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. What they said In terms of prose, the article is very solid. It seems comprehensive and it is adequately cited. Well done. Woodym555 14:25, 24 October 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 discussion.

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 Dyrrachium (1081)

This article recently passed GAC and I think that it could be of A-class quality. All comments welcome. Kyriakos 22:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • The alignment of the quote box in the section prelude is being shoved way to far to the right by the map picture above it (note that i have my moniter alignment at 1024xthe other number). If you could fix that it would be great.
  • "Attacking with their massive battle axes, the Varangians attacked the Norman knights, who were driven away after their horses panicked." This sentence uses the word "attack" twice, it would be best if you could find another word to substitute in place of one of the two "attacks". I will not oppose for this, its just a preference of mine.

Other than that, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. I have removed the image futher up and to the left and I have also remove the first attack. Kyriakos 06:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Carom 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Cla68 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Eurocopter tigre 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Great lead-in and great text flow; needs minor work:

Content

• Varangians needs some slight amplification in the lead— it is not quite clear whose side they were on; expand as "Varangian mercenaries" or "Varangian auxiliaries" or whatever is appropriate
• Lead says "He left his son Bohemond", I think "he" is Robert but this needs to be made clear
• "Robert soon left Avalona and sailed to the island of Corfu, which surrendered." Why did Corfu surrender?

Style

• Needs hatnote to other battle
• "17th-18th": don't use ordinals per WP:MOSDATE, I think this should be 17 October?
• "crack troops" sounds a bit slangish, perhaps "elite" would be better

Images

• Recommended that free images use the {{information}} template to ensure that all of the required information is in place

References

• There are really only three sources used here, this may be considered rather light; if there are no other good sources don't try to force it
• Recommend that references are formatted with citation templates. This method is not mandatory, but is considered a best practice.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified all the issues in the content and style section. Current I can not find any other good sources but I am searching and hope to have a few more soon. Also with the style of the citation I like the way it currently is. Tell me if you have any problems. Thanks. Kyriakos 08:52, 24 October 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 discussion.

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.

Tet Offensive

A complete re-write and expansion of the original article. Quite long in length, but necessary for explication of the topic (at least for the time being). This one is a touchy subject, and am interested in assuring that POV is not sticking out like a sore thumb somewhere. RM Gillespie 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Comments:

• I'm not sure that footnoting the "Crack the Sky, Shake the Earth" heading follows style. The sheer size of the footnote makes it rather distracting. To avoid that problem, I'd suggest inserting the quote into the section with an explanation and footnoting it there.
• Keep an eye out for gender-specific words like "newsmen." The preferred terms are gender-neutral things like "reporters."
• The last sentence is somewhat awkward. I'd suggest removing it altogether.

JKBrooks85 22:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Support:

• Echo comment above about footnotes in section titles.
• I'm also not a fan of footnotes in lead sections and infoboxes, both of which should, as far as I'm concerned, contain info that is detailed, and therefore referenced, in the body of the article (there is no policy or guideline to support my opinion on this though).
• I find the serial section titles, as occurs in the Background section, a little awkward, and generally prefer to see some overview type narrative of what is following between headers (as occurs in the Aftermath/United States section).
• I find the section title "Northern Decisions" a little confusing when it refers to the North Vietnamese, especially as it seems there were factions within the North Vietnamese government that are referred to as southern and northern.
• There is at least one paragraph, the 2nd in the Northern Decisions section, without a reference. This is not a FAC I know, but there you go.
• The last sentence in the Hue section reads like speculatoin or OR - is there a source?
• Same for 1st sentence in the Aftermath section.
• The word "Tragedy" appears in the Aftermath/South Vietnam section - Never sure about this word (I thought it appeared in WP:WTA, and there is a related section but not completely applicable in this case). Undoubtedly it is applicable to the people who experienced the war, but this would surely be so regardless of which side they were on. What do you think?
• The lead talks about US public reaction, and my limited knowledge of the history leads me to believe that this was a key issue leading to US withdrawal, yet the subject is not covered in the aftermath at all - or am I way off beam here?
• Notwithstanding the excellent prose, which kept me engaged in a long article that I would normally have given up on, it could do with a brief copyedit - a few typos, no spaces between refs and start of next sentence being the most obvious. I made a few changes and I'll go back and clean up a bit more now.

Very impressive piece of work indeed. --FactotEm 07:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK - let's get busy. 1) Took care of "newsmen", 2) deleted "Southern/Northern-firsters" and stuck with other faction titles, 3) footnoted the first line of "Aftermath", and 4) deleted the last line of the article. Footnoting casualty figures in infoboxes comes from long experience dealing with editors who become rather indignant when their particular "side" seemes maligned. The last line of the "Hue" section just sums up the info listed above it and I don't believe that it is speculative. As to the U.S. public reaction, during most of the deliberations over deescalation, the majority of the public still supported Johnson's policy. Finally, I guess I just consider the deaths 14,000 civilians a "tragedy", North or South. RM Gillespie 15:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The layout of the headings is confusing; it took me a while to realise that the first headers (like "aftermath") were using a single set of equal signs instead of the double set I usually see; to me, this created the illusion that their had been some kind of omision between the section headers and sub headers (in this example, it looks liuke you forgat to write something for the aftermath section and instead skipped straight to "North Vietnam", which of course was you intention, but the line under "North Vietnam" seems to suggest an oversight on your part")

Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• To reduce the number of headings (in the "Background" section for instance) has the effect of removing divisions between contexts. The American political section would then merge into the North Vietnamese section. To physically reduce the type of the headings (in the "Aftermath" section for instance) has the effect of reducing the sub-headers to the size of plain text, which I find annoying. Every other article I have written has utilized the same format and hasn't been a problem so far. Any suggestions? RM Gillespie 05:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think whatever problem TomStar81 was seeing should be fixed now that the level-1 headings are set at level-2. Kirill 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Kirill - once again you demonstrate that you are "the Man". RM Gillespie 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support That's much better, and so much kinder on the eyes. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• I got the unreferenced para in "Norther decisions" annotated. I had not noticed that before, thanks! RM Gillespie 14:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support After the corrections which have been made, the article should be easily promoted to A-class. --Eurocopter tigre 12:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Especially given the long list of footnotes, the duplicates should be combined using the <ref name=xxx> tag. I've made a start. The naming convention I use is surname of author, combined with page number. For example, I used <ref name=DouganWeiss8> for Dougan & Weiss, p. 8. — ERcheck (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No problem. Just a case of being too "old school". I have to admit that the first time I read an article with such tags (without clicking on the footnote), I had no idea what they were for and just assumed that the author had gotten his footnotes out of order. RM Gillespie 15:41, 21 October 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 discussion.

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.

Wallachian Revolution of 1848

Superb article, it easily meets all requirements! --Eurocopter tigre 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Another excellent Romanian history article, but as before, there are a lot of red links in the article. It's not enough to keep it from being A-listed, but if the article is to be promoted further, these need to be fixed. JKBrooks85 19:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That will be fixed in the near future. --Eurocopter tigre 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article needs an infobox and a lot of the footnotes are duplicates that need to be combined with the "refname" footnote format. Otherwise, it should be good to go. Cla68 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • French Revolution/American Revolution/Bolshevik Revolution articles doesn't have an infobox. Why would this article need one? --Eurocopter tigre 15:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support, well cited and a good article. Kyriakos 08:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support The article has a sizable number of red links, it would be nice to see those unlinked articles created. Also, it would appear that anumber of you citations could be combined since they go to the exact same source, I would concider combining them. Otherwise, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:31, 19 October 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 discussion.

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.

Alexandru Averescu

I just found it and it looks very well in my opinion, and it's proper referenced and organized. I really think this article deserves to be more than B-class! --Eurocopter tigre 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hell yeah! very good article--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support there are a rather large number of red links on the page, otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So what? Per Manual of Style, they are welcome as long as relevant to the context. --Eurocopter tigre 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support but i agree with Tomstar that the red links need to be brought down. Kyriakos 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support but reduce the red links and I think the article should have a full bibliography, not just a list of footnotes. Cla68 13:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Well-referenced, comprehensive, and easily accessible to someone unfamiliar with the subject. As stated earlier, there are a lot of red links, and I'd support the creation of stubs to fill them up as soon as possible, particularly since they seem to cover important Romanian subjects that have been previously neglected. JKBrooks85 15:11, 16 October 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 discussion.

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.

Fort Jackson (Virginia)

Another in the series of articles about the American Civil War forts protecting Washington, D.C. This article's a little smaller, mainly because the fort itself was smaller and didn't have the importance of some of the previous ones I've put up for review. I've tried to address concerns previous reviews of other articles have brought up: Cites for every paragraph, removing unsupported information, and of course more photographs and illustrations. Let me know what you like and dislike and I'll be sure to fix it here and in future articles on the subject as well. Thanks for your time. JKBrooks85 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A nice article that meets all the criteria. Kyriakos 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --Eurocopter tigre 13:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good job. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:55, 4 October 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.

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.

Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm

This article covers the arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, teh first president of the Republic of Vietnam at the end of a coup. Hopefully, I will manage to get this to FA but Nov 2, the date when he was killed. Let the suggestions begin! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support — Good stuff. I like the detail and the amount of ground you've covered. Looks like a pretty even-handed treatment of a fairly controversial subject as well. Good job on that. The only suggestions I have relate to the look of the article. Are there any more pictures available? Right now, it's pretty grey, and a few pictures or illustrations might help to break up the sections. JKBrooks85 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment(edit conf) Why are words bolded in the lead? Woodym555 14:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Those appear to be the key words in the title of the article. JKBrooks85 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

after a successful coup isn't in the title, and i don't think it serves much purpose anyway does it? When i first look at is it seems like placing emphasis randomly. Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title says : (Title should be mentioned naturally as soon as possible.) If the topic of an article has no name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface: I think this clause applies here. Woodym555 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the bold for the reasons stated above. I also used the 24hour clock as per WP:MOSNUM. I now Support Woodym555 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article looks good. The only thing I am not sure about is as Woodym the bold links. Kyriakos 23:23, 2 October 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.

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.

Smolensk War

This GA class article is, I hope, quite comprehensive and well written - hopefully A-class. In any case, comments by MILHIST would be much appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article is detailed, lengthy, neutral, and lacks any glaring stylistic, spelling or grammatical errors. I can't be sure of its accuracy or comprehensiveness, as this is far from my field of expertise, but it seems well-cited and gives the appearance of being comprehensive. There's something about the writing style that makes it seem a bit unprofessional to me, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, and I'm not quite sure exactly what I'd suggest to change if I were to suggest so. One minor thing - could we include the Polish/Lithuanian/Russian name(s) of the conflict somewhere in the lead, or in a language box infobox on the side? Nice work. LordAmeth 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  The Polish name is just a Polish translation of 'Smolensk War'; it can be taken from the interwiki link. I don't know about the Russian one, as it is in cyrillic. PS. The only thing that I am still unhappy as the article is concerned is lack of the map with battles, but that's hard to find or make for such relatively unknown campaigns :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  Even so, I would include both (which can be taken from the interwiki links). It just seems more authentic that way, I think. I try to include the native Japanese name in every article I do, and where relevant to include the Chinese and/or Korean names as well. That way the "true" name of the event, that is to say the name of the event in the language to which it is most relevant, is represented. LordAmeth 11:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Informative and interesting article that meets the criteria and appears to cover the subject appropriately. I would suggest, however, not having mid-sentence citations. Instead, I would combine them all at the end of the sentence, or even all of them at the end of the paragraph. Cla68 06:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  Usually mid-sentence citations are used for very specific claims or numbers, so it is easy to see which specific fact comes from which source - if lumped together at the end of the statement, that wouldn't be possible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Preliminary Support I'm having too much trouble reading the words right now, but it looks comprehensive and well cited, and there are images (although I may suggest trying to find a more uniform size for them). I will look at it in the morning, assuming I feel better then. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The only things that I can suggestion is that you remove the See ALso section and if possible lengthen the lead. Kyriakos 09:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — Awesome work on the article... it's really high-quality information about something I didn't know much about. Two things stick in my mind, though: You mention a Swedish delegation in the first section, but there's no further information about what came about as a result of those talks between Sweden and Russia. I infer from the lack of Swedish intervention that nothing happened, but it'd be nice to state that in the article. Also, building off of Kyriakos's suggestion of removing the See Also section, did the war affect the Thirty Years War going on at the time? I know this is in the period of the Swedish phase of that war, and am wondering if that affected the situation at all. I'm not an expert by any means, but those are two questions that lingered in my mind. Good work! JKBrooks85 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Unfortunatly I don't have the refs with me, IIRC the Muscovites signed an alliance with the Swedes but decided to act before the Swedes were ready (hence the sentence later states "and unilaterally attacked without waiting for the Swedes and the Ottomans"). I don't mind if the see also is removed; however I think there are a few scholars (a minority) who classify this conflict as part of the TYW (which I think most scholars disagree with).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  I missed that sentence. Thanks for pointing it out. Support. JKBrooks85 20:06, 2 October 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.

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.

Cleomenean War

This article has under gone a WPMILHIST peer review and a copy edit over the last few days and I have addressed most of the issues and I would like to hear what needs to improved and see whether or not the article is of A-class standard. Kyriakos 23:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I believe that it meets the criteria, but I have a few suggestions:
  • Combine your mid-sentence citations at the end of the sentence. Mid-sentence citations interrupt the flow of the prose.
  • Use image altering software, if available to you, to draw the routes and moves taken by the involved armies on the Peloponnese maps you have in the article.
  • Since you have three maps of the area of operations early in the article, you might consider replacing one of them with another type of image, such as a picture of a Spartan hoplite or other type of involved combatant.
• Good work on an interesting and well-organized article. Cla68 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply. OK, I have removed all the mid-sentence citations and has replaced a map with an image of a hoplite. Kyriakos 10:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets all the criteria. Prose reads well, well cited, excellent article. Woodym555 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. LordAmeth 01:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support looks fine, but as Cla68 pointed out, having the same citation pop up after every sentence is a little overkill, once at the end of the paragraph should be fine. The section Battle of Ladoceia and Reforms looks the weakest to me, mostly, the prose could use improvement. Burzmali 02:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support All criteria are met. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:56, 30 September 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.

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.

Fort Runyon

Self-nom for yet another in the series of articles about the Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C. I've tried to incorporate suggestions from previous articles' reviews into this one: TomStar81's suggestions about cites and quotes, Eurocopter tigre's suggestions about images, and everything else. The article was featured in a Did you Know? on September 20, and I feel it's ready for an A-list review now. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks for your comments and your support. JKBrooks85 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment(s)

• Do we have an article for the Arlington Historical Society? The external link in the intro is kind of distracting.
• In the 3rd paragrpah of the section "Occupation of Arlington" is the word "terminuses". Is that a misspelling or just one of those wierd words?
• In the last paragraph of the section "Occupation of Arlington" you have the sentence "The town of Alexandria was the sole exception."; thats more of sentence fragment than a sentence and should be either combined with some other sentence or removed altogather.
• In the first sentence in the first paragrpah in the section "planning and contruction" the sentence in the quote ends with "&c". That reads to me like a typo, could you check to make sure its correct?
• Citations for #17 and #18 read "see map" and "see illustration", but I do not see a link to a map or illistrations. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the cites. Terminuses or termini are acceptable in common usage. "&c." is an archaic abbreviation for etc., itself an abbreviation for etcetera. Combined those two sentences that bothered you in the Occupation of Arlington section. JKBrooks85 21:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support, although I would suggest putting your images in text format, which you can do by formatting the image sytnaxe with a colon before the word "image". Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been fixed. JKBrooks85 14:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Once again very good work. Cla68 08:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Quite good. Carom 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Everything seems to be good in it! --Eurocopter tigre 18:04, 24 September 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.

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 Barrosa

This article has gone from stub rating to B-class, and following a very constructive peer review, I think it's now ready for at least A-class. I've currently got the article nominated at GA, and also in WP:LoCE to sort out any remaining prose/grammar/punctuation problems. I want to take this to FA, so as well as the A-class review, I'm interested in hearing opinions on chances at reaching FA, and suggestions on improvements to enable me to take it that far. Thanks. Carre 16:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - It is well-referenced, proper-written, it contains good images and maps, so i'm suporting it! --Eurocopter tigre 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Reworded one sentence in the lede, but other than that, it looks good. JKBrooks85 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you - I like your new words :) Carre 19:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I peer reviewed this earlier and said it was A-class then and it still is.--Jackyd101 14:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Several subsections in the Battle section have few if any links to articles here in Wikipedia, could you maybe see about putting some links in there? Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  Generally, I tried to observe what I thought was standard practice - wikilinking relevant words on their first occurrence only, and not linking them subsequently. I shall have a look to see if there are any I've missed, that a reader may like to click to learn more. Thanks for the punctuation & grammar correction too - more improvements like that always appreciated. Carre 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

   Done - mainly wikilinked military terms (column, line, square, squadron, hussars, dragoons). There are still some unlinked sections, but I couldn't really see much more that wasn't either linked earlier, or that would need further explanation. If anyone does, on reading it, think "ohh, wonder what that means?", please feel free to wikilink. Cheers. Carre 10:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, i can't see any problems with MOS, referenced immaculately. Great article. Woodym555 14:55, 22 September 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.

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.

Issy Smith

There has been an impressive response to the article's peer review. The most compelling issues (whether raised or not) have hopefully been addressed; however, I of course welcome suggestions and encourage the identification of perceived deficiencies. Note: My editing has been severely curtailed recently, thus I pre-emptively apologise if I'm unresponsive this weekend. As is evident with this blurb, the article may still contain....flawed prose, but I'm essentially oblivious so bold editors are urged to refine the article! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support as one of the peer reviewers who was very impressed with the article. I have followed the changes since and they look good. Well done. Woodym555 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 20:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good, well-referenced, tightly written article. Excellent work. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - It looks very good to me and the peer review is also quite impressive. Good work!! --Eurocopter tigre 13:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Beautifully written with a smooth flow and excellent citations. JKBrooks85 16:27, 21 September 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.

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.

Fort Corcoran

Self-nom for the latest article in the Civil War Defenses of Washington, D.C. series. It was rated start-class while still under construction, and since my ultimate goal is to give every fort an A-Class article, I'd appreciate your comments and support on this article. Please let me know of any problems or areas that you'd like to see improved, and I'll get on it right away. Thanks. JKBrooks85 01:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The following need to be addressed:

• The intro paragraph seems rather short and condenced, is there any chance it could be expanded on?

I'm not a fan of long lede paragraphs, but I have modified it slightly. If there's anything in particular you'd like to see added, let me know.

• There are no citations at all for the first paragraph under "Occupation of Arlington", could you maybe find one or two to add?

Added.

• Your quote has the word "reconnoitre", is that a misspelling or just a fancy term for recon?

It's the long term for recon. Since it's in a quote, I can't change it.

• I think Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan’s quote ought to be either placed in a cqutoe box or better linked to the preceding or succseding lines, the way the quote is set up now with regards to the sentences before it seems...odd.

Modified the paragraphs around the quote and put it in blockquote format.

• The statement "This event was the first time in history that an aerial observer actively directed artillery fire." in the Union Army Ballon Corps sections needs to be cited; otherwise there is no proof that this was the first time someone in the air directed artillery.

Couldn't find a cite for the first time ever, but added a cite for the first American directed artillery.

• The first paragraph under the section "Union Army Ballon Corps" has no citations, could you maybe find one or two to add?

Added a few.

• The first paragraph under the section "camp life" has no citations, could you maybe find one or two to add? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about Fort Corcoran leisure in particular, though I do have information about general recreation in the Union Army. The best I can offer is the picture of the band at Fort Corcoran, which at least validates the fact that there were bands there and they evidently had enough leisure time to create them. Thanks for the suggestions. JKBrooks85 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Major issues have been addressed to my satisifaction. On the issue of the intro paragraph: its just an editorial difference I guess; I like to have two or three paragraphs in the intro section that neatly sum things up, but I see no reason to object to the intro paragraph if you like to keep things short :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. My theory has always been that a lede should cover the article, but leave you wanting for details so you're inspired to read the article itself. Ledes that are too long answer all your questions and there's no suspense. Just my opinion, of course. I've seen plenty of long ledes that worked well, particularly on more complex subjects, which this isn't. JKBrooks85 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work, again. Cla68 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. There's more to come. The style seems to work out, so hopefully I'll be able to apply it to other articles as well. JKBrooks85 13:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Good article with excellent images, it meets all the requirements in my opinion. --Eurocopter tigre 09:57, 16 September 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.

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.

Operation Passage to Freedom

Article about the sealift/airlift of Vietnamese from the communist north to the anticommunist south in 1954-55 after the partition at Geneva. Erm, it's relatively long and detailed, about 30k, and is referenced, and I hope, at an acceptable standard of English. Thanks,Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• CTF-90 is fine, but what is COMIGAL? Com-something or other US Navy, but what? Cheers Buckshot06 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The English term is Commisariat for refugees, but it was commonly referred to as COMIGAL which was the French acronym. This is covered in the text. I do not know what this acronym stands for in full French, and none of hte books I checked detail this. The head of COMIGAL, Bui Van Luong, in his report in the Lindholm book of the Michigan State University Advisory group simply uses COMIGAL himself without elaborating and neither do the other ten books I checked nor do the other papers in the Lindholm book. I guess I could circumvent this by using "Commisariat for refugees" but it would violate the "use common names" principle. But since the English translation is already provided, I don't feel that it is amjor problem and I don't know how I could resolve this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I see now. I explained COMIGAL in one of the later sections and later added a reference to it in an earlier section so it isn't explained first. That's fixed now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine, though if you ever find what COMIGAL stands for in French it'd be good to add it. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers Buckshot06 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. I can't support at the moment, as the article has several issues that need to be cleared up:I believe now meets the criteria. Cla68 16:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The intro is one, long, run-on paragraph. It needs to be split into two or more paragraphs.
    • Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The background section should be expanded to at least two paragraphs.
    • Done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What happened to the refugees in South Vietnam after the North completely took over the country and what is the legacy of the exodus in the current republic of Vietnam? Cla68 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • After the Fall of Saigon, many people in South Vietnam fled. Most of these were RoV public servants or ARVN personnel and so forth to escape being put in re-education camps or being discriminated against as reactionaries by the North Vietnamese communists. People did so irrespective of whether they were ancestral southerners or "54 northerners [Bac Ky 54]" as the Vietnamese saying goes. After the war, many northern communists moved into South Vietnam "Bac Ky 75" to take over the gaps left by fleeing South Vietnamese and also because NV propaganda told them that the US had kept the RoV in the stone age and alleged that there was virgin land in the south. Vietnamese people can tell the difference in the 54 and 75 batches by their way of talking and behaving ({{cn}} people tell me this). But apart from that, from the books I have, the '75 boat people are not discussed in terms of the 54 northerners and the ancestral southerners. They are just discussed as SVN in general. So I don't know what I can do for you there, except to point out that in the US and Australia, there seem to be a higher ratio of Vietnamese who are Catholic-Buddhist than there are in Vietnam, which would tell me that Catholics are more communist-phobic. But that would be my OR. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• In addition to the suggests above, you should combine common citations, some of your notes go to the exact same source. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I've done this. Thanks for pointing it out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support my complaints have been adressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — The sections are kind of grey right now... any chance of putting in subheads in order to break up the paragraphs? It'd also help with searching and allow users easier access to information. JKBrooks85 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me. Kyriakos 23:04, 14 September 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.

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.

Omaha Beach

This article was peer reviewed in June [2] . I have accommodated the resulting comments as best I can and would now like to see if it is up to standard for A-Class. Thanks. --FactotEm 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support The following are suggestions for improvement:
  • There are no citations for the terrain section, any chance you may be able to find some?

Done.

• • Any chance of finding articles to link the German units to for the "defenses" section under "Bloody Ohamha"? It would be interesting to learn more about the 716th Division, 352nd Division, 916th Grenadier Regiment, 726th Grenadier Regiment, and 352nd Artillery Regiment to help put the defense of the beach into perspective.

Done for those that exist.

• • I notice the article has a gallery section, is this section really needed or could it be removed and/or linked to the commons repository?

The gallery was not my work. I'd do as you suggest but have absolutely no idea how to.

• • Some of your citations in the notes section are letter for letter the same, see if you can combine them (case in point: #29 and #31). TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.

And thanks for your comments (I'll see what I can do about the gallery) --FactotEm 06:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support There is a sizable selection of images on the commons for Operation Overlord; I linked that page to this one since this is technically a page relfecting that part of the operation. I will look into tightening up the image linker later today if I get the chance, and see about transfering the images loaed here over to the commons. Good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - appreciate your help --FactotEm 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support A great article with quality information. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) However, I think there might need to be a section telling about Omaha Beach today. Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review - I've added what little I can cite now. --FactotEm 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support — I changed the notes section to two columns instead of one, since it's over 80 items. Fantastic work. I know you've been working on this one for quite a while now. JKBrooks85 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - it is a lot more work than I expected. Thanks for your comments. --FactotEm 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Very informative and well-cited article that meets the criteria. I would, however, suggest that many of the short sub-sections be combined and that the aftermath section be expanded to include information on what Omaha Beach was used for after D-day, such as for how long it was used as a location for landing further reinforcements, etc. Cla68 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Done, though I'm not sure that there couldn't be a bit more merging. I'll have another look in the morning. Thanks. --FactotEm 21:51, 10 September 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.

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.

Barton S. Alexander

Self nom for an article created at the indirect suggestion of FayssalF, who said I should at least create stubs for all the wikilinks in the A-Class review of Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.). That inspired me to create this article, which I originally intended to only be a stub. After getting a little carried away, it became the first biographical article that I've ever attempted, and I'd like to think that it's as worth of A-listing as any of the fort articles that are the main focus of my current campaign. Thanks for taking a look at it. JKBrooks85 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The following need to be adressed:

• Your last sentence in the 3rd into paragraph is incomplete; it needs to expanded or removed.

Removed.

• Add a section on the General's earliy life and childhood, if you could; we seem to pick his life up at the age of 19 with no knowlage of who his parents were and whether he had siblings and all that sort of thing.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any of that sort of information. I've written to the History office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Fort Belvoir, Virginia in hopes of getting a copy of his biographical file, but aside from that, I don't know of any other way of getting that information. He hasn't had any biography written, and everything else I've found has been about his military career.

• You have multiple tenses in the main body, an article needs to be written entirely in the present tense or entirely in the past tense.

I was only able to find two instances of this — both having to do with the Scott Building. I've fixed both.

• Some of your sentences seem to be fragmented; others do not seem to flow well, and some sentnece suffer from both problems. See is you can combine some of the sentences and/or rearrange the wording to help make them read easier.

Can you provide specific examples of this? Copy editing your own work is never easy, and readability standards differ from person to person, and a fresh set of eyes is always appreciated.

• Try to aviod instances of the same word appearing in the same sentence. Case in point: the word designed in this sentnece: "Designed by Brigadier General Joseph Totten, head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the lighthouse was designed to replace a structure that had been destroyed in a storm in 1851."

Fixed.

• You have too many commas in the article, most are no needed and hence should be removed.

Again, specific examples would be appreciated on this. I've removed a couple optional information clauses, but a readthrough by someone else would be appreciated.

• See if you can gain some consistancy with you refernce section, the cites in some places seem thread bare. SandyGeorgia may be able to help you with this if you are uncertain of how to improve them. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Where would you have me add more citations? I've got at least one in every paragraph, and most have two or more. The lede paragraphs don't have cites because the information in the lede is contained later in the article. Thanks for the critique! JKBrooks85 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I can not in good faith oppose an article in which the main editer/contributer has tried to find info and had such info elude him, so if the early life information can not be faound I will withdraw my oppose on that ground (you did try, after all, so you have completed your 50% of the work :)

Understood, but it's impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove that such information doesn't exist, merely that I haven't found it in several online searches across a week's time.

I've managed to find a bit more early life information, including his exact birthdate and birthplace. I have managed to find information about his marriage, but it's only on a private genealogy site, and I don't know how trustworthy it is. Should I include it?

On the issue of commas: English grammar rules are to add commas only after the words "and", "but", and "or" if they appear in the sentence; to add commas after listing three or more things; to seperate date, and to seperate proper place locations. Examples where these rules are not exaclty followed would be as follows: "The only exception to this came in late July, 1864, when Confederate forces under the command of Jubal Early attacked Washington's defenses from the north during the Battle of Fort Stevens." (the comma between July and 1864 is uneeded); "In August 1853, Alexander accepted, and by 1855, the Smithsonian Building was complete." (absence of "and/or/but" between "1853" and "Alexander", and between "1855" and "the"); and "After the conclusion of the war, now-First Lieutenant Alexander returned to West Point for a four-year stint as as Treasurer and Superintending Engineer for the Cadets' Barracks and Mess Hall." (the comma between "war" and "now" is uneeded).

As to comma rules: I've fixed the first of these suggestions. Thanks for pointing it out! Completely missed that one. The other two sentences you pointed out are examples of parenthetical phrases or non-restrictive clauses. They can be removed from the sentence without changing the meaning. If they really bother you that much, I can rework the wording.

On the issue of citations: you have enough citations in the article as it is now, no further citation are needed. What I am suggesting has to do more the citations themselves; there is a difference between citing information to "Kelley, p. 128 (cite #25)" and "U.S., War Department, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, (Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1880-1901), Series I, Volume 2, Chapter 9, p. 38. (cite #9)"; given a choice, most people would rather see the latter than the former. If you could reconfigure some the citations so they have more information in them (like page number, volume number, edition number, publishing press, etc) then you can make the page look more proffessional. SandyGeorgia is particularly good at this, she can add meat to the citations anyone has already added to an article (hence the reason I suggested having her look at it).

If you'll re-examine the citations, you'll find that I fully cited the Kelley work the first time it appeared in the article. In order to keep the citations list from becoming unwieldy, I used shortened citations. It's the same format used in scholarly works and in other Wikipedia articles, and it provides the necessary information without becoming more wordy than is needed.

On the issue of fragmented sentences: I am aware that one of the ten commandments of writing anything is "Thou shalt not copyedit thy own work"; but I am afraid that if I mess with it I will add uneeded spelling and grammar mistakes, solving one problem at the cost of adding another and possibly subtracting from the overall meaning of the work. If you want I can try to edit the article for you to adress the issue; or you can wait and gamble that someone else will review the article and fix the problems. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I really do want someone to look it over — I wouldn't have asked if I didn't mean it. Though I may disagree with you on some of the individual sentences, it'd be nice to make sure everything's clear enough for others to understand. Thanks. JKBrooks85 00:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I did a quick edit to align the format with most of the other Civil War generals' biographies. You were using a lot more fully spelled out ranks for people over and over again than we typically use in these biographies. Two remaining things to consider: In your footnotes, the external links should be composed on the title of the work, not appear as a separate numeric link, such as Title of my book rather than Title of my book [3]. You should do a reevaluation of the ranks. The paragraph in which it describes him being a major of engineers while a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army was confusing. My typical reference for command history is Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., Civil War High Commands, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8047-3641-3, and they indicate that most of the promotions he received during the war were brevets. For instance, he was not promoted to permanent Lt. Col. USA until 1867. And the sentence that indicated his brevet promotion was not permanent is a little misleading. Normally, we use the term permanent to differentiate regular army ranks from the volunteer ranks that were given out freely during the war. Alexander was one of the rare generals who had exclusively regular army ranks throughout the war. Brevets were honorary ranks, and unless they were revoked somehow, were permanent enough. Hal Jespersen 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all of that, Hal. It's really appreciated. Since we are dealing with two different sets of ranks here — engineering and U.S. Army — which one should predominate, and what should I indicate as his final rank, General or Colonel? As you said, it's really confusing to someone new to the topic, and was for me as well. Incidentally, I made contact with someone at the Office of History at Fort Belvoir, and they're sending me Gen. Alexander's biography file via mail. From the email exchanges I've been having I don't expect too much new information, but we'll see when it arrives. JKBrooks85 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a table of his promotions, all the the regular army (USA) which I extracted from the Eicher reference and also http://www.civilwardata.com/active/hdsquery.dll?Officer?476&U (for which a subscription is needed):

07/01/56	Captain	Full
07/21/61	Major	Brevet (for First Bull Run)
05/04/62	Lt. Col.	Brevet (for Siege of Yorktown)
03/03/63	Major	Full
03/13/65	Colonel	Brevet
03/13/65	Brig. Gen.	Brevet
03/07/67	Lt. Col.	Full

so the confusing sentence actually should indicate that he was a full major in the regular army (engineers or not, makes no difference) but that he had previously received a brevet promotion to Lt. Col. in the regular army.

Thanks for clearing that up. I've fixed the sentence and am wondering if it's okay with you if I include the table you created in the article. JKBrooks85 11:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is generally not our style in ACW biographies to include command history tables of this type. (Of the 400 or so I am familiar with, I can think of only two that have them and I intend to rewrite those eventually.) I have made the appropriate changes to the article to include the promotions within the context of his assignments. See if you are happy with the format of the footnotes I added; you are using a different format than I generally use. I removed the Warner footnote because he really provides no additional information of value. Hal Jespersen 15:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've brought my web citations into a more standard format and corrected a few niggling problems that had been overlooked. I think it's all set now. JKBrooks85 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Took another read through after leaving it be for a dew days, and this time it looks much better than it did. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:27, 11 September 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.

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.

George Jones (RAAF officer)

Self-nom for this B-class article that's recently undergone peer review, during which I believe I addressed all points raised. Like to think it has the potential to go to FA but let's see what comes out of the next stage. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Good job. Cla68 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I was a peer reviewer of the article and all requests have been acted on. It looks good. Woodym555 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support A very good article. --Nick Dowling 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support on condition that citation number 38 is changed, Wikipedia can not be cited as source in an article. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Modified. While the intent was simply a footnote in order to avoid cluttering the relevant paragraph, with a wikilink for more info, I see how it might be interpreted as WP citing itself. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose 11:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • To be fair, I've done that myself; however, most articles that pass through here are bound for the FAC page, and the FAC contributers will single out cites of that nature for the same reason I did, so you may as well correct it now before answering to a board of higher athority :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:33, 8 September 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.

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.

Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.)

This article covers Fort Bayard, a fort constructed during the American Civil War as part of the defenses of Washington, D.C. I'm currently undertaking a project to create a page for every one of the 60+ forts that protected Washington during the war, and I'm sure this article is worthy of A-Class status. A similar article was raised to A-Class level last month, and Fort Bayard is easily the equal of that article (Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.)). If there are any problems with the article or the format, please let me know and I will fix them and avoid repeating them in future articles. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support good work but i'd like to see all red links in blue ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. So would I... but I suppose that since you did all that wikification in the article, the least I can do is create a few stubs for the Union officers. The forts in red will be wikified as part of the ongoing project to create entries for every fort defending Washington. Thanks for your help and your support. JKBrooks85 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i knew that. I'll try to create other stubs while you'd be creating those of forts. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support Make sure that you don't start sentences with numbers, spell the given number out. More imprtantly, your notes should be configued in a consistant style. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the sentence that began with a number and standardized the citations and put them into two columns. JKBrooks85 15:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Its A-class now. Thanks for the swift response. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're willing to give the input, I'm willing to make the changes as quickly as possible. Thanks for the tips. They'll be applied to future articles as well. JKBrooks85 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. Just one suggestion, though, that you add citations to the couple of paragraphs in the "Planning and construction" section that currently lack citations. Cla68 03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed — I added citations for the paragraphs that lacked them, both in the Planning and Construction section and in the Wartime Use section. I also added accessed dates to the website citations. Thanks for the help! JKBrooks85 16:02, 6 September 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.

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 for Henderson Field

Respectfully request an A-class review of this article. I appreciate anyone's comments, questions, or suggestions. I'll be sitting on airplanes (i.e. traveling) for the next day or so which may delay my response to your comments but I look forward to receiving your input on if you feel that the article currently meets the A-class criteria or not. Cla68 12:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support — A fantastic article, well-written, exhaustively cited, and complete with excellent illustrations, quotes, and infoboxes. Easily ready for a FAC. JKBrooks85 22:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - An excellent article. My only comment is that WP:MOS states that the size of thumbed images generally shouldn't be fixed. --Nick Dowling 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support It is no doubt a fantastic article but my only concern is that it relies mainly on 2 or 3 sources. But well, that can be sorted out before reaching a FA-Class i suppose. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Great artocle which is close to FA status. Kyriakos 08:50, 5 September 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.

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.

Byzantine-Arab Wars

In my opinion quite a good article from our Early Muslim Military history task force. Wandalstouring 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support even though IMO it needs more cits. Kyriakos 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support - a bit unreferenced, especially "Byzantine resurgence" and "Conclusion" sections. --Eurocopter tigre 12:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support 34 references are quite enough as a minimum. Some NPOV is needed. Sometimes it seems clear that it was written from a Byzantine POV. Examples: loss of southern Italian territories can mean gain of Southern Italian territories depending from where you see it. Conflicts with the Caliphate however continued between the 800s and 1169 can mean the same thing if we would say simply Conflicts with the Caliphate however continued between the 800s and 1169... -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It is better now but we still have a one-sided Effects section. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support in addition to the comments above, you should check the quotes to make sure they are in their entirety, otherwise you need to lead them in or follow them out with three dots. Otherwise, it look goods. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:37, 5 September 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.

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.

Jean de Carrouges

Longer companion article to A-class Jacques Le Gris. This has been project reviewed and was considered A-class by at least one reviewer. Would like to get both to A-class, so am attempting it. Any comments on improvement will be gratefully appreciated.--Jackyd101 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support per last review. Kyriakos 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Carom 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Strong article, well-cited. Clear, concise, and informative. The footnotes aren't displaying in two columns for me, though, and according to the code, they should be doing so. Firefox and Safari both show the references in a single column. JKBrooks85 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Nice and comprehensive article, it easily meets the standards. --Eurocopter tigre 12:52, 2 September 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.

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 the Plains of Abraham

Previous nomination here.

As this article has been relatively stable for quite some time now, I'd like to bring it forward for another review towards A-Class and, eventually Featured status. The previous review brought forward some concerns regarding balance, quality of sourcing and wording; I found a number of good new resources to flesh things out, replaced some of the questioned sources, reworded, and added some more information where I could. I think the results have turned out fairly well, and would like to hear the views of project members once again. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. I hope though, that you'll continue looking for or draw your own map of the battle that could be added to the article. Cla68 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I do need to try and track a PD map down; I'll poke around and see what I can find. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• And why I didn't check the Commons before now, I'll never know. Article now includes a map - it's a somewhat general view of the area, but at least helps illustrate the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, with a few minor changes. I made a little typo correction already, as that was something I could easily correct. I would like a little more clarification however on the following point, the lead states that the battle involved fewer than 10,000 troops. However, down under "First engagements", it's stated that Montcalm had 13,390 troops and militia available while the British had 3,300. Later in the section though it goes on to say that Montcalm attacked with only 3,500 troops. So, it appears that 6,800 troops participated in the first engagement. The number of artillery and naval personnel involved are unstated, whether they wer included in the numbers or in addition to them. I don't know if that information is available or not, without drawing conclusions, so I'll leave that to you, but a little clarification on the numbers involved might be good, if it's available. wbfergus 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quite right, and thank you for spotting that. I added to one sentence to clarify that the French troops involved in the main battle were those in or close by the city, and that Montcalm felt he couldn't wait to bring the others in from further east. I hope that clears it up a little! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The article has definately improved and deserves A-class. Kyriakos 08:33, 28 August 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.

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 - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Enfield revolver

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Enfield revolver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Enfield revolver/archive1

Sadly, based on this discussion, I'm not sure that this article, which was delisted as a GA in 2014, is up to current ACR standards. There's a decent amount of uncited text in the first section of the body, and I have comprehensiveness concerns as well. The infobox mentions conflicts it was used in, and the lead mentions that it was used throughout the British Empire, but the only usage really discussed in the body is civil use by the Canadian Mounted Police. Hopefully this can be brought back up to snuff, but it'll need some work. Hog Farm _Talk 04:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delist: The article appears to have undergone an unattributed split here: [4] into the Enfield No. 2. Not sure if that was discussed at the time, and I am not an expert on this topic so can't comment much further about its efficacy. Unfortunately, though, it clearly does not meet the current A-class requirements (uncited paragraphs and seemingly lacking coverage) and unless someone has the skills, knowledge and willpower to work on it, it will need to be delisted. Arguably, it would be start class, IMO (B1=no and B2=no), not C class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - needs significant work to even meet the b-class criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 18:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - yes, agree with delisting. Coverage of design and development is lacking. I see Milhist bot has automatically classed it as C-class, which is probably generous. Zawed (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - agree with the above. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:47, 27 October 2021 (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 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.

Jacques Le Gris

Self-nomination of an article recently passed for GA which the reviewer consideed to be close to FA standard, needing only a copy-edit. Am submitting it for A-class review, potentially with FA eventually in mind, so any comments would be appreciated.--Jackyd101 01:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A nice article. Kyriakos 00:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Meets the criteria, but the section on the duel, although fun to read, isn't written in completely encyclopedic prose. Cla68 05:41, 26 August 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.

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.

Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.)

This is an article I've been working on for a little bit. I think it's fairly complete, and would like to try for an A-list ranking. It's fairly typical of the articles I'm creating for the Civil War forts of Washington, D.C., and would appreciate any constructive criticism that you all could offer. Thanks. JKBrooks85 14:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a light edit for ranks and links. Nice job. The only two comments I'd make are: (1) explain what an "F. D. howitzer" is (I have no idea); (2) the map is of an area too small to figure out much context. Hal Jespersen 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the map and spelled out field howitzer. Let me know what you think now. Thanks! JKBrooks85 12:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. You may want to expand the lead a little, but nice work otherwise. Carom 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I've expanded the lede slightly to include information about the Fort Circle project, but I'm not sure what else I should include beyond that. Any recommendations? JKBrooks85 12:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, although the template is very messy right now. I'm sure it will be fleshed out in no time. MrPrada 02:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a bit more information to the infobox, but I'm not sure what else I should do to it. Thanks for the support. JKBrooks85 12:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I meant {{Civil War DC forts}}. MrPrada 14:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. Cla68 21:31, 22 August 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.

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.

Ho Chi Minh Campaign

At last, the final campaign of the Vietnam War. Hope it meets the criteria. If not, looking for some constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 14:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - The article is very well referenced and contains excellent graphics and images. In my opinion, it meets all the requirements. --Eurocopter tigre 18:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Tjhis artilce is well wrotten and sourced it certainly meets A-class requirements. Another great article from RM Gillespie. Kyriakos 22:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. Carom 22:44, 11 August 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.

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.

Attack on Sydney Harbour

After some heavy slogging on the part of several editors, a peer review, and a Good Article pass, I feel it is time to see if this article makes the grade for A-class. If not, what needs to be addressed? If so, what does it need for a run at Featured status? -- saberwyn 12:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support, but just one question. The article states: "The floatplane was seriously damaged on landing and had to be scuttled, although both aircrew survived." I thought scuttling was a term that applied only to ships...? -- Hongooi 13:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The term was the one used in the texts, and if taken to mean "to deliberately sink something" is valid in its context. -- saberwyn 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wait. This article needs a lot more work. Moriori 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What work does it need? -- saberwyn 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's confusing, for one. The first paragraph says five subs attacked Sydney (three B1s and two C1s) but the fourth paragraph says six subs attacked Sydney, (four B1s and two C1s). Also, I support JKBrooks85's comments below re readability. Needs a haircut. Moriori 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Six subs were assigned to the operation. I-28 was sunk a few days before it could begin its part in the operation, as detailed in the fifth paragraph. Suggestions on how to make this clearer would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • As I said, it's confusing. In fact, eight subs attacked Sydney, five conventional and three midget. I'll be back tomorrow to make a few changes which I think will help. Cheers. Moriori 02:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Much appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I've reworded the introduction in an attempt to limit confusion. Have a look at it, please. -- saberwyn 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — In my opinion, there's not much from the Japanese POV. A few Japanese sources might help that problem. In addition, I'd suggest editing for readability. A lot of the sentences in the article have comma splices and some are written in passive voice. JKBrooks85 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Will contact the Japanese taskforce and enquire for their assistance. -- saberwyn 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. Didn't even think of that idea myself. JKBrooks85 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of a copyedit, but due to my proximity to the text my eyes are probably the worst to be looking through for this. Assistance in highlighting errors in spelling, grammar, and readability would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support meets all criteria (though I should confess that I have contributed to the article). Great work Saberwyn! As a comment, as all the Japanese subs involved in the operation were lost before the end of the war, I suspect that there unfortunetly isn't all that much which can be said from the Japanese perspective, other than the obvious observation that the men who operated the midget subs were very brave. --Nick Dowling 08:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support as in my opinion all the criterions are met. --Eurocopter tigre 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. In my opinion I think it meets all the criteria and that is a good article. Kyriakos 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks pretty good. Is there any way that the references could be put into two columns, instead of one long one? I've seen that style in other articles, and it helps break up that long list. JKBrooks85 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The reflist template was set to 3 columns, I've set it back to 2. Can someone confirm that the list is in two columns, as it does not and has never displayed on my computer. -- saberwyn 21:49, 2 August 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.

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.

Walter Model

Self-nomination, taking this to the next stage after getting some encouraging feedback from peer review. Might even think about going for FA-class if it all pans out well. -- Hongooi 18:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Clear, interesting and well written. Minor quibble: There is a mixture of UK / US spellings throughout. That aside, Great stuff. Raymond Palmer 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. Carom 22:39, 18 July 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.

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.

Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

Respectfully submit this article for A-class review about a ship collision between an United States Navy submarine and a Japanese high school fishing training ship that happened a few years ago. Cla68 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Well done. Carom 18:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, substantially improved from the last time I happened to read the article. Good work. Megapixie 01:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support an excellent article - comprehensive and highly readable. I'd recomend a copy edit to remove the sprinkling of weasel words before FA nomination though (eg, try to replace phases like 'Many Japanese', 'calls by many in Japan' and 'Japanese citizens and some Japanese government officials have questioned' with wording which is more specific about who is/has been critical - this might not always be possible though) --Nick Dowling 10:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Excellent work all around, and fantastic citations. My only quibble is that you might want to include damage to the Greeneville in the infobox as part of the results section. JKBrooks85 17:40, 17 July 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.

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.

Easter Offensive

This starter has moved up to B-Class and undergone a peer review. Am now seeking A status and/or constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. One concern though, in the infobox it says that 40,000 North Vietnamese were killed in the battle but in the Conclusion section it says that 100,000 were killed. Cla68 03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Appreciate that discerning eye! Changed the wording in the final to casualties. This has been a sticky one. Although PAVN casualties were indeed horrendous, there was, and is, no way to obtain accuracy in their reporting, ecpecially during the final phases of the Vietnam War. It is doubtful if, even today, the Hanoi government has accurate figures on its casualties during the period 1972-1975.

• Support. Well-written, another good article. Carom 18:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Kyriakos 23:28, 16 July 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.

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.

Cannon

The main article for the cannon article series, presently of GA status. It was initially deemed not thoroughly cited enough in its prior nomination here, and although the problems were fixed, the review expired. It should be sufficiently improved now. --Grimhelm 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. Is the development of rifling part of the history of cannons? Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see this discussed in the article. Cla68 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added it to the See also section, as I think it is more within the scope of Cannon operation or perhaps History of cannon than the main article. --Grimhelm 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think more of the technological development of cannon, such as the introduction of rifling, should be in the body. Cla68 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support, as I did before, although I still believe that the "see also" section should be abandoned, and the relevant links incorporated into the body of the article. Carom 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The article is sufficent but I agree with Carom that the See Also section should be removed. Kyriakos 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. There are many things I did like. Please forgive me on concentrationg on things I did not like, and feel free to disagree. As I see it, every subsection in the "history" section of the article should give a (relatively short) explanation of important technical developments and of a role - with an emphasis on changes in a role - of cannon in the specific era and/or region, while the separate "History of cannon" article provides - or will eventually provide - more detils. Some subsections, however, are far from being good overviews - sometimes a bit too detailed, often missing key points, sometimes too "chaotic". I like the "early" and "medieval europe" (although, the article lets the reader to conclude that cannons played a significant role at Crecy, which is questionable at least). However, the "post-medieval" and the "18-19 century" IMHO concentrate too heavily on siege warfare and on naval artillery respectively. Both seem to ignore field artillery, which started to play a major role in post-medieval campaigns and by 19th century developed into a key factor on battlefield. As already mentioned by Cla68, the "18-19"" ignores important techical developments such as rifling, breech loading (and possibly recoil systems, also one can say that it should belong to the "modern" section). As for the "modern"... may be I am wrong, but I think it needs a major rewriting. Again, key technical developments (recoil systems if not mentioned earlier, possibly split trail carriage, possibly mortars, certainly SP artillery etc, possibly introduction of lots of new ammunition types) and change in battlefield roles (such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft warfare) are missing or almost missing. Moreover, the section simply looks confusing to me, as it seems to run back and forth between different periods, types of weapons etc without following any order. Since there were so many relevant developments in the modern era, perhaps that subsection should be split ? Again, may be I'm wrong or just too pedantic. I do understand that the task is quite ambitious and that a lot of effort had been put in the article. And I did like many parts of the article. And, being an inexperienced reviewer, I don't claim that the article is not good enough for A class. However, as a pedant with some interest in artillery, I have to say that IMHO it still needs a lot of work before I will be able to say to somebody who asks me what cannon is - go read the wikipedia article. Bukvoed 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have removed the see also section, and added a few paragraphs on field artillery. As for Crécy, medieval cannon had more of a psychological impact (which would be useful against an army three times your size), and it was a new experience for infantry unused to gunpowder warfare. --Grimhelm 09:57, 12 July 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.

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.

Structural history of the Roman military

I have been working on this article on and off for several months. It is one of 5 sister articles that I aim to take to FA eventually. Campaign history of the Roman military was taken successfully to FA, and this is the second one I am concentrating on. Another editor recently nominated the article for GA status recently, which is passed. I would like to gain A-class status for this article on its way to FA. I have got the point where to me the article looks complete but I need feedback from other editors in order to take it forward. I am self-nominating it for A class, but any comments for improvement are welcome. PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support No complaints here. Carom 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support A wonderfully written and illustrated article. Great work. --Nick Dowling 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Bukvoed 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support — Wonderfully detailed. JKBrooks85 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support does present all facts Wandalstouring 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful article. Kyriakos 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - thanks for all the support guys - since no-one seems to have any criticisms of the article at this time, could one of the co-ordinators get this review closed off please and I'll move the article straight to FAC. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:31, 12 July 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.

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.

Sukhoi Su-25

Very good article with proper images and references. I worked a lot on it in the past few time, and I would like to know if it deserves to become an A-class article. Regards, --Eurocopter tigre 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• ComentSupport This really needs a good copyedit, but it appears to meet the other criteria. Carom 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already talked with some people to help me do it. So, are you supporting it? --Eurocopter tigre 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not until the prose has been improved a little (although, I'm not actively opposing it, either). Carom 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can you tell me exactly which sections currently need attention and most urgent copyediting? Thanks, --Eurocopter tigre 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole article needs to be looked at, really. In particular, there are a number of long, clunky sentences that could be reworded or recombined to allow for a better flow, and you may wish to examine the comma usage in some places - there are a number of unneccessary commas that make for awkward reading. Carom 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support — I've copyedited a few of the sections, and fixed a date error in the intro paragraph -- it didn't agree with one of your cites later on. It's a pretty comprehensive look on the subject, and even though I'm not familiar with the topic, I felt that it was easy to read. JKBrooks85 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support — I've read through it all and reworded in places to clarify. It looks good. Very good detail on the design. -Fnlayson 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the images used on the page appear to lack sources outside of a very vague link to a website, and the claim of PD on all of them needs further justification. Megapixie 06:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Infact given [5] they would seem to all be unfree... Megapixie 06:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See this link [6], there is a clear copyright information at the bottom of the page - Copyright notice: Information on this non-profit web site has been collected from a variety of printed and online sources for educational purposes in accordance with the Fair Use clause of the U.S. copyright law. --Eurocopter tigre 07:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That would make them unfree for the purposes of wikipedia. It's basically saying "we took these images from copyright books, websites and magazines and are using them here because we think we can get away with it". The only way we could use them is under fair-use, however we don't have a clear source, and they fall outside the WP:NFCC. Megapixie 07:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

But the images were taken from books, sites, etc, in accordance with the US copyright law - and the site clearly says they are under fair-use. So, our source is 'www.aeronautics.ru', a site which guarantees that this images are in fair use, and it is not our, or wikipedia's business to verify if this is true or not. --Eurocopter tigre 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Look I don't know how to say this politely - but you are completely wrong about this. www.aeronautics.com is almost certainly not the copyright holder, therefore they cannot release the images. The page that sums this up most succiently is Wikipedia:Upload/Unknown_author_or_license. If you want to read up on this (and you should before uploading any more images) see the image use policy at Wikipedia:Image use policy. In particular

" Before you upload an image, make sure that either:

• You own the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself).
• You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license.
• You can prove that the image is in the public domain".

Of which you have done none. Megapixie 08:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• You can prove that the image is in the public domain" - In my opinion, that copyright notice proves that the image is under fair use in public domain. I really don't know what to say anymore, we should find a compromise for the sake of the article. Is there any chance to change the licensing claims into better ones? --Eurocopter tigre 09:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Aeronautics.ru's fair use claim works here as well, I believe. It's just info on the original source needs to be added here in the fair use rationale claim. It may take contacting the site to fins that out. -Fnlayson 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately none of the images from Aeronautics don't pass WP:NFCC criteria 1,2 and 10a:

• We could reasonable create replacements for all of the images (1)
• All of the images were likely being commercially exploited (2)
• we have absolutely no idea where any of them ORIGINALLY came from (10a)

10a is fixable. The other two are not. Even if they were - we are not commenting on the images critically, they are not uniquely historic (none of them would justify there own article per Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima) and we are certainly not using them for parody so they aren't fair use. Megapixie 13:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, most probable some of this images were taken by Soviet Air Force or other Soviet/Russian officials, so this images would fall under something similar with the {{PD-USGov-Military}}, but i'm not sure if such an image tag exist. No offense, in the 1970s Soviet Union, there were very few people and officials which had access to military prototypes, etc. However, I'm still supporting the fact that this images could fall under fair use on wikipedia also (opinion supported by Fnlayson also), although I think it will be imposible to contact the site, as it was last updated in 2003. --Eurocopter tigre 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Replacement images may be available but not readily (Iron curtain thing). I'm not sure of the commercial aspects of the images themselves. Some images of newer versions may be attainable though. Possible tags are {{PD-RU-exempt}}, {{PD-Russia}} or Image copyright tags. I hate trying to go back and fix CP tagging on images.. -Fnlayson 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Me too, but unfortunately there is always somebody who is assuming bad faith, and like to screw up other people's work, so we will have to find a sollution to fix this problem for the sake of the article. I have studied the Russian Copyright Laws, and the {{PD-RU-exempt}}, {{PD-Russia}} doesn't apply here. --Eurocopter tigre 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As nobody else has anything to comment regarding the images, I think they should remain under fair-use, and the aeronautics.ru claims should work on wikipedia as well. --Eurocopter tigre 10:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have listed the images at WP:PUI. Megapixie 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All the posible unfree images were removed and will be replaced very soon. --Eurocopter tigre 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support — It meets requirements, though it still needs some copyediting. I'll try to work on it. --Victor12 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to have met the criteria. Kyriakos 23:44, 11 July 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.

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.

37 mm Gun M3

Self nomination. The article was peer reviewed recently and the reviewers suggested that it might be good enough for A-class. Bukvoed 06:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article that appears to meet the criteria. CLA 07:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support Quite. Carom 19:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support A very good article which provides a detailed overview of the gun and how it was used. --Nick Dowling 01:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Good article. Kyriakos 01:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. LostArtilleryman 17:32, 7 July 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.

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.

HMS Ledbury (L90)

Hi, I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to nominate an article of my own so bear with me if I broke some rule; I wish to nominate this article because destroyers are usually passed over by most histories of the Second World War in favour of more glamourous capital ships, so I thought these workhorses deserved a little more recognition for their contribution...I chose the Ledbury because it was active in many theatres during the war, even if its main action occurred in the Mediterranean. I hope I've satisfied the requirements of this encyclopaedia, but as I've said I'm still new here. Reuv 15:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks very good - a ships with an interesting war story and some comedy moments! A couple of minor improvments you can make:

Throughout, ship names should be in italics. As it stands they are mixed (particularly Ledbury).

As stated on talk pages and in the peer review i have rectified my mistake and put the ships names into italics.Woodym555 20:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

When introducing Tirpitz etc it is worth describing what they were - capital ship raiders or if you felt imprecise pocket battleships.

'The Ledbury found the Ohio and the Dorset with the Bramham standing by the Dorset and the Penn dropping depth charges' - this sentence could be clearer, the Dorest appears to be in two places.

Well done! (Self-nominations are quite allowed, by the way. Often they are both an important way of keen editors getting feedback for 'their' articles and of making sure that quality work is recognised) The Land 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the issues raised so far; I described the German surface elements as commerce raiders, with a link to the Kriegsmarine nearby. I also removed the double Dorset reference...I have referred to it twice by mistake. Thanks for the support and help!! Reuv 21:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support. A good all round article, but I've got some very nit-picky things that you should look at over the next couple of copyedits. In no particular order:

As above, ships names should be consistently italicised. However, prefixes should not. HMS Ledbury (1940) ([[HMS Ledbury (1940)|HMS ''Ledbury'' (1940)]]), not HMS Ledbury (1940) (''[[HMS Ledbury (1940)|HMS Ledbury (1940)]]'')

Check where wikilinks go. Several lead to disambiguation pages, or to irrelevant topics. Also, at some points you've linked concepts in multiple words. One of the ones I fixed in my brief copyedit was [[escort]] [[destroyer]]. By taking out the middle brackets, the link becomes escort destroyer, which is more specific.

References should be listed in author surname alphabetical order.

Don't be afraid to use German names like Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe, instead of pipe-linking over them with "German Navy" or "German aviators".

Question, should this page be at the pennant number (HMS Ledbury (L90))?

I hope you take these on board, and that your article makes it to A-class. -- saberwyn 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I sorted out the references and the links to the German names, and I also improved the wikilinks to other topics. I agree with the pennant number HMS Ledbury (L90) move, and I had created a redirect to this page previously, but I haven't the slightest idea how to 'move' the page there. Thanks for your help and ideas to improve this article! Reuv 11:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page for you and renamed the reviews involved accordingly. Pages can be moved using the icon in the top right of the browser entitled "move". Help can be found at Meta Help on moving page Woodym555 13:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support as peer reviewer of the article. Support as per above, as long as the references are sorted, i see no reason why it cannot be A-Class. Well done Woodym555 10:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Really nice and interesting article. Per peer review and above, it deserves to become an A-class article. --Eurocopter tigre 08:52, 2 July 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.

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.

Victoria Cross

Hi, this article is currently undergoing peer review in which no major problems were found, any that did arise have been fixed. As this is a "top" priority article i though it could do woth an A-Class review. Thanks in advance Woodym555 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Appears to meet the criteria. CLA 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a very good article, but it seems to contain some vagueness which should be clarified and some irrelevant material. For instance:

*"it has been suggested by some that the changing nature of warfare will result in fewer VCs being awarded" - who are these 'some' (are they credible?) and why is this the case?

Done, The some are Lord Ashcroft in his book and John Glanfield in his. I have amended the sentence accordingly

*"Only one in ten VC recipients in the twentieth century is said to have survived the action for which they received the VC" - is this speculation ('is said') or a fact? - are there reliable statistics on this you can cite?

Done This was mere conjecture, i agree, and there is no statement anywhere that backs this up. I am sure trawling through the archives would support this, but this could be classed as original research so i have omitted the statement.

*I was confused by the discussion of the source of the metal used to make VCs. Is the source from Russian guns or Chinese guns? - the section seems to suggest both. Also, is it known whether non-British VCs would be made from this metal as well?

Done The metal was captured from the russians during the crimean war but it was a chinese weapon. Also during the first world war many medals were being created and so a new cannon had to be used to meet requirements.

*Some sections of the article read like trivia and should be reworked - for instance, the text on the photo of the Canadian during the actions which would win him the VC - this is interesting, but is it significant? "In 2004 a national Victoria Cross and George Cross memorial was installed in Westminster Abbey close to the tomb of The Unknown Warrior' - you need to explain why this is significant for readers who aren't aware of Westminster Abbey's role and status. It's also not clear to me why the men who have been awarded the VC in the last few years are highlighted with brief accounts of their actions when no-one else really gets this treatment.

Done

• Deleted irrevalent picture and comments, this was a remnant from before i picked up the article.
• Spoke slightly about Wetminster Abbey and its significance but the wikilink does the rest.
• Have updated and rewritten section on recent awards. Budd has a section describing his award as it is the most recent awarded and provides context for awards in the modern style of warfare.

*"a Canadian version has been cast and is expected to be awarded in April, 2007" - has this happened? Victoria Cross (Canada) seems to indicate that it hasn't and won't, and doesn't confirm that the medal was cast.

Done Expanded section talking about the fact it was created but not awarded.

*The 'Sales of the VC' section needs to reworked to acknowledge that many more than just the two VCs listed have been sold. A discussion of the ethics of doing so might also be interesting - this is discussed in the Australian media every time a VC is placed on the market (even though the medal is inevitably donated to the AWM's collection). --Nick Dowling 23:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Done up to a point. I dont think Wikipedia is an ethical debate forum. However I have given a comment by the VC secretary as to why they have been sold. This provides the context for the rest of the section.

I have edited the article where relevant to your comments. I hope this assuages your concerns. Thankyou for your help. Woodym555 11:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, quite informative Wandalstouring 08:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support all the concerns I raised above are now met. Sorry if I seemed a bit of a pain in the neck. --Nick Dowling 08:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not a pain in the neck. Just a very thorough reviewer, and that was what was needed. Thankyou for taking the time to review it in detail and your comments have made it a better article. Thankyou Woodym555 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support -Flubeca (t) 13:50, 25 June 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.

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.

Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident

Self-nominating this article for A-class review. It passed GA review ([7]) but recently failed FAC review ([8]). CLA 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support a well-written and interesting article on a slighly unusual, but important, topic. I'd suggest that the discussion of how this case was viewed in Japan be expanded to bring it up to FA status as this seems a bit short compared to the text on the trial, especially as it was the Japanese public and governmental reactions which give this incident its significance, and not the crime per-se. --Nick Dowling 00:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Good advice on how to improve the article. Thank you. CLA 02:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Wandalstouring 09:59, 24 June 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.

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.

Ironclad warship

This article about a relatively obscure bit of naval history is now approaching the FA criteria. I think the concerns raised about style and citation at the previous A-class review have been deal with and it is now worth an A. Regards, The Land 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. Just a few suggestions to improve the article before I can support:
  • Eliminate one sentence paragraphs. Combine with the succeeding paragraph.
  • Wikilink country/principality names the first time they are used.
  • Don't put all images on one side of the article because it creates distracting white space.
  • Some paragraphs are uncited while others are heavily cited. All paragraphs should have at least one citation, I would suggest at the end of the paragraph so that there isn't any dangling, uncited text.

Good article that is almost there. Issues resolved. CLA 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Think that's all sorted. Added afew more images as well. The Land 10:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 17:59, 21 June 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.

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.

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

I am respectfully nominating this article for A-class review, i have just put it through peer review and i believe it now meets the criteria for A-class. Thankyou Woodym555 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure he was a nice chap and knew his job, but the intro is far away from neutrally presenting facts. Almost every general is somehow famous because at least his subordinates know his name. Wandalstouring 08:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed what i think were some weasel words and i do now think that it is a neutral introduction that does adequately summarise the article.Woodym555 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, with reservations. I think the lead could do with improvement (will take a look at it myself). Also I'm not sure that the web sources which provide the bulk of the references are of the highest quality. The Hood Association bio, for instance, is essentially self-published and non-reviewed. I doubt there is too much error introduced as a result, but much better to reference the published biograhies which the Hood Association article summarises. The Land 20:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments. I have removed all but one of the HMS Hood bio refs and replaced them with oublished. The only major contributor of web based refs is now the Royal Navy and i think they are a fairly reputable source even if they are POV. Woodym555 11:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Oppose. I think the article is almost there. I tried to fix some of the POV problems, but the sections on the World War II battles just don't flow very well. Each of those sections should summarize the main battle articles, with brief background, action, aftermath, and significance descriptions with dates, as well as highlighting Cunningham's role in each. Also, is there more information on his post-war life? The references section lists 11 books that look like they have good information on this admiral, but it appears that only three or four of those books were used as sources for the article. Furthermore, the references aren't listed in alphabetical order by author's name. I think you've done good work with the article, but it just needs a little more work to meet the criteria. CLA 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have sorted the refs and moved some to a further reading section as they are not used. They were original references that i have not read or seen and as such i can't use them. I have restructured most of the WWII battles now and think i have addressed your concerns Woodym555 11:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it meets the criteria now but you might should recheck some of the punctuation and sentence structure in the WWII section. If you have a chance to look at the other references that weren't used they might provide you with more information for some of the smaller sections like his post-WWII life. CLA 16:25, 19 June 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.

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 Cape Esperance

Respectfully nominate this article about a World War II Pacific War naval battle for A-class review. CLA 13:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support --Eurocopter tigre 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Kyriakos 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - another well written and comprehensive article on this campaign. I'd recomend a full copy edit before FA nomination though as I spotted a few typos and the second para of the introduction might be a bit too long. --Nick Dowling 11:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken and I appreciate your help with the article. CLA 13:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, echoing Nick Dowling's comments about copyediting: could also do with a thorough read for prose, I've chipped in a bit. The Land 20:10, 17 June 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.

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 Arras (1917)

Renomination. This article was recently added as a Good Article, and I believe that all the concerns raised in the previous A-Class review and the peer review have been resolved by myself or Roger Davies. All comments and concerns welcomed. Carom 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support'. Well written article. Kyriakos 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - a comprehensive and interesting article. My only suggestion is that that the 'Creeping barrage' section needs a citation. --Nick Dowling 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - here's some improvement suggestions from the automated peer review script..

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 yards, use 000 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&nbsp;yards.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Medains 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, although I have a few suggestions. I suggest a few more sentences in the background explaining how the Allied and German armies ended-up facing each other in 1917. I'm somewhat familiar with WWI but I don't know exactly the chain events leading to where those two adversaries found themselves in 1917. Also, there's a lot of one-paragraph sections, although in this case that might be ok since each section is usually on a completely different topic than the preceeding and following sections, but I still think some sections could be combined. Otherwise, I think it meets the criteria. Nice work. CLA 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Leaning towards opposing

• Under the Commanders section it says Falkenhausen was removed from the Third Army. Surely you mean Sixth Army.

There are an awful lot of small sections. Can the Commanders section be merged with the Aftermath?

• In the Political Background an entire paragraph consist of the line: “In Germany, the storm clouds were gathering too.” This is not very informative.

Additionally, the US declared war in 1917, not 1916!

• Three sections are completely unsourced.

What’s the source for the strengths?

• Needs a thorough check for typos and errors. Eg: citations come after punctuation and without spaces:

Additionally, German records excluded those "lightly wounded".[27] Captain Cyril Falls (the British official battle historian) estimated that 30% needed to be added to German returns for comparison with the British". [27] Falls makes "a general estimate" that German casualties were "probably fairly equal". [27] Nicholls puts them at 120,000.[26]; and Keegan at 130,000[28].

Others errors throughout. Raymond Palmer 10:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Various things went wrong whilst I was editing it this morning. I've fixed (most of) what you mention. Commanders was meant to be part of aftermath and now is. 1916 was a typo. Roger 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and done some ref cleanup; it appears your specific objections have been addressed. Carom 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Please check the change I made in the Second Battle of Bullecourt section, and the Battle of Arleux section. I reworded the original sentences that didn’t seem clear (to me at least), and I hoped I haven't changed the history.

In the Commanders section it quotes a Times article on ‘Falkenhausen's reign of terror’. It was common practice for opposing media to vilify the opposition with tales of atrocity, was it not? Is this story verifiable from another source other than the British press?

Nicely done overall IMO. Raymond Palmer 21:59, 6 June 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.

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 Red Cliffs

Recently promoted to WP:GA. The MILHIST Peer review didn't attract much attention... Have been working (along with others, notably User:Deadkid_dk) to improve this article, and could use some extra eyes. Hope to get it to FA quality within the next 6 or 8 weeks. Ling.Nut 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Generally good (although perhaps a little on the short side). Two minor quibbles, though. I'm not a huge fine of the style of referencing that you've adopted, as I find it breaks up the text and makes it difficult to read. Would you consider switching to footnotes? Also, would it be possible to have some external links, or are there none that are suitable? Carom 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for your comments! :-)

1. The article may be a bit longer eventually. We are discussing adding a section (probably brief!) covering modern references to the battle.
2. I'm absolutely positive that we can scare up some worthwhile external links. Thanks for the suggestion...
3. For my part, since both WP:CITE and WP:MILHIST#CITESTYLE explicitly and unreservedly back up the use of Harvard referencing, I see no problem with its use here. See Taiwanese aborigines for a recent FAC using this style (I believe that article will be on the main page tomorrow!)

Thanks! Ling.Nut 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation style is more a personal choice than anything else, and I certainly won't insist on footnotes. Nice work so far, and good luck! Carom 19:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support An interesting article, I enjoyed reading it. My one suggestion for improvement would be to lose the line reducing the text size in the refernce section (I don't really see a need for it on such a short page), otherwise its "A" all the way. Good Job! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply Thanks the kind words! :-) I changed the font size of the Refs section, as per your suggestion... Ling.Nut 01:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A-class level article. Not every paragraph has a citation, but otherwise looks good. Nice work. CLA 08:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Good coverage of the material. Three possible improvements - the phrase (roughly modern Hubei and Hunan provinces, including the strategic naval base at Jiangling) in the background section took me a couple of reads to work out what it meant - the naval base at Jiangling seems to be in modern context, being inside the bracket, but becomes clear later in the text that it's nearby the battle site. The second improvement would be to have a clear summary of the forces for each side - the estimates in the last paragraph are good but might be better tabulated to show the subcommanders. The last would be to address the following items that an "automated peer review" came up with (not necessarily all of them though - remember it's just from an automated program).

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 160 kilometres, use 160 kilometres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 160&nbsp;kilometres.^[?]
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Medains 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments!! We'll get to work on them, except one, which is clearly erroneous. WP:WIAFA 1(c) does not highly recommend use of footnote-style for references; it recommends it for footnotes and endnotes. If we have need to add a Notes section, we will certainly use the footnote style, as recommended. Thanks! Ling.Nut 00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, as I said that's generated by AndyZ's javascript - I use it as a guideline to catch things that are not necessarily visible, or that I might miss on reading. Medains 10:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yes... I really do appreciate for your help, and I also want to separate the remarks that are yours from those that are auto-generated... please forgive me if I didn't make it clear that the javascript made that error, not you. :-) I'm just trying to do my part to dispel a common misconception. I really do appreciate your comments. I hope my reply didn't catch you off guard... thanks!!! Ling.Nut 12:04, 5 June 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.

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.

Australian Defence Force

This article was peer reviewed in March and I now believe that it may have now reached A-class standard. As part of the A-class review I'd really appreciate any suggestions on how to further improve the article to FA status. --Nick Dowling 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Is definitely A-Class material, but first sentence is a bit awkward. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Superlative article. Sets the standard for what articles about current military organizations should look like. Great work. Cla68 04:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion: are there any areas of major criticism of the ADF (Im thinking like the crime/corruption section of Russian Ground Forces) which should be added to give a fully balanced viewpoint, thinking of full FA status? Buckshot06 09:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point and thank you for the suggestion. While the ADF doesn't suffer anything like the Russian military's problems it does face a couple of significant issues; namely its ability to conduct high-intensity warfare is very limited and it is suffering from serious shortages of skilled personnel. Both these issues are touched on in the article at present, but could be expanded as they do represent significant limitations. --Nick Dowling 11:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Im not suggesting the ADF does suffer anything like the problems the Russians face! However a section on lack of skilled personnel could be very useful, as it is a problem faced by most Western armies; once you've done a bit on it for the ADF it could be run with for the US, UK, NZ etc... Buckshot06 12:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Have watched it grow from a stub to a comprehensive article, well done. Hossen27 14:45, 29 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.

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.

Ronald Niel Stuart

World War One Victoria Cross recipient with a long an varied maritime career. Been working at this for a couple of days and have turned it from this into its current shape. Planning to go to FA with this eventually, and any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks--Jackyd101 23:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. I think it's a good article, but have just a few suggestions:
  • All dates (month and day) should be wikilinked.
  • The information in the last paragraph under "HMS Tamarisk" about him getting married and having children isn't cited.
  • What was the cause of his death? Cla68 07:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

marriage cited, cause of death isn't mentioned in any of the sources. He was 67 and its unlikely to be anything other than natural causes, but I didn't want to assume. I thought I had Wikilinked all the dates (excluding solo years), which ones have I missed? Thankyou for your comments.--Jackyd101 09:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • This appears to be a good article that is well-cited. 11:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is really nicely done, and a very interesting article. Should easily make A-Class at least. Raymond Palmer 15:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good read BUT a tiny bit more info - a couple of words - about the later merchantmen might be appropriate. We've only really got their tonnages. Was there a reconciliation with his children in later life? Roger 06:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look, but there really isn't much out there on these ships at this time. Duchess of York and Empress of Britain both had quite extensive war careers before being sunk, but that is outside the remit of this article. The only other important thing was the royal tour of Canada on the Empress of Britain, but that was in 1939 after he had left the ship. I've put in some small details, but I couldn't expand it much further. Reading between the lines, I don't think he ever did reconcile with his children, but again this is not explicitly stated anywhere and I'm loathe to guess. Thankyou for your comments.--Jackyd101 10:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment After some searching on a seperate matter, I accidentally turned up the full London Gazette citation for this VC action (which I had given up on finding before, it was released at a later date due to official secrecy). I have now added it (and a few supplementary details) to the article. It has not dramatically changed the piece, but has made it a bit longer. Just wanted to add this note here to clarify its sudden appearance.--Jackyd101 01:38, 26 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.

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.

Operation Lam Son 719

Have brought this one up from a stub and am looking for constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Issues resolved. Good article. Comment.
  • Article appears to have some POV for the Republic of Vietnam. The infobox says, "South Vietnamese defeat" instead of "North Vietnamese victory." Also, the third paragraph in the intro begins with, "Unfortunately" with regards to the South Vietnamese efforts. If it said, "Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese," then it would be NPOV.
  • Some paragraphs don't have citations.
  • The first sentence of the last paragraph in the background section begins with "and" and is a POV sentence since it associates Communist activities with "ominous."
  • Otherwise, I think there's a lot of good information in the article, it's well organized, and nicely illustrated. Cla68 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Have addressed your POV concerns which, I must admit, did not occur to me when writing it. Footnoting also extended. Thanks. RM Gillespie 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 16:37, 21 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.

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.

AHS Centaur

Following several weaks of heavy work and reccomendation by another editor, I am submitting AHS Centaur for A Class Review. I wish to see if the article quality is good enough for A status, or if not, what needs to be worked on to drag it the rest of the way. -- saberwyn 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Start by getting all the date wikilinks (or not sorted out). Then theres the indent on references as part of bibliography. Some unencylopedic phrasing "The cost blew out..." . Thumbed picture hardcoding of sizes. Perhaps GA article status should be the first point of call before A. GraemeLeggett 09:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also look at the Guide on Lead section writing. GraemeLeggett 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. All dates have been wikilinked, and other edits made per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
2. Indent on "references" has been used to indicate that the references are taken as part of the bibliography (by showing exactly where and how each text is used), and to differentiate it from the "Footnotes" section below to decrease confusion (or so I hoped).
   • Is the current layout what you mean? -- saberwyn 11:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Some unencyclopedic phrasing, including your specific example, has been altered. Due to my 'proximity' to the text, I may personally be unable to identify other instances.
4. "Thumbed picture hardcoding of sizes"... Could you please elaborate. I don't have a clue what you mean by this.
5. Maybe. I personally find the "A/GA" thing confusing, particularly with regards to which comes first. Following the conclusion of this assessment, if failed, I will submit for GA.

Further comments? -- saberwyn 10:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted 3 {{fact}} tags for 3 main events mentioned in the lead. Starting w/ a well referenced lead gives more credibility to the rest.

I personally don't like red links. So i suggest creating articles even if they would be stubs. If you need any help on that please drop me a line. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that statements cited in the body of the article don't need to have duplicate citations in the lead, incidentally. Kirill Lokshin 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't cite them in the intro. However, I will go and add have added the relevant citations. -- saberwyn 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps repeating what others have said above:
  • You don't need inline citations in the intro unless it's information not contained in the main body.
  • Placing citations throughout each paragraph is ok, but you can also combine them all into a single citation at the end of each paragraph. This cuts down on the disruption to the text and the length of your footnotes section.
  • I think I might include the "hospital ship refit" section in the "operational history" so that the article's timeline doesn't jump back and forth.
  • The first paragraph in the "Memorials" section is uncited.
  • Some of your footnote information for the third paragraph in the "Attacker" section isn't showing up in the "footnotes" section for some reason.

Otherwise, an excellent article and almost there. Cla68 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • 1. To have citations in the intro or not to... please make up your mind people. Every single piece in the intro can be found in the main text.
      2. I tend to follow a policy of citing everything, because I believe that if a particular claim is contested, it is easy to identify and confirm which source text made the claim. It also shows that not a single part of the article is original research or unverifiable personal conclusion. If there is a further call to remove or reorganise the references, I will not stand in the way.
      3. Refit information is located where it is as the specific information in that section relates to the design of the vessel, not the actions of the vessel.
      4. The first paragraph of the "Memorial" section was there when I started working on the article, and I have not been able to find a source for this infomrmation yet.
         • UPDATE: That section was there in the first version of the article. I have contacted the original author in the hopes he can recall where this information was pulled from . -- saberwyn 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
         • Have found a source for some of the facts in this section, source has been added
      5. Hidden information is now unhidden, one of the ref name tags was not closed. -- saberwyn 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - while I have to confess to playing a minor supporting role in developing this article, I believe that it fully meets the criteria used when considering A-class status. In particular, the article covers the ship and the events surrounding her sinking in great detail and is an interesting read. --Nick Dowling 08:45, 18 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.

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.

B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base

Respectfully submit this article about a military aircraft accident for A class assessment review. Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Cla68 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• CommentThis is a very impressive and well-written article, but I think that it needs a bit more work to make it clearer why the accident was and remains significant. At the moment the article describes the lead-up to the accident and the accident in great detail but needs a stronger conclusion or an assessment section which explicitly draws the findings of the crash investigations together to make it clear how a culture of not taking safety seriously lead to the crash and hence why it is used in training. Explaining how it is used in training could also be a good addition (eg, is it a standard case-study USAF students study?). --Nick Dowling 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very valid critique and I'll work on what you suggest right away. I'd ask that the nomination for "A-class" be put "on hold" until I fix that. I'll note it here when I believe that I've fully addressed the problem you've pointed-out. Cla68 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I hope I've now resolved the concern. I added a "Conclusions" section to summarize the findings of the investigation and show how the investigation tied the findings to the mishap. I added more details to the "Aftermath" section. The sources available for the article don't go into very great detail about how the mishap is used as a training aid, just that it is. I have some personal experience with this mishap as a training tool which may account for some of my interest in this event, but, of course, I'm not a valid secondary source for the article. Cla68 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a pain in the neck, and I really do think that this is a very high quality article on a very interesting topic, but I'd make a couple more suggestions for you to consider:

• The article could do with a final copy edit as some of the prose is a bit wordy and the grammar is a bit choppy in points (for instance, "All of the mishap aircrewmembers had experienced limited flying time in the months preceeding the mishap flight" - can you just say "all of the aircrew involved in the accident had only limited flying time in the months before the crash"?)
• It might be a good idea to rework the first couple of paras so that the significance of the crash is explained in the first couple of sentances. At face value, the loss of a single B-52 in an accident caused by pilot error isn't terribly interesting and the introduction isn't doing the article justice at present. --Nick Dowling 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• No problem. I appreciate you taking the time to point out how the article could be improved. I'm a fan of run-on, Faulkner-esque sentences and that gets in the way of my writing sometimes. I just completed the copyedit, rewrote the intro, shortened some sentences, and removed some commas. Cla68 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Image:HollandB-52Yakima.jpg has an extremely unlikely rationale as being US-PD. Additionally the Youtube video linked has been removed from Youtube (likely as a copyvio). The introductory sentence/paragraph is a little weak "was an aircraft mishap" - better perhaps to describe it as "...was fatal aircrash that occured on June 24, 1994 killing the four aircrew of a B-52 Bomber during a training flight. ". Just a thought. Could maybe do with a diagram/map showing the flightpath. Otherwise looks good. Megapixie 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the image rationale is a problem. When I originally saw the footage that that image comes from on a news show, they stated that it was videotaped by US Government personnel, but I don't have any proof of that. I'll change the intro sentence as you suggest. I'll also delete the You Tube link. The CheckSix link also has the video. Cla68 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I like your article and especially the citation style, but I know too little on the subject to say whether it is fit for A class. Wandalstouring 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• If, after reading the article you feel that you don't know enough about the subject, then I didn't do a good-enough job on it and I need to relook it. Cla68 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support all the (relatively minor) points I raised have now been taken into account. --Nick Dowling 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to me. Megapixie 10:55, 3 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.

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.

Zveno project

An important (if somewhat obscure) Soviet parasite aircraft project, used operationally in WW2 with far better success than Mistel. The information is a bit scarce but I've pulled all the sources I could find, including the memoirs of the mothership test pilot. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. An interesting article that I believe meets the A-class criteria.Cla68 14:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support (although the structure is a bit wonky). Carom 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's probably pretty obvious that I struggled with organizing the sections (in part dictated by spotty coverage, more on general configurations and less on their individual development and testing). Suggestions on restructuring are always appreciated. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:41, 3 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.

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.

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.

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

This article recently passed GA and I'm hoping to have it evaluated for A-class and to get suggestions for what other improvements need to be made to the article before it can eventually be FA-worthy. JRP 04:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A well-written article and meets A-class criteria. I think that FA reviewers might ask why there isn't much information about his childhood or more details about some of the dramatic episodes he was involved in before his involvement with Samoa. I suspect it's because there isn't much information in secondary sources about those periods of his life? Cla68 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, unfortunately. Plenty about Samoa because he was the first governor there. (My Samoan history book has more about him than any other single governor.) I'm continuing to dig into the riots and such that he was involved in, but he didn't have particularly important commands until Samoa fell into his lap. And he died relatively quickly afterwards. JRP 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• "He is often known by his initials, B. F. Tilley." Move B.F. Tilley to first sentence eg "Benjamin Franklin Tilley (B.F. Tilley) (1848–March 18, 1907) was a career officer in the United States Navy serving from the end of the American Civil War through the Spanish-American War. "
• Do not like the "His first assignments" what was his first assignment? Was it so short that it wasn't material? First assignments really detracts from the sentence.
• "He was subsequently transferred to the USS Lancaster until 1872 where he was promoted first to Master in 1870 and then Lieutenant in 1871." This is not compelling prose.
• "In that year," 1877?
• "in 1879, remaining there until 1872 " transferred there in 1879 and remained there until 7 years earlier?
• "but later instead made the head of the Department of Mechanical Drawing." He made the head? Is a position he created?

I couldn't read through more than the first section, but somebody needs to go through it and ensure that it flows... if I am noticing mistakes such as "British government relinquished their claims" then there is something wrong. Grammar ain't my strong suit.Balloonman 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I have made all of the corrections that you suggest. I agree that the first career section is somewhat difficult to write well as it is primarily a list of ships and assignments, written into prose. As Tilley was a low-ranking officer, I wasn't able to find specific incidents during those years that he was involved in until 1877.
  • I hope you will read through the rest of the article since you have some opinions on the use of language which I would like to incorporate. JRP 13:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Haven't had the time to re-read the article since changes were made, and it may be a few days before I get the time, so I'm withdrawing my oppose.... but I'm not turning it to support. I had serious concerns about this article that I doubt were fixable in one sitting. But I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt...Balloonman 02:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• "At the conclusion of his 41 years of service, he was promoted to Rear Admiral shortly before dying of pneumonia." awkward sentence, how about, "At the conclusion of his 41 years of service, shortly before dying of pneumonia, he was promoted to Rear Admiral."
• I'm not sure if it is necessary to include, "He graduated first in his class in 1866, shortly after the war was over." It seems surperfulous (sp).
• I still don't like the Naval Career section. Rather than taking dry list of ships and assignments and writing it into prose, why not shorten the section to just the major points and make the list of ships/promotions into a table of some sort?
• was tilley in charge of the defense of the Chilean consulate? As written it implies that he was.
• "this treaty" what treaty? Did Pierce sign a treaty? If so, it needs to be introduced before referencing the "quasi-official interest" as a treaty. "quasi-official interest" does not corrolate to a signed treaty, even if the treaty had no legal grounds to be enforceable.
• "in the island" in the island or on the island?
• In august 1899 did Tilley oversee the construction of the shipyard from the USS Abarenda or did he change commands then?
• "American involvement in the island would continue off and on until February 13, 1878" but Tilley didn't arrive until after 1878 and the base wasn't established until after 1878.
• "and he was forced to leave to pick up additional coal and supplies at Auckland, New Zealand" how was he forced? How about something along the lines of "and conditions/need for supplies forced him to leave...."

This is as far as I got, but I still can't support this article as an A quality article. Too many extra words that aren't needed. IMHO it needs to be cleaned up. Even if the changes I pointed out above are made, I don't think this article is A class. I made several other changes in the text myself... see them to see what I mean by unneccessary words.Balloonman 05:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer you on a couple of points. Tilley oversaw construction while in command of the USS Abarenda, which would eventually (it was intended) also be the station ship. He commanded both posts. (As did Sebree, his successor, until the Navy decided that Commandant was a full time job.) Second, he was in charge of the consulate defenses in Santiago.

I appreciate your points. What I am considering is expanding the section on Chile a bit, to better describe Tilley's role there. You also don't seem to like the background I'm trying to paint for Samoa because it is a complicated situation and I'm just trying to summarize. (There's a *lot* going on from Pierce to Tilley, including an American civilian setting himself up as effective ruler at one point. All things better put in an American Samoa history article than in Tilley's, but without some summary it hardly seems to make sense that he goes from building a naval station to "surprise! we've taken over your land and I'm now governor". Maybe I can restructure that information to flow better. JRP 10:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 18:09, 23 April 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.

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.

Tupolev TB-3

A fairly comprehensive overview of this important Soviet bomber. To preempt the comment on using too few sources, the Shavrov book is the definitive publication on early Soviet aircraft and most other sources use it as the starting point. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Cla68 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Carom 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:25, 20 April 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.

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.

Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry

I drafted this page with some very helpful input from other editors and it has received a B class review. I would appreciate undergoing the A-class assessment to see if I can improve it further. (If going for 'good article' would be more appropriate than 'A-class' please let me know and I will go this route.) Kim dent brown 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 01:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. But, I think it'll need more inline citations to make it past a Featured Article review. Cla68 00:10, 18 April 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.

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.

Russian-Circassian War

Slowly building up the article, and battling against the low number of sources from which non-POV facts can be gleamed. Looking for constructive criticism, but please check back here after making points so you can answer any points I make in return! Thanks SGGH 14:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, underwent a peer review here a while ago. SGGH 14:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 01:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Nicely written, flows well, a few comments below. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "The date of the outbreak of the conflict is thus debated by a number of historians." -- Needs to be referenced or removed as WP:WEASEL
  • I would abbreviate the names of the Russian generals so they are not wrapping in the infobox. Last name, F. M. is appropriate in Russian or English.
    • "F. M. Lastname" might be less ambiguous here; otherwise, you'll have two commas for each item. Kirill Lokshin 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Events of the war" is completely unreferenced and there are more unreferenced claims throughout that section
  • Seems like the pic of Tsar Nicholas is in a random place on the page

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.

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.

Cambodian Campaign

Have taken this one up from a starter. Looking for constructive ctiticism. RM Gillespie 14:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ha Ha! I'm actually supporting! good article. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Meets the criteria and looks good at this point. Carom 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - you might want to get a couple of citations in the lead paragraphs, other than that, a brilliant article, your references section is one of the best I've seen. SGGH 14:18, 15 April 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.

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.

List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons

This has been an ongoing project of mine for over a year. I think she is ready for an A-class review at this point. Thanks--Looper5920 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: as this is a list, the criteria to be considered are the featured list ones rather than the featured article ones. Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A great example of what a list entry should look like. Cla68 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive, well-referenced. Meets featured list criteria. — ERcheck (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Quite nice. Carom 14:57, 1 April 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.

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.

Operation Igloo White

Previous reviews here and here

Am once again proposing this article for an A-Class review. RM Gillespie 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 03:53, 1 April 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.

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 longer meets A-Class criteria at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

Current A-class assessment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War/Archive2.

This article was awarded A-class by a WP:MILHIST review on 28 March 2007 (see above). It went through a few GARs and was kept, but was later delisted as a GA on 28 July 2012 (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/2). Despite this it looks like it kept its A class rating by default. The article would seem to fail our A class criteria on referencing alone as there are quite a few paragraphs without citations. As such I request this be reassessed / demoted. Anotherclown (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote as it stands on, as AC indicates, referencing alone. Formatting-wise, there's also lots of Harv errors to be tidied up. I'd love to see someone rescue the article before next year's sesquicentennial of the end of the war but it doesn't do WP any good to claim it as a MilHist A-Class article in its current state. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote on A1, there are sections with no citations at all. Which is a shame given the importance of the topic. Agree that the number of Harv errors is very ugly, and the See also section is not MOS-compliant. I haven't checked the images, but doesn't even look B-Class in its current state. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote: per nom and others, this doesn't meet the A-class criteria at the moment. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote: I did some copyediting, but it really didn't make a dent. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 30 May 2014 (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 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.

Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

The article has been growing quite nicely recently; the only thing suggested in the recent peer review that we cannot get is a map. I think the article fullfills the criteria for an A-class article. Comments appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Carom 22:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like we have found several maps. LordAmeth 09:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but playing the devils advocate, they are not tailored to that campaign: they don't show details of Soviet units locations and movement, nor the battles specific to that campaign.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Presently I face dilemma. I possess relevant information on this subject, but I have the sense that my thought on this subject would be... ...Forgive myself, I am uncertain if this is the word I intend... ...Irresponsible, I believe? I have the sense that I may inadvertantly bias what would in circumstances of other be invaluable fact data. I presently shall retrieve the paper document file, my sources, that exist as my possessions, which allow insight on the subject at hand. As I do this, gift to myself counsel--I possess desire to help Wikipedia, in spite of this, helping Wikipedia is understood by myself to imply obeying the expressed procedures by policy, and it is not my present belief that I am competent to do such a thing in this case. However, if I do not make some attempt, then I may be committing bias simply by omission. Perhaps there is someone fluent in either Ukrainian, or Russian, or both, in addition to English, that is confident in his or her present ability to maintain the NPOV on this subject, given the sensetivity of the source? If such a person is willing, then possibility exists that I would be willing to collaborate in such an venture.MVMosin 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Please note that per WP:NPOV no individual is expected to be truly neutral. We all are biased, one way or another. As long as you realize you are biased, admit it and are willing to work with others to 'neutralize' it together, all is fine. It is only users who don't admit they are biased or don't allow others to compromise that are working agaisnt this project. That said, please also note WP:V/WP:RS: any source you are using should be vefiriable outside Wikipedia (so, for example, a file only in your posession and not published elsewhere would not be a good source to use).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:11, 27 March 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.

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.

Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942)

Respectfully submit this article for A-class consideration. Cla68 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose I think it is a great article, but it needs better sourcing. With more refrences, it could be an A-Class, but for now, no. --Pupster21 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Disagree with objection. This article extensively utilizes five main sources as well as referencing three other sources for several citations. Based on my experience with editing and reviewing articles, eight sources are more than adequate. Cla68 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment They need to be linked to the early paras with footnotes if you want to cover them twice! --Pupster21 12:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What exactly do you mean? I can't make heads or tails of that comment. Kirill Lokshin 12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • How am I supposed to know??? ...--Pupster21 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Ok tails. You happy??? --Pupster21 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Carom 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sorry, I wasn't thinking straight. I was sick. It's a fine article. Gloomy name though. --Pupster21 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Suppport. Great as usual.--Yannismarou 13:30, 23 March 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.

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 Khe Sanh

Previous nominations here and here.

Listing nomination for RM Gillespie. Kirill Lokshin 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Very good article-- with imrovement could be a future FA. --Pupster21 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Cla68 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: citation for the North Vietnamese casualty figure missing. clarify use of communist socialist and nationalist. being under the theleadership of the communist party doesn9't make the soldiers communists - not encyclopedic. 'Riddle of the Khe Sanh' has been disputed as non-encyclopedic in previous nomination. Where are the changes? Wandalstouring 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• PAVN casualty figures are given in the text and footnoted (Shulimson and Shore). The use of the term communist to denote the military forces of a socialist state is not meant to be indicative of the personal political inclinations of the individual soldiers, but of the leadership (political and military) of that state. As for changes to the "Riddle of Khe Sanh", there are none. Is the article well written, well annotated, and factually correct? These are the qualifications for an A-Class article. RM Gillespie 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• No. I did not find a footnote for the 9k total casualty figure. What you intented may be well meant, but communist has a well-defined meaning. If you want to use slang terms of the US armed forces, than prove your point, otherwise it is required to refer to the US site as 'the imperialists'. NLF did fight for an united and independent Vietnam, please prove that they were all communists or use another phrase and keep in mind that due to the Western hemispheres composition of colonial powers every fighter for independence had no choice, but gaining support from the socialist states. The term 'the riddle' has been criticised as unencyclopedic, please show that authorities use this or a similar term or rephrase it an encyclopedic form.

The article has an annotation issue and use of encyclopedic language is required to make it well written. Wandalstouring 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The source is found in the last section of the section titled "Final Attacks" and is the lowest figure cited by the U.S. military (see explination in the following sentence). The title communist has a historically well-defined political/military meaning (see above) and is not a slang term.

Comparison with the term imperialist is meaningless. Communism/socialism is a distinct political/economic system that has an historical basis. Imperialism may have a loosely amalgamated set of beliefs shared by it practitioners, but it was never a coherent political system. Did the U.S./Australia/ROK/New Zealand etc, have imperialist designs in South Vietnam? Only in the dreams of the most hardened Marxist. Perhaps a better analogy would be the term "democratic forces", which would encompass the myriad political beliefs of its members (ranging from anarchists to fascists). Once again I stress the qualifications espoused by the project for an A-Class article. Is it well written, factually correct, and well cited. I do not believe that the terms "encyclopedic" or "style" appear in those qualifications. RM Gillespie 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

pray tell me communism is a coherent system. I corrected your unsourced number which was not supported by your sourced number. Wandalstouring 18:37, 22 March 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.

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.

Armament of the Iowa class battleship

I am nominating this because I feel that it meets all set and established criteria for A-class, and because I feel that with a little effort it could easily become featured, as Kirill pointed out on the Iowa-class battleship peer review :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, very nice. Can see few improvements; some copyediting needed. Also, could you include the yield of the nuclear Tomahawk, and a bit about the target identification/guidance mechanism of the Tomahawk? The section on the guidance of the Harpoon is present but could do with a few line breaks and possibly some wikification and light de-jargonning. The Land 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Meets all the criteria, although a little copyediting wouldn't hurt. Carom 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Contains some subjective language ("fearsome" is used a couple of times without quotation marks) but otherwise is definitely A-class material. Cla68 23:26, 18 March 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.

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.

Battleship

This article has recently become a Good Article after a two-month improvement drive. During this time, a lot of historical material was moved to ship of the line and ironclad warship - and far more material was added! The result is IMV a remarkably comprehensive treatment of the development and use of one of the most important weapons of all time. However, I might be a bit biased ;) - you can see the development of the article on the talk page and in particular the thorough review from the user who gave it GA status. Your feedback for A-class status is eagerly anticipated. The Land 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think this article goes into to much detail on individual battleships when, IMHO, only critical battleships should be explicitly named. I also think it should be trimmed down by not going into so much detail for each nation on the sections such as The Dreadnought era and the World Wars; if anything, those should be separate articles (something like Battleship usage in World War II etc.). Oberiko 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• In general, very well done! My main criticism of the current article is the fact that the section on "super-dreadnoughts" comes well after the first use of the term. Also, the article does a very nice job of detailing the origins of the term, but you loose track of the usage after that until you hit the pre-dreadnoughts. You should probably talk about any actual use of the term 'battleship' through the 19th century. After that, you need to be clearer about the terminology of the time. I don't think a reader new to the subject would come away understanding that right before WWI there 'battleships', 'dreadnoughts', and 'super-dreadnoughts', with the latter two eventually taking over the 'battleship' designation, and the old battleships being re-labeled 'pre-dreadnoughts'. --Rindis 18:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed the issue with the Super-Dreadnoughts and also added the terminology to the top of the article. Pinning down the use of the word 'battleship' in the 19th-C is really difficult and most sources I have hedge their bets about it. It doesn't help that lots and lots of people use the term battleship retrospectively - did anyone refer to Napoleon as a 'battleship' when she was launched? Probably not, yet Conways uses the term quite happily. Did anyone refer to Warrior in that way? No, definitely not, but the Royal Navy rated her as such after twenty years of service just before scrapping her... The Land 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What? You're not an all-knowledgeable expert who can answer these questions that I've never seen addressed (or considered) by the usual authors on the subject? Darn. ^_^ Trust me, I understand the problem - and was kind of hoping you might know more since you'd already gotten a bit deeper into it than I've ever managed. Though it shows that the study of naval history is still quite primitive in some ways, it's hard to understand what people were doing when you don't even study what they were calling it. --Rindis 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at the article again. The new intro looks good. I was thinking in terms of rearranging the article near the super-dreadnought section, but your intro of dreadnoughts will certainly will do the job. I support A-Class, and think we're seeing some very good comments on what can make it an FA. --Rindis 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overall, a fantastic job. I'd like to echo the thoughts made by Oberiko and Rindis - perhaps too much attention to a narrative of individual countries and wars, not quite enough attention to the concept of the battleship and how it came to be, how it changed, etc. I'm no expert on the subject, but I was under the impression that certain battles of the Pacific War (and perhaps the Battle of the Atlantic as well) really decisively changed attitudes about the importance and relevance of the battleship relative to air power, and yet this isn't discussed at any length in the article. I think it's great that you discuss Japanese developments alongside Western ones - the significance of the Satsuma, the battle of Tsushima, various elements of pre-WWII naval attitudes in Japan and regarding Japan - and to some extent I would argue those should stay. But again, I think, overall, trimming the sections that focus on wars, battles, and countries and placing more attention on the concept of the battleship, its role within a navy, and its decline in importance relative to airpower and other factors, would be most useful. (Still, even as it is now, I support a promotion to A-class.) LordAmeth 09:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see the point you're making. The Dreadnought arms race material can certainly be split off to a new article. I think part of the problem is that there are relatively few battleship engagements and many of them are of some significant to the broader narrative of the battleship. For instance Did the battleship have a big influence on the Spanish Civil War? No, not really; but it was the first time a battleship was knocked out of action by air attack. Then the fact that a large proportion of engagements are significant makes it tempting to include virtually all of them... The Land 11:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes yes. I understand. Hmmm. What to do, then? LordAmeth 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the World War II section so it's more chronological; which also happily makes it more thematic, because between November 1940 and December 1941 four different navies had significant battleship losses, most of which were down to naval aviation. What d'you think? The Land 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Combine your common citations please. For example, citations number 6 and 7 go to the same source, as do numbers 41 and 43. Also, the last two battleships that had been in the mothball fleet have since been removed from that fleet, so I updated the intro to reflect that change in status. Overall though, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article is generally well-written and pithy, and not disproportionately long for a subject that spans four centuries and involves every major maritime nation. This is not to say it cannot be trimmed and tidied up; for example, much of the Iowa-class material could be move across to Iowa class battleship. However I agree with LordAmeth that the article is relatively weak in its treatment of the concept of the battleship, Why did nations feel obliged to build such costly ships? What role were they expected to perform? How did they relate to other elements of the fleet? What alternative forms of naval power were available, and why were they so often rejected? What were the drivers for their design? What made a "good" or "bad" design? As I pointed out in reviewing the article for GA status, the Battleships in strategy and doctrine section is little more than a stub. I would hesitate to support a move up to A-class status until the article is strengthened in this area.

On the other hand, I am generally happy with the historical narrative, and oppose the idea of breaking it up. This risks losing the very cross-cultural and historical perspective that LordAmeth rightly praises. My own experience suggests that stripping out information and putting it in satellite articles, such as the proposed article on the "Dreadnought race", are inconvenient to the user, who is constantly chasing backwards and forwards for the information that he or she is looking for. An even worse problem is the workload involved in generating and maintaining the articles. The proliferation of articles surrounding the Bismarck exemplifies the problem of maintaining quality control over a cluster of closely-related articles. Every hour spent proliferating new articles is an hour lost to the task of bringing our backlog of existing half-baked articles (naming no names) up to scratch.

In summary, the article is (except for the weakness of the Battleships in strategy and doctrine section) an excellent "one-stop shop" for a user new to the subject. Let's keep it that way. Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Taking this on board I've added a fair bit to that section - though what I've put in isn't cited yet. Does that cover the important points? The Land 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I have taken the liberty of reworking your edits a little, and giving the last sub-section a slightly more dignified heading. Regards, John Moore 309 01:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'm perfectly happy to support this article for A-Class as it stands now, but I would certainly expect some (most?) of the concerns raised by other editors to be addressed prior to an FA nomination. Carom 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would replace the header "Post World War II" --> "Cold War" and "Today" --> "Post Cold War". In my opinion, those are more 'durable' headings. Oberiko 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think it is a great article, with more improvement it could even become a FA.--Pupster21 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I am happy with the current version. Well done, ya'll! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support had a few stranded [ and ]s probobly from rewritings. Was a long read though, could be troublesome for some readers. As a bove great amount of information.--Dryzen 13:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - A very well-written and comprehensive article. Only suggestion I might make is changing "Battleships" in the LEAD paragraphs to "The Battleship", etc. Might just be me but I think it sounds a bit more scholarly. Great Job, definitely A-Class material on the way to FA Status! Mike Searson 14:13, 16 March 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.

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.

Operation Barrel Roll

For your perusal. RM Gillespie 03:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Quite good. Carom 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Long, thorough, well-cited, objectively stated but not too dry. LordAmeth 09:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. On a technical note, some of your sources seem to go to the exact same citation. I would suggest combining them to help reduce the page size. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very good written article. However, I've never heard of it. ;) --Pupster21 13:00, 8 March 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.

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.

Edwin Taylor Pollock

Self-nom. Recently passed GA, had a productive peer review which appears to have quieted down. This is my first real attempt at a detailed officer biography. JRP 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I think it's a good article ready for A status. Needs more detail about his childhood/adolescence and his post-Navy life and the red links should have stub articles created for them, but, good enough for "A". Cla68 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Seems a good enough article, but indeed pre and post navy life sections are missing. Arnoutf 10:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Add pre- and post navy life section(even if they are not notable parts of the biography) and get one of our copyeditors to improve the writing style before nominating it for FA. Wandalstouring 12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, although I would stress that the article really does need to be expanded either side of his navy career. Carom 21:37, 14 February 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.

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 - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Operation Rolling Thunder

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

Operation Rolling Thunder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as unfortunately I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore, unfortunately (specifically on referencing). As such, I am requesting opinions as to whether it should be delisted. If interested members are able to alleviate my concerns by editing the article, I am more than happy to change my opinion. I don't mean to discourage the article's contributors, and I can certainly see that a lot of hard work has gone into it...just seems that our standards have evolved since its original ACR in 2007 (link here). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delist - per nomination. This is by no means a bad article, indeed there is much to commend it. However, our standards of referencing have changed quite a bit since it passed ACR in 2007 and there is a quite large amount of unreferenced material in it. I believe User:RM Gillespie was one of the main contributors but unfortunately he seems to have ceased being active in 2011, so I think it is unlikely that this one is going to be salvageable in the short to medium term. I would attempt to add the missing citations myself but I just do not have the sources available to do so. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - The majority of concerns regarding referencing now seem to have been addressed by a number of editors. There remain a number of more minor issues (such as multiple reference formats), but these can be addressed fairly easily and don't warrant it being delisted. Its good to see that there is still some fight left in the project after all. Anotherclown (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delist - as per nomination. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose delist: Reading over the article I cannot see any reason for a delist. It appears that the concerns about citing, which are not detailed here so I can't be sure, are the number of cite needed tags. Looking these over, I consider all the ones I examined to be spurious, posted by someone that has confused what cite needed means and believes it requires a cite at the physical end of every para. In all the examples I chose, the para in question was not just cited, but if anything over cited. If the OP, @AustralianRupert: can be more specific I'm willing to take a crack at it, but as it stands I can't see a major problem that warrants delisting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• G'day, Maury, thank you for taking part in the review and for sharing your opinion. My concerns about referencing do indeed relate to the missing citations at the end of the paragraphs that have been marked with "citation needed" tags (which I added in mid-September [9]). Apologies for the indistinct nomination statement. I placed these at the end of the paragraphs that appeared to be unreferenced due to my concern that the article does not meet the project's A-class criteria (found here) which requires all claims in the article to be referenced. This criterion, I believe, requires at bare minimum a citation at the end of every paragraph. Indeed, the project's B-class standard (lower than A-class) also asks for this. If there are any citations earlier in a paragraph that cover the following sentences, it would be ok, IMO, to simply move them to the end of the paragraph. That would solve the issue as it would allow a reader to easily verify where the information came from. Project-specific guidance can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/When to cite. Happy to discuss further if you wish. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is simply not true. There is a good reason for this. For instance:

This is a statement that is cited on page 5 of a reference work. This statement is also cited on page 5.A cite tag to page 5

Would, according to such a rule, pass muster. Yet if I insert a single non-printing character...

This is a statement that is cited on page 5 of a reference work.
This statement is also cited on page 5.A cite tag to page 5

Would now fail. This is precisely the sort of thing we need to avoid at all costs. It would mean that even trivial edits to the article could result in its delisting, after what normally amounts to weeks of work. The wikipedia is about the information, not the formatting of that information. If a user is capable of reading the text, and can can find the citation with reasonable ease, that is enough, IMHO.

Then we come to confusing statements like the one in the B-class FAQ. I interpret these to mean that a paragraph otherwise lacking direct citations on statements within the paragraph will require one covering the entire text at the end. But that does not apply in this case; every example you posted is in a paragraph that is very well cited. Would you agree, overall, that this article has many high quality citations?

All of this repeats ad nasueum, which is why the page on citations has this to say:

“ Editors should attempt to take a reasonable approach when requesting citations. Unless the accuracy of a statement is in significant doubt, it is generally better to start with a request for citations on the article's talk page, rather than by inserting tags—particularly large numbers of such tags—into the article. ”

I believe this has not occurred in this case. Quite the opposite, it seems you are saying that you have violated this principle, which was added to the guidelines specifically to avoid events like this one. Somewhere the wiki stopped being about the content and became a game about rules, and now we have to adjust the rules to address this. That strikes me as a wonderful illustration of the Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

So, I make the same offer as below. If you can demonstrate that each and every one of the tags you placed in this article do not actually appear in any of the citations already in the article, I will go and find one myself. I don't think asking you to read the references is unfair; the original editor put significant effort into getting the article to A-Class in the first place, the least we can do is respect that effort by putting in a little effort on our part to try to keep it there, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot help but think your oppose is more a philosophical one about what you think Wikipedia used to be and what you wish it still were. I for one agree with the nominator that this article does not meet the referencing standards expected at A class in 2015 and I cannot see how this article would pass an A Class Review if it was nominated for one today (hence why I stated my opinion that it should be delisted). The work that has gone into this article to get it to A Class back in 2007 was indeed commendable and no doubt it was sufficient for the standards that existed then but that doesn't mean that standards haven't changed significantly since then, and its certainly no reason why we shouldn't act to ensure we maintain those standards now. There are 9 cn tags (including entire paragraphs) which are without a citation and all of which in my opinion contain significant information about topics which are not self evident (to me at least). In fact by my count there are 760 words in this article which are unreferenced (out of a total word count of 6400 odd - therefore approx. 12% of the article is unreferenced). There are a number of policies (which given your tenure I know you are aware of) that make it clear why citations are needed here, not least of which is WP:PROVEIT: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". This material has clearly now been challenged (the very fact that a cn tag was added makes this beyond argument). You have offered to find citations - great! Why make the offer contingent though? If you wish to see this article retain its A Class status why not just go ahead and provide the citations that have been requested? It seems like that would be ultimately to the benefit of the article and the project. Anotherclown (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhhh, I think you missed the entire point of my post. What you say would be correct if that was what happened here, but as AustralianRupert notes above, the CNs were posted simply because there were paragraphs that didn't end in one. The material was not being challenged, the formatting was. But that's academic now, because the actual problems are being addressed, and it seems the delist effort had died. Which is my philosophical point actually, we should be improving things, which I would say would not have happened if not for my intervention. I now see people actually working on the article to keep it A-list worthy, my own major edits included, which strikes me as a far superior outcome, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the first part, but agree with the last. Its immaterial though as we seem to have got there in the end. I've changed my !vote as promised. Thank you for the work you have done on the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree with these comments and frankly I'm pretty offended by the attitude. Using words like "delist effort has died" implies bad faith on my part. Maintaining our standards is an important part of maintaining the project, in my opinion particularly as we mature as a project. My intention was never to simply delist the article. I requested citations because the article did not meet the A-class or even B-class criteria and they were not provided. When I looked into who the main editor was, I discovered he had been inactive for years. As such, I requested a re-appraisal in the hope the interested editors would get involved and help bring the article back up to standard so it can be kept. That has in fact happened. Would you have gotten involved if not for the re-appraisal? I don't know, but I suspect not. Anyway, as AC said, thank you for your efforts, you have most certainly greatly improved the article. Nevertheless, I stand by my actions, as I believe standards maintenance to be part of my role as a project co-ordinator. If people disagree with that interpretation, I'm more than happy to stand down. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: thoughts? Beyond that, I'm fairly comfortable with the efforts I've made over the past six years to help others achieve their A-class goals. Also happy to stop doing that, too, for awhile if that is what others want as frankly it's not as fulfilling as it used to be. I'll also note that reappraisal is a key part of the ACR process (as it is for the GA and FA processes), although it hasn't really been used much in the past few years within MILHIST. If you have ideas about how to make the review or reappraisal process better, I encourage you to do so. Either the WP:MHCOORD or WT:MIL pages would seem to be appropriate venues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a better reply on these points, AR, after about a month has gone by. I'm busy with wiki-work and writing projects of my own, so I probably won't have time for A-class for a month, though I'm happy to keep covering PR and FAC. I see that you'd prefer to step back from A-class as well. If the A-class articles sit around without promotions for a while, then we may need to take another look at the A-class process. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd try not to let it bother you AR. The article was clearly well below ACR standards when it was quite rightly nominated for review and has now been significantly improved as part of the process through the efforts of yourself and a number of other editors (even if one of them was a somewhat unwilling participant). It is now a much stronger article as a result which is a good thing, and it is obvious that this improvement would not have occurred had you not nominated it for ACR (this is of cse the very point of ACR). I'm unsure why this results in allegations of hidden motives on your part (which clearly don't exist), but perhaps some editors have been here too long and now presume the worst of everyone. Personally I'm surprised the article was able to salvaged but am happy to be proved wrong. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delist I agree with the nominator, who appears to have added citation needed tags last month. The first example that occurs is:

By the end of August, the Joint Chiefs had drawn up a list of 94 targets to be destroyed as part of a coordinated eight-week air campaign against North Vietnam's transportation network.[18] Bridges, rail yards, docks, barracks and supply dumps were all targeted. Johnson, however, feared that such a campaign might trigger a direct intervention by Chinese or Soviets, which might, in turn, cascade into a world war.[19] With Robert McNamara's support, the President refused to endorse such an unrestricted bombing campaign.[citation needed]

The lack of a source for the fact that President Johnson refused (although his concerns are cited) the JCS request and that the Secretary of Defense opposed the Chiefs is not supported. This is more than just spurious. I'll concede that the previous notes could support this as well, but as written there is no support for two very important events. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: So we're going to delist because of two examples? Here, how's this sound, if you are willing to find all examples of such, I volunteer to find cites for each. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No there are 9 cn tags so it has been proposed to delist it because of 9 examples. If you can take care of those I will quite happily change my !vote (and I have no doubt that the nominator would withdraw it if you did so too). All that said if you want some examples how about the entire "Legacy" section which contains not a single reference, or the "SAMs and Wild Weasels" section which has three whole unreferenced paragraphs? FWIW I have now dug up a book on the topic so I will see if I can add some of the missing refs. If other editors choose to do likewise maybe it could be improved to the point where it meets our current standards, or maybe they wont and it will be delisted. Simple as that. Lets not waste our time arguing about this. If you have sources and wish to volunteer your time improving the article, pls just go ahead and do so. Anotherclown (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would be more than happy to vote to keep the article's A class rating if the citations can be added where I've tagged. As there were 15 tags when the article was first nominated, and now there are only nine (or in fact now eight), I can see some progress has been made in this regard already. I think that the article also needs an image licencing check and a quick prose review, but overall these aspects seem in reasonable shape. Two images possibly need more information on their description pages, though: File:VPAF MiG-21 landing with chute.jpg (source link seems to have been moved) and File:North Vietnamese Antiaircraft Weapons.jpg (page is missing some details). But with some guidance from @Nikkimaria: and @Dank: or anyone else who's keen on taking a look, we can probably fix any issues in these areas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was only able to find a few refs so there are still 6 cn tags remaining, including the completely unreferenced "Legacy" section. I don't think I will be able to find any more given the sources I have so I guess its up to others. Another issue I see with the article, albeit a minor one, is the presence of multiple ref formats. If no one is opposed to it I intend to standardize using short citations (which seem to be used predominately). Anotherclown (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Having had another look, one more concern regarding referencing comes to mind. The US losses/casualties in the infobox. The figures "1,084 killed, captured, or missing; 938 aircraft lost"...I couldn't find these elsewhere in the article (unless I missed something). Is there a reference for these that could be added? Equally, these figures don't seem to match those provided in the body of the article where the following figures are provided: "Due to combat and operational circumstances, 506 U.S. Air Force, 397 Navy, and 19 Marine Corps aircraft were lost over or near North Vietnam.[106][107] During the operation, of the 745 crewmen shot down, the U.S. Air Force recorded 145 rescued, 255 killed, 222 captured (23 of whom died in captivity), and 123 missing.[108] Figures on U.S. Navy and Marine Corps casualties were harder to come by. During the 44-month time frame, 454 Naval aviators were killed, captured, or missing during combined operations over North Vietnam and Laos". Is there a reason for the discrepancy, do we know? If not, perhaps the infobox figures should just be adjusted to match these cited figures. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've adjusted the infobox to match the figures provided in the body, with the refs in the body. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Images

• All USAF Museum links need updating
  • Thanks, Nikki, I've gotten all the one's I could find an archiveurl for. I couldn't find one for File:A-7Bs VA-25 during Ironhand mission 1969.jpg, unfortunately. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• File:North_Vietnamese_Antiaircraft_Weapons.jpg needs more info on the original source - is it credited in the given book? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day, I've found the book and located the page the images have been taken from, but it doesn't seem to have any details in the book crediting who took the images and when, unfortunately. [10] Do you think it best to replace this image in the circumstances? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think that would be best. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, thanks, Nikki, I've done this now. I have looked through Commons for a replacement, but haven't as yet been able to find anything suitable. There are some here: [11], but many of those potentially have the similar licensing issues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: All CNs addressed, major portions re-written, lots of new refs, rewrote "Legacy" and major portions of the intro material. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: as nominator, following recent changes. There are still some formatting issues, but not enough IMO to prevent the article from keeping its A-class rating. Thanks for your work on the article, Maury and Anotherclown. @Lineagegeek and Hchc2009: Could you please take a look at the recent changes and state whether you are happy the article now meets the A-class criteria? If you are, this review can probably be closed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Change to Keep. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

At A class, I'd normally expect the citation style to be consistent; at the moment, it doesn't appear to be (unless there's a pattern I'm missing, which isn't impossible). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Hchc, yes you are right - that was the formatting issue I highlighted above. I'm working through this, but it's slow going and I'm not feeling well of late. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: G'day, I think I've rectified this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Rupert. Happy now to support its continuing status. Hope you're feeling a bit better! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, mate, a bit better...I've listed this for closing over at WP:MHCOORD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 27 October 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.

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.

T-26

I want to re-nominate this article, now that it has been peer reviewed. The fist A-class review has been archived here. JonCatalan 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I think the textual errors and citation problems from the first review have been fixed, the article reads well and covers the topic very comprehensively. Hossen27 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I found it very interesting and it is very well referenced, largely well written and has many useful and interesting pictures and tables. I'm supporting, but I have a few small notes if you wnat them: 1) Although the major problems from the last review have been resolved and the article reads much better, it might still benefit from another copyedit just to make it flow a bit smoother, some of the sentances are a little choppy. I'll take a look myself if you want? 2) In the final paragraph for the Second World War section, it says that production of the T-50 was intended for 1945 and then talks about factories being moved in 1941: Are these dates correct? 3) I wasn't sure about the paragraphs in the intro, I'll move them a little, see if you think it works, if not then revert.--Jackyd101 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for your kind compliments. You're correct, that date is wrong - it should have read 1941, and it has been changed. In regards to the introduction I think I'll leave it as you have changed it until somebody else gives their opinion. Concerning your offer of taking a look at the sentence structure of the article, I would much appreciate it! JonCatalan 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just gave the article a thorough copyedit and look over again, I changed quite a few grammatical constructs, but tried to keep the meaning of the sentences as accurate as possible. Please look over the changes and make sure they are OK. I added one tag where I felt it was necessary to cite a source, and I also noticed a couple of occasions where I wasn't sure if you were quoting direct from a source or not. If you do, remember to use quotation marks. Finally, the use of "Ibid." as a source marker in Wikipedia is not a good idea, as unlike a paper article, if a random editor sticks a source of his own between your Ibids the aricle will rapidly descend into chaos. Perhaps all sources should be written in the Harvard form without the Ibid. Hope I helped, sorry if I made any errors and again congratulations on a thorough and interesting article.--Jackyd101 06:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you continued help. I exchanged all the ibid. to the name of the author. I'll have to cite the source for the 'citation needed' when I get home (to look up the page number). Regarding sourcing; none of it is directly taken from any given text. It is all own wording. JonCatalan 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked one last sentance, but congratulations once more on a very nice article and some excellent, well written and researched work.--Jackyd101 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - All the problems from the last review have been resolved, and no new ones seem to have arisen. Carom 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support There are a few quibbles:

You mention in the lead 12,000 T-26s produce. This fact is mentioned twice more in the following section – a bit unnecessary.

Sentence problems:

The 45 mm gun would see some evolution, as the original 45 mm 19K anti-tank gun[14], developed at Plant No. 8, in 1935 by the 45 mm model 1934, which saw the semi-automatic mechanism replaced by an inertial operating mechanism.

Also:

The turret featured in increase to 20 mm at 45 degrees sloping.[37]

There’s some unecessary wording:

During the Republican offensive towards Torrejon three T-26s were captured, and a few days later another four were captured as well

There are some contracted words eg: It’s. Should read It is.

There are punctuation problems and prose issues that will have to be ironed out if you want to go for FA. Raymond Palmer 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the only 'it's' I could find, and I did some changing to the three sentences you have picked out, especially the second sentence (and the two other times I mentioned 12,000 units had been produces have been erased). I'm glad that you have made a note of prose requirements for FA status. I've actually be crossing my fingers that somebody will be nice enough and help me fixing the prose and punctuation. JonCatalan 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have used a different Infobox from other AFVs - is this intentional for some reason? Raymond Palmer 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I used the standard WikiProject Military history/Weapons infobox.

This one is often used for various AFV's, as it's slightly more specialized than the Weapon infobox. Consistency is good, but it's not really a big deal, in my opinion.Carom 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not more specialized, actually; all the parameters in {{AFV}} are present in the consolidated infobox. {{Infobox Weapon}} is actually intended to replace {{AFV}}, and WP:WEAPON has been (slowly) converting articles to use it; but we haven't been able to arrange for a mass replacement yet. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, Kirill, right you are. Carom 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My fault for bringing it up. Although I do like the colour scheme of the old box Raymond Palmer 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Seems better than the last read, and very few errors. UberVash 02:11, 2 February 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.

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.

Thomas Crisp

First World War Victoria Cross recipient. Passed GA, been Peer Reviewed. Want to see what else can be done and how far I can take this.--Jackyd101 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That was quick, I only just passed it :) The auto Javascript program says the following:

• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]

• I saw this at peer review. I thought that the "infobox military person" superseeded the "persondata" box. Is this wrong?

Persondata goes at the bottom of an article is isn't visible, so I dont think so. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorted--Jackyd101 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]

• The only dates with a ^th are in the citations and as these are direct from the source I didn't think they should be changed.

Yep, you're right there. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]

• Moved notes, changed "Further reading" to "References". Is this what is meant?

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

• Will have another look through, were there any specific instances of poor prose?

Looks fine to me reading it through. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would add that the red links are slightly annoying, and the information for Unterseeboot C-41 was available in one of the references. The www.victoriacross.net seems to have become a holding advert page, so doesn't say much. The CWGD page goes to Charles Manning, the Crisp page seems to be here. The image is a bit iffy - when was it taken? and by who - Crown Copyright can be annoying to say the least. I saw it on the Find a Grave page too. Finally, references generally go after punctuation. Other than than, and a final prose copyedit, I think it should be ok. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Further changes: I'll sort out the red links as best I can;

• I'll remove the Victoriacaoss.net link;
• I'm not sure what you mean about CWGD link going to the wrong place, it goes to Thomas Crisp for me;
• Which image has the problem? They all seem to have correct tags. I don't know their origin, the picture of Crisp seems to come from the Victoriacross.net site before it closed down, not sure about the status of those images. Its says here at Find-A-Grave that thier images do not infringe on the copyright of any nation. Don't know how accurate that is.
• Where was the reference in the wrong place? Bugger, I thought I'd got them all.

Thankyou for your time and comments.--Jackyd101 01:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just me looking at one of thr references wrongly, dont worry about the CWGD link. Looking good to me, any chance of some more references? Which museum is the replica at? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The replica is kept in Lowestoft town hall, not in an actual museum. I don't know any further details than that, and the town hall is not particulaly notable in itself (as far as I'm aware, not enough to merit its own article anyway). The references are tricky, because most sources for this do little more than simply copy the citation and a few basic dates and places. Snelling's book is the only one I've seen with comprehensive information.--Jackyd101 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support The article seems to meet the criteria for A-class, although further improvement would certainly be necessary for FA. Carom 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out where for future reference?--Jackyd101 03:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Indeed meets criteria for A-class. Would in usual case need more citations for FA-status; however what Jackyd101 says about the sources may make this difficult. Cheers Buckshot06 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Support - You've done an excellent job with a fairly obscure subject. With a combination of searches I've turned up the following, though some aren't that useful: [12], [13] - Is victoriacross.org.uk similar to victoriacross.net?, or has the site moved?, [14], and [15] - he is shown on both church memorials, and finally [16] . RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for finding those, I inserted some of them, [17] was particulaly useful, the others a little less so, but still worthy of placing in external links or inline citations I thought.--Jackyd101 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Objection reword the intro into a shorter version with less adjectives. The main article can contain such flowery material.SupportWandalstouring 14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done--Jackyd101 06:28, 29 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.

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 - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Operation Linebacker

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

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

I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore, unfortunately (specifically on referencing). Unfortunately it appears that the article's main contributor is no longer active, so as such, as per the Operation Rolling Thunder re-appraisal, I am listing this here in the hopes that editors will become involved and hopefully bring the article up to scratch. If this does not occur, then I believe it should be delisted. Unfortunately, I do not have any references that can be added, but I am happy to get involved and help in other regards. I have highlighted this issue on the talk page, and requested citations previously, but so far they have not been forthcoming. I am listing both this article, and its twin, Operation Linebacker II, now as it seems to make sense to work on these at the same time.AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Prior nomination here.

Comments

• I have the following points for the ACR; if references can be added, I will gladly work on the other aspects: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• the lead probably needs to be expanded
• there are many sentences and or paragraphs that are missing references (as marked by the citation needed tags) - this is the main issue, IMO, that impacts upon the article's A-class compliance
• the US order of battle seems completely uncited
• the References section is inconsistent in its presentation (e.g. compare Palmer to Morocco) Done
• The notes are inconsistent in terms of style (e.g short and long citations)
• Images: the Vietnamese air defences image probably needs to state where the original photographs came from (it seems doubtful that they were taken by a US government employee). If they can’t be sourced in this manner, the image will probably have to be removed (as it was from the Rolling Thunder article)
• Inconsistent presentation: some References have isbns but the majority don’t  Done

Whilst the article is of a fairly good standard, I agree it doesn't meet the standard currently expected of an A class article. I'll see what I can do to assist with dealing with some of the issues listed above but realistically it won't be much as my sources are limited to what is available online. From a quick read through one other issue that probably needs to be addressed is the editorial tone it sometimes uses. Anotherclown (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delist - unfortunately the bulk of these issues remain over a month after being listed so I don't think this one is going to be improved sufficiently to meet our current standards. Anotherclown (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment

• Fully agree with Rupert, the obvious things for me were missing references and short lead -- the latter is not a showstopper for A-Class but the referencing is. Structure seems reasonable but I haven't gone through prose or image licensing, if someone more knowledgable than I could take care of the citation problems first then I'd be happy to assist with any prose issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: per AC, regretfully the main issues remain after over a month, so I believe that the article should be delisted. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delist -- the crucial issue of referencing has not been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2016 (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 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.

Ioannis Makrygiannis

The article recently passed GA, and I'd like to see your take on it. Druworos 11:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me. LordAmeth 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Indecisive Are there only Greek sources and one French available? Wandalstouring 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I don't know of English sources. This does not mean they don't exist, obviously. Just that I don't know of them. :) Druworos 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In the French article are several non-Greek sources listed. Perhaps you can use some more of them. It is a case of noteability. Like the Hiasl who is a local hero in Bavaria, but hardly anybody outside that small country(some cultures within neither) knows him. Is such a man noteable enough to have an article here? Wandalstouring 02:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You will notice there are three French sources in total in the French article, I'm already using one of them. Surprising as it may seem, tracking down French journals like Autres Espaces (one of the other sources) is not exactly easy in Greece. At any rate, I copy-paste the following from MilHist:

The following types of military figures are always notable:

....

People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat.

....

People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works.

Makrygiannis did command a substantial body of troops in combat, and he is the primary topic of at least one published secondary work I know of (the article by Theotokas you'll find listed in the sources section). More important, perhaps, than his military career, is his involvement with the first Greek constitution, his contribution to which has been recognised by the Greek state. His most significant work, however, may be his Memoirs. As you will find in the section on his literary work, he has been called one of the two greatest masters of modern Greek prose by Nobel laureate poet Yorgos Seferis. Surely, this should answer the issue of notability. Druworos 11:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I started to search for this guy. The English version of his book is: Ioánnis Makrygiánnis, The Memoirs of General Makrygiannis, 1797-1864. Oxford University Press, 1966 (selections) Wandalstouring 20:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Needs a bibliography - listing the sources. A few more cites would also be good. Buckshot06 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support But I agree with Buckshot, it needs a seperate sources section. Kyriakos 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The sources are the ones already appearing under the references section. It would, of course, be simple to create a separate bibliography, it's just that it would be a repetition of the references section right above it. As for more citations, there are already quite a few in there, I think. I could add a citation to the end of every sentence, I just think that's a bit over the top, myself. If you feel there are particular points that need a citation, please point them out in specific. Thanks for the comments! Druworos 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • At any rate, I added a separate sources section, I suppose it is more appropriate. Druworos 11:25, 13 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.

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.

Battle of Edson's Ridge

Respectfully request an A-class assessment review of this article on a World War II battle. Cla68 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, another great article. Kyriakos 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support this is an excellent article. --Nick Dowling 06:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Carom 19:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Article is definitely complete. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice, complete article. — ERcheck (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Bukvoed 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Seems quite balanced, in terms of POV, based on skimming. LordAmeth 21:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  The review was closed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks very good!--MChew 16:31, 10 January 2007 (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 - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Operation Linebacker II

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

Operation Linebacker II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore, unfortunately (specifically on referencing). Unfortunately it appears that the article's main contributor is no longer active, so as such, as per the Operation Rolling Thunder re-appraisal, I am listing this here in the hopes that editors will become involved and hopefully bring the article up to scratch. If this does not occur, then I believe it should be delisted. Unfortunately, I do not have any references that can be added, but I am happy to get involved and help in other regards. I have highlighted this issue on the talk page, and requested citations previously, but so far they have not been forthcoming. I am listing both this article, and its twin, Operation Linebacker, now as it seems to make sense to work on these at the same time. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Prior nomination here.

Comments

• I have the following points for the ACR; if references can be added, I will gladly work on the other aspects: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• The lead probably should be expanded to be at least two or three paragraphs;
• There are many citation needed tags in the article due to information being unreferenced, or appearing not to be covered with a citation (which I added, in order to mark where I feel refs are needed as per the A-class criteria) - this is the main issue, IMO, that impacts upon the article's A-class compliance;
• The US aircraft lost and US order of battle sections appear to be completely uncited;
• The bare url citations/notes should be formatted to include page title, publisher, accessdate (at least) and an archivelink (if the original is dead);  Done
• “George Herring, pp. 248–249”: appears in the Notes section but there is no corresponding full citation to help the reader find the work;  Done
• Same as above for “Toperczer #29 2001";  Done
• The notes are inconsistent in terms of style (e.g short and long citations);
• Images: the Vietnamese air defences image description page probably needs to state where the original photographs came from in order to be considered adequately sourced/and to determine if the licence is correct. If not, it will need to be removed from the article (as it was from the Rolling Thunder article);
• In the References section, several works are missing OCLC or ISBNs. Done

Per my comments on the Operation Linebacker ACR above I'm also of the opinion that this one doesn't meet the standard currently expected of an A class article. Same, same I'll try to assist where I can but am limited in my sources to what is available online. This article also uses an editorial tone in places which probably needs to be addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delist - the bulk of the identified issues remain with this article remain over a month after being listed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment

• As with Linebacker, fully agree with Rupert, the obvious things again being missing references and short lead -- latter is not a showstopper for A-Class but referencing is; structure seems reasonable but haven't gone through prose or image licensing, if someone could take care of the citation problems first then I'd be happy to assist with any prose issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: per AC, unfortunately the main issues remain after over a month so I believe it should probably be delisted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delist -- as AC/AR have mentioned, the issues (including, crucially, referencing) have not been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2016 (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.

Failed

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.

Heuschrecke 10

• Prior nomination here.

I believe that this is ready for an A-Class marking. I have changed it since my last comment at 13 December 2007. I have added a reference, and have completed it I believe. Dreamafter ^Talk 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Why is "Geschützwagen IV" in parenthasis in the opening paragraph? There doesn't seem to be a reason for it, although I do not know that for a fact.  Done
  • Can you provide a standard measurement for you metrically challenged audience? I know that 155 mm is roughly six inches, but I do not know what 105 mm equates to in inches.  Done
  • Would it be at all possible to put the armour information in the infobox? I grant you that would be a lot of work, but it has been done on our battleship artilces.  Done
  • It seems suprisingly short, although I will not object on the basis of length I do feel that there could be some unmentioned information. For example, where was the vehical to be produced (town would be good, factory would be better), how much would it have costed (projected cost would be ok), was it cancelled in favored of another vehical or some other reason, etc.  Doing...
• Otherwise, it looks ok. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. A few sentences start with "it" and instead of having several one-paragraph sub-sections, they could be combined into "Development" and "Specifications" sections without the sub-headings. Cla68 (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1. 1.  Done
   2. Which sections should be merged, and why?
   3. Thanks for the help fixing it. It will be done, so that it can get A-Class. Dreamafter ^Talk 21:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. See reasons below. Bukvoed (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article IMHO would benefit from some reordering. Instead of the design section, which mixes development history with technical description, and one more technical section armament and propulsion, I'd like to see a section wholly dedicated to the development history and another with all the technical stuff.
    •  Done I think.
      • Yes, it's better now, though I think more can be done. For example, I think I'd incorporate Armament and propulsion into design (simple merge ? subsection ?).
        •  Done
  • I failed to understand what exactly do M60 and M104 AVLBs owe to the Heuschrecke rather than to WWII era bridgelayers such as Covenanter bridgelayer.
    • It is for the modern equivalents, I will add the link above in to the article, as one from that time.  Done
      • That's how I understand the situation, please correct me if I am wrong. There were WWII era bridgelayers (Covenanter is just one example, there were bridgelayers based on Churchill, Pz IV, Sherman and possibly other chassis; at least some were developed earlier the the Heuschrecke). Then there is Heuschrecke, a WWII era SP howitzer fitted with a mechanism for lifting its turret; the mechanism may have been similar to these used on WWII era bridgelayers. Then there are modern bridgelayers, they are pretty direct descendants of WWII era bridgelayers and seemingly don't use any notable principle or technology that was specific for Heuschrecke. Now if I am right, I thick the section should simply be removed. If I am wrong and modern bridgelayers do owe somehing historically or technologically to Heuschrecke, I think you should be more specific.
        •  Done
  • Most of the sources are anonymous internet pages or other wikipedia articles. Some sources do not seem to support the footnoted text. E.g. the article from Achtung Panzer explicitly states that design never reached the production stage; the The Air and Missile Defense Journal article on PzIV (actually a copy from Wikipedia, so it's probably better idea to link directly to the source :)) does not even mention the competing Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig vehicle.
    • I fail to understand what must be fixed here... Sorry...
      • I'll try to be more specific. 1) The link to Panzer IV article in The Air and Missile Defense Journal link should be replaced with internal link to Panzer IV.  Done 2) The aforementioned article serves as a source for the competition section about a Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig vehicle; however I failed to find any mention of that Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig vehicle in the article. Unless I missed something, the footnote should be removed.  Done 3) If possible, try to locate better sources than anonymous web pages (I understand that it may not be trivial). May be sources listed in the fortunecity article ?
        • They are already in the article, but this provides them in a concise form.
  • Type: Prototype self-propelled gun or self-propelled Howitzer and Artillery (with three footnotes) - seems unnecessary long and confusing. IMHO Self-propelled howitzer would be enough.
    •  Done
      • I still don't see why both howitzer and artillery are mentioned, After all, every howitzer is an artillery piece.
        • Pardon? It is not like that now. At least I think it is...
  • I am not sure, but may be it would be better to move the armor layout to separate table?
    • It was, but it was mentioned that that would just be to "tabley", so it was moved to the infobox.
      • OK, ignore my remark.
  • As mentioned above, the article is rather short. Perhaps more info can be added about development history or more technical info?
    •  Doing...
  • It would be nice to have walkaround photos of the vehicle. And may be some historical photos too. I understand that I probably ask for too much, so please ignore this remark... unless you happen to have these photos...
    •  Done
  • I think that the leading section is supposed to be a short overview of the important points of the article; any information that appears only in the leading section should be duplicated somewhere below.
    • Like what information?
  • I was somewhat confused by the sentence Design lasted from May 1943 to May 1944 and had reached the production stage. The dates seem to be in conflict with the developed by Krupp-Gruson in 1942 to 1943; production stage (I think) typically means that the vehicle entered mass production which this one didn't.
    •  Done I think.
  • Of course my understanding of A-class criteria may be poor, my remarks may be too pedantic, my suggestions may be downright wrong et cetera. Just to give a few examples of good articles on similar topics, I personally like Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger and SU-152. The first one IMHO would easily pass an A-class review, the other two lack footnotes but otherwise seem OK.
• Object I have to say that the Fortune City website does not meet RS and I also suspect that the George Parada website "Achtung Panzer" also appears to be an enthusiast's hobby site. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Then a lot of articles should have the "Achtung Panzer" references removed. Dreamafter ^\*/ 19:54, 28 December 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 discussion.

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.

Heuschrecke 10

I have nominated this article, because I believe that it is as good as it can get, and I know that all of you may scream "longer!", but I have looked for more information than is contained, and I could not find any. I also believe that this article is of great quality. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 02:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Clue - look further than the Internet, and I'm sure you'll find a great deal more on this vehicle. Certainly the article would be improved with dead-tree references. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You'll find a bit more information in Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World war Two Chamberlain/Doyle/Jentz.

Should the official/technical designation for this tank 10.5cm leFH18/1 L/28 auf Waffenträger GW IVb be in the lead somewhere?

An odd feature of the tank was that the lifting gantry for the turret was on the tank itself which you can see in the picture in the infobox. You need to mention this. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all that has been mentioned, so I will withdraw this, and get a peer review first. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 21:29, 11 December 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 discussion.

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 Baia

Another important battle of Moldavian Prince Stephen the Great. I would say it easily meets all criteria for A-class. --Eurocopter tigre 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment. I have left some comments on the Talk:Battle of Baia. Summary: Some copyedit issues and POV bias/weasel words. Woodym555 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Improvements have been made per Woodym's comments. --Eurocopter tigre 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Support now as long as the issues on your talk page are dealt with. I have given it a thorough copyedit to remove the "narrative". I also fixed the refs and the infobox. Good work overall. Meets A-Class. Might need another copyedit before FA though. Woodym555 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, I checked all the links and the Chilia link has been changed to Kilia, Ukraine. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, I'm afraid. My specific concerns are the lead, notes and references, and foreign language sourcing.

1. The lead is rather short, see WP:LEAD. It should summarise the rest of the article. I'd expect it to be between two and four paragraphs.
2. Notes and References is a much bigger problem, see WP:CITE. References should refer to a specific publication or a specific website, with sufficient detail to identify it. Every note should cross-refer to a reference (most people use Author's surname, plus page number of the book). So for example, when citing: Iorga, Nicolae. Istoria lui Ştefan cel Mare 1904 (new edition 1966), Bucharest. simply have <ref>Iorga, p 94</ref>. This makes it much easier to tie the notes to the publication/website. Citing Miechowski, Maciej. Chronica Polonorum. is not helpful unless it links to the specific page. You should really have retrieval dates. See Second Ostend Raid and Victoria Cross (Canada) for good examples of book and web citing. If you want to be really neat, you can wikilink them like here Battle of the Gebora so that the Ref is highlighted when you click on the Cite.
3. Language issues, see WP:RSUE. I'd like to see more English language sources. Otherwise, at least the key points needs to cite the original language text for comparison.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding your last point, per WP:RSUE,English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality - i'm afraid in this case we don't have any english source of equal quality available. As for the rest of the points, I will try to fix them on Friday, because my time doesn't permit to do this sooner. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely, entirely understood. But as I mentioned above WP:RSUE does explain what to do when you translate text yourself and you don't follow that procedure here :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the refs and reformatted the lead in two paragraphs (however, I didn't changed many things, as I think the current lead covers the article quite well). --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• [Chuckle] I had slightly more extensive revision in mind :) The lead is supposed to summarise the article. Perhaps mention the affair had been simmering for a hunded years? The chevauchées and sieges that preceded the battle? Something about the politics? The lead should be summarising the goodies that follow.

• You haven't quite fixed the refs and you do need to because WP:V is policy not a guideline. As an example, Długosz is normally listed as a ref like this (note change of spelling of author's name to correspond to actual English book title):

Dlugosz, Jan The Annals of Jan Dlugosz: A History of Eastern Europe from A.D. 965 to A.D. 1480 (trans. Michael, Maurice) IM Publications LLP, Chichester 1997 ISBN: 1901019004

You might consider using {{cite book}} for the paper sources and {{cite web}} for the internet ones. For web sources, you need a link pointing to the specific page, plus a retrieval date. At the moment, you just lump them together with a link to an index. Some footnotes (EPITOME RERUM HUNGARICARUM; Ioannes de Thurocz - CHRONICA HUNGARORUM) don't have corresponding sources. One of the footnotes (Moldavian-German Chronicle, The) isn't mentioned as a source though it is on the website index as Cronica moldo-germană. All this needs linking together.

• You do need to address the issue of the non-English sources as it is WP policy not a guideline, I'm afraid. WP:RSUE explains it. You don't need to include the text in full, just key bits.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:30, 7 December 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 discussion.

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.

C-5 Galaxy

A good article on the one of the largest US military transport plane. It would be nice for WPMILHIST to have some more A/FA class aircraft articles. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The first paragraph in "Development" states that the U.S. Army directed the development of the C-5. Was it really them and not the U.S. Air Force? Cla68 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Army provided the main requirements (cargo). The wording probably gives the Army too much prominence. I wrote the first 2-3 paragraphs of the Deve section with the best info I had at the time & referenced it. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the lead is far too short, large parts of the article (especially in the middle of Development, the first paragraph of Operational history, etc.) are totally unreferenced, the article is far too reliant on lists (bulleted or non-bulleted) rather than prose, the references aren't consistently formatted, and the article doesn't flow (possibly as a result of having far too much information presented in list form compared to prose). I don't this article is ready yet. Daniel 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Design section is the main list thing and really shouldn't be. The Incidents and accidents section is done in list form for most of the Aviation project. No changing that part. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, article needs to be referenced better to make it a solid B-class. It really needs more history info after the early years. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose under much the same reasoning as Daniel. The development section is far too listy. The single sentence paragraphs are unneccessary, try merging them, and then referencing them. The quotes and figures should be refenced. The features section could be turned into prose. It doesn't seem A-Class yet. Woodym555 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Daniel. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:33, 30 November 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 discussion.

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.

Gheorghe Tătărescu

This article is an A-class on WP:Biography. As Tătărescu was mostly a political figure, I think it's notable for the MilHist project because he served as a Minister of War in 1934. He also had a very important activity during WWII, especially fighting with the Iron Guard. --Eurocopter tigre 12:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• In all honesty, I'm not sure that he's really in-scope for us. Did he do anything substantial as Minister of War? Otherwise, he seems like a regular politician that happened to be active during a war, but had no direct involvement in military affairs; and we've traditionally considered such people to be outside our purview. Kirill 13:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I will take a look in a minute, but you should know that i'm not the person who assessed it as a WPMILHIST article. --Eurocopter tigre 13:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, I know. You'd probably be the best person to decide whether he had any real military involvement, though, as you're probably more knowledgeable about the topic than the rest of us. :-) Kirill 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Would the fact that he is the one who accepted the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (a military action) + his activity during the war be significant for us? --Eurocopter tigre 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Mmm, not quite sure. Did he have some particular role (other than being Prime Minister at the time and voting to accept the occupation) in the events? If not, I'd be hesitant to include him based on that alone; it'd be a bit like including a member of Congress only because he voted to declare war on Japan, for example. Kirill 15:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, but as a prime minister during the war, I think you are still very involved in it. Just think at Churchill, etc. Sincerelly, I don't really know what to say, so I'll let you decide if this article is notable for WPMILHIST or not. --Eurocopter tigre 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's true to a certain; but Churchill was a pretty hands-on PM as regards to military planning, and it's not clear from the article whether Tătărescu played a significant role in military decision-making. I'd lean towards considering him outside of our scope. I may be being too strict, though, I'll leave a note for the other coordinators to drop by here so that we can get some other opinions before doing anything. Kirill 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he might had significant role behind the scene, as a prime minister, for example negotiating with the weapons providers and similar things. But, let's see what the other people say. --Eurocopter tigre 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myslef, I tend to view any position held at or above the rank or General/Admrial to be within our scope even if the person exercised little if any authority in the position, or will mark an article as within our scope if WPBIO has already marked the article as being within the scope of their war task force. In this case: If he was war minister for a while I would be incline to conclude that he falls within our projects scope,a lthough I could firm this up a little more if the article on the romanian war ministry was more detailed - In particular, I would like to know how the ministry chooses its head and what powers the head exercises. The same issues apply to other articles as well; since the U.S. constitution stipulates that the President is to the Command and Chief of the army and the Navy all past and future presidents could be construed to fall within our scope. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's a reasonable approach. In this case, though, it's not quite clear from the what his role as Minister of War entailed. He is listed as holding that position in 1934, but became leader of the cabinet (and presumably Prime Minister?) in January of that year. I'm wondering whether the position was one he held only during the five-day period under Constantin Anghelescu, in which case it seems too trivial to warrant including him unless he actually did something significant in those five days. Kirill 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: Thats the problem here; we don't know what being the war minister here entails. It could also be a sign that the article isn't ready for A-class review yet; if we have to deabte the merits of this rather than read and comment than I dare say perhaps more content is needed in the article to clarify the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I took a read-through. I tend to agree with Kirill that inclusion in WPMILHIST at this point is primarily by association (cabinet position) rather than by anything discussed in the article in any detail. For the article to squarely fall under military history, to TomStar81's point, I think it needs a good more detail substantiating Tătărescu's specific involvements with the military or his effect on military actions. The current focus is pretty much all on politics and foreign policy. PētersV

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.

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.

Soviet occupation of Romania

An excellent article made on a quite sensitive and controversial topic. There were some discussions in the past regarding its neutrality, but the problems are finnaly solved and this article can become an A-class in my opinion. --Eurocopter tigre 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Short, stubby (in comparison to the necessities of such a topic), incompletely referenced, unformatted, and far from comprehensive. Several texts cited as references are not actually cited in the text (at all!). Several MoS issues (such as the use of "recently", such as the POV wordplay on people's names - the old Nicolschi issue, such as not citing direct quotes, such as using a bulleted list instead of formatted text). The article, right or wrong, is subject to a dispute, which means that it is not stable content. It may get there eventually, but at this stage it has serious problems. Dahn 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know about you other opinions, but "short and stubby"!?... It has 3000 words, and refers to a bunch of {{main}} articles, Romania during World War II and King Michael Coup, Paris Peace Treaties, 1947, Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II, Securitate, SovRoms... It is a WP:SS article...--victor falk 14:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. There is much more to be said for this article to be A-class. Note for example that there is disproportionate coverage of the first years, while I fail to note any in-depth discussion about how the occupation ended. It is, at the moment, a lead section and an array of summaries. The literature surrounding this topic is immense, and I think that it would be quite tactless for this project to endorse an article that does not at least look into what some of the seminal works on this subject have to say (I'm saying this as an editor who has contributed much to related articles, including one cited as a main article in one of the sections). This, of course, should be taken together with the other points I made. I would like to point out that what I presented were not just "my opinions", but factual problems, including vague and incomplete references and the fact that references are not cited in the text.

The article still needs a lot of work in order to become a B-class. I have to congratulate some of the contributors for the work they have done so far, but I'm sure they all know that there is still a lot to be done. Dahn 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article needs more citations, some sections don't have any. Also, there are a lot of one paragraph sections that need to either be combined or expanded. Furthermore, there's no "aftermath" section or something like that to explain what happened after the Soviet occupation ended and its legacy or influence on the future of the country. A great start on the article but not quite there yet. Cla68 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Given the article size in the absence of the Notes section and everything below it I would say that you have enough citations at the moment to meet A-class standards; although I would like to see more included in the long run the amount you currently have shows that some effort has been put into this article to source this information. None the less, I do have some suggestions for improvement:
  • The article has a lot small sections that sometimes seem to have no immediate conclusion. Admitedly there are links to larger articles, but a breif summary should include the important details of the event, and I presume that since this one deals with people displacement (from the war in general and sides in particular) there is probably something to say about what happened to them after the displacement.
  • There is no explination of what the armistice treaty was.
  • The estimated forces in Romania table looks rather out of place in its current form; is there is a way to line the text around the table like an image, or maybe create a pictorial graph to represent the information? (This is merely a question; If these two options are not viable, then I will not hold this against the article and will reassess my stance on the article taking that fact into account).
  • I see no citations for the 25th hour in the pop culture section; could you provide one or two?
  • Some of the links in the see also section are already linked in the article body. If that be the case then the links already covered in the article should be removed from the see also section.
  • Would it be possible to add additional pictures to the article? I see only two images, and those are very near the top.
  • Why isn't the line Soviet Occupation of Romania bolded in the first sentence? Ordinarily people do the bolding right off the bat rather than wait to last paragraph to introduce the bold text. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:45, 9 November 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 discussion.

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.

Military history of Gibraltar during World War II

This article previously failed an A-class review (see here) owing to lack of broadness in subject and some need of copyediting. This should all have been dealt with now, at least that's what I would say! -- Chris B • talk 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I think the biggest remaining problem is defining a few of the terms that pop up. North Front, 'The Rock', and a few other slang terms need to have definitions attached with their first use so we know what's being talked about. I can understand them through context, but readers who know nothing about Gibraltar may not be able to understand them. JKBrooks85 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've added a note to "North Front", and if I'm not mistaken "the Rock" is defined somewhere in the lede. Can you spot any others? You see, it's fairly hard for me to identify colloquialisms because I am used to hearing them! Nevertheless, I must bear in mind that someone who doesn't would have no idea where on earth "North Front" is. -- Chris B • talk 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Personally, I found the article a bit disjointed and somewhat hard to follow. I think it'd be best, if possible, if the main headings could reflect the main phases of the war experience of Gibraltar. Oberiko 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it any better now? Or have I made it worse?! I've rearranged some sections to complete the chronology and renamed various headings. -- Chris B • talk 16:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you could move the Italian frogman section to just after the German invasion plans? I think you'd have to reduce the size of the the table of attacks in order to prevent it from overwhelming the page, otherwise I'd have done the move myself. Any ideas on how you could rework it so that it wouldn't take up so much space? If so, I'd recommend putting that section right after the German attacks, thus having the article end with the return of the refugees to Gibraltar. JKBrooks85 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Fist off I will say that the whole article seems very poorly written, it is almost like a random assortment of information was called togather to form something a little more deatailed than a list and brought up to higher standards by the addition of citations without any real sense of what it should be. I have seen several sentence stubs across the section that need more information to be sentences in their own right or removed to allow the real sentences a chance to grow. Much of the article also seems to assume that we the readers are familar with the location and its general history (which I am not), and has no real sense of orginization or hierachy; the section header system in place is very abstract and (IMO) provides no insight for the readers on what info can be found there. Many areas look like they would do better combined with or spun off into other articles here. Put simply, your article here has a lot of content, but very little context.
  • The image of the two guys under the section "prelude" ID both men but doesn't saw which one is which; if you could work that into the caption, that would be awesome.
  • The section on the RAF invovement jumps straight to them being on Gibralter, without going into what lead them to be on gibralter in the first place; not that we need a new subsection or anything, but a few words about why the RAF deemed Gibralter important would be nice.
  • The first line in the section "Operation Felix" mentions "the war", but doesn't specify which war; could you be more specific?
  • The first section under the heading german plans has a capitalized "Operation", but no code name; if you don't have a codename then this should be turned to lower case.
  • The section on Operation Tracer seems to be out of place, like it would do better as its own article with just a few lines here; additionallly, the section was very confusing to me, I had a hard time following it and making sense of it.
  • Your notes and citation sections could prabably be combined, they seem to be doing the same job.
  • Combine like citations in the citation section. Case in point: #10, #11, and #12 are cited to the same source. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 23 September 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.

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 Dak To

Have made major modifications to this B-Class article. Hope it meets the criteria. RM Gillespie 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• The article is very complete and does a great job of covering the battle, but because it's so complete, the sections seem a bit long. I'd suggest adding subheads in each of the major sections to help break it down and make it a bit more accessible to the casual reader.
• The conclusion does a great job of building up to the siege of Khe Sanh, but according to the Vietnam War infobox, Dak To and Khe Sanh are separated by the Tet Offensive. Maybe you could have the article lead into Tet rather than the siege? This isn't my area of expertise, but the way the article is written implies that Dak To was leading up to a major offensive, of which Tet certainly was.

— JKBrooks85 17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I find a few issues with the article:
  • The North Vietnamese (NVA) are referred to at least once in the article as the "enemy". Even though there may not be much info on the North Vietnamese side of the events in this article, we have to make sure to keep a NPOV tone in the entry as much as possible.
  • The "belt-grabbing" technique used by the NVA isn't explained. What is it?
  • There should be at least one citation in every paragraph.

Cla68 20:40, 10 September 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.

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.

Sino-Indian War

Previous review

I nominate this article for traing and hope to have gathered enough knowledgeable reviewers this time. Wandalstouring 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I think it easily meets the requirements and could even be promoted to FA in the near future. --Eurocopter tigre 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Very thorough, complete, and well-cited article on the subject. My only nitpick is that the phrase "Asian giants" in the infobox photo caption isn't very encyclopedic. JKBrooks85
• Support with reservations Whilst i agree that there are many citations in this article, most of them are not cited correctly or indeed consisently. Recent experience at FA shows me that all citations need a Retrieved date. Many of the notes link to external websites simply with a numbered link. e.g Refs 71, 72, 73, 74. As an example, ref#75 is not very explanatory. I am not saying that they need to use Wikipedia:Citation templates, simply that the link explains who and where it is from. Personally, i like the citation templates as they provide all the information that you need to know. Also several of the notes seem to be empty e.g. refs 30, 48, 51.

This article relies heavily on a few sources. In places it is overcited. Getting the ref name upto cu is some sort of record. In some paragraphs every sentence is referenced, but with the same reference. The convention at FA seems to be to have duplicated references at the end of the paragraph or statement. Whilst i understand that controversial statements in paragraphs should be cited, i think this article takes it a bit far. With the references as they are, it would not pass FA, but i do think it is worthy of A-Class.

It is also very long, 101kb to be precise. (It is #583 on the long article list). It could be broken down a bit more or WP:SUMMARY style could be more rigidly enforced. Saying that, i can't see many areas where the text can be broken down. Again, a possible problem at FA. Woodym555 14:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I see to many problems with the article:
  • The article seems a little long, is there any way to reduce the size without compromising the material?
  • In the second paragraph of the section "The Johson line" is the sentence "China rejected the arrangement, and the British government also harboured doubts, so decided to take up the issue in an attempt to reach a settlement."; however you don;t say who decided to take up the issue.
  • Remember that unless you are using a quote in its entirety you should use three dotes to denote where the quote coems from in relation to the other written material; "...(quote)." or "(quote)...". Case in point: "except through the intermediary of the Chinese government" in the section "The McMohan Line" (the "excpet" leads me to believe its part of a larger quote)
  • Check for consistancey with citation, I see some after periods and commas and some before periods and commas.
  • Toward the end of the Tibet OCntrovery section you the line "Other authors including Roderik McFarquhar also state that the most immediate threat to China was from Taiwan and as such.", but the line has no source and seems out of place. I would suggest removing it or sourceing it and expanding on it.
  • Try not to use the word however, other words like but, and, or, etc work equally as well.
  • There is no citation for the quote in the Ceasefire section
  • Check to make sure no sentences start with numerical quantites (like 1, 2, 3, etc); these numbers hbould be spelled out.
  • There is some inconsistancy in date formatting; make sure the daes are one style and linked whenever possible.
  • There is, as noted above, inconsistancy in the notes section with regard to formatting; this should be fixed. SandyGeorgia may be willing to help if you ask her nicely. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 4 September 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.

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.

Horses in warfare

It developed quite well from an unreadable rubbish. Although this was not my merit, I want to push it further to A class. Wandalstouring 11:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — Broken photo at the end; Slovenian horses. JKBrooks85 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

• The WP:LEAD should be an adequate summary of the article. I think the lead should be expanded.
• References for the second paragraph of Light weight-horses. e.g. Palfrey needs a reference.
• References for the statistics of the Middle weight horses. I know they that the sentence is quite subjective, but it still needs a reference.
• References in general. There are several citation needed tags. It is better to be over-referenced than have a lack of references.
• WP:DASH need, – or – in between dates.
• In the 20th Century section, in firefox, the image on the left overlaps the title. (Internet explorer is ok as is yahoo browser). The WP:MOS#Images recommends that images should be staggered. As it is it compresses the text. Think about removing 1 or two to stop the page being compressed.

Apart from that, the wikilinks are relevant, the prose is good and the text is comprehensive. Well done so far. Woodym555 13:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - In my opinion this article is quite much unreferenced. There are entire subsections such as "Warfare in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period" and "Reconnaissance and patrol" which are completely unreferenced. Also, in "Equestrian competition" subsection, three of the four main paragraphs are lacking citations. I think it won't meet even the GA requirements. --Eurocopter tigre 12:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The GA citation requirement have just been releaxed after a long discussion on WP:WIAGA. Even so, as per Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines whole paragraphs do not have to be cited as long as there is nothing deemed to be contentious. Whilst i agree with you that it needs more citations in places, i don't think that every paragraph always has to have a citation. Woodym555 12:56, 2 September 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.

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.

Military history of Gibraltar during World War II

Currently a well-cited GA, aiming for Featured Article status in the near future, yet I feel it would benefit with an A-class review first. Cheers, Chris.B 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I like the structure of the article, but feel that it really needs to be copyedited and have the lede rewritten before approval. In particular, I'd suggest including a bit on what happened to Gibraltar once the war passed it by. I'll do a bit of copyediting when I've got time. JKBrooks85 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks for your suggestions. The lead section has posed more problems than anything else so far, although your latest copyedit seems to have really made a difference, so thank you for that. I will try to take up on some further copyediting. -- Chris.B 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I took care of the lede, but I'd suggest looking through the rest of the article. I think the flow from section to section needs to be improved, and I'd suggest eliminating a few of the redundant footnotes if possible — you've got a lot of [20] footnotes right in a row. JKBrooks85 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JKBrooks85. It's almost there, but I have a few observations: The wording in some places is sort of jerky, the flow is not quite A-class. Oftentimes small edits to individual sentences create this effect; where a paragraph originally was written by one editor and flowed together nicely you find well-written sentences that don't quite fit with the rest of the paragraph for whatever reason. The article does not mention specifically that Gibraltar is the only passage in and out of the Mediterranean besides the Suez Canal, so the strategic importance is downplayed somewhat. The article on Gibraltar itself mentions this, however, so perhaps that is unnecessary. Also, were there any notable air raids or attacks on the Rock that deserve a specific mention (besides planned attacks that didn't pan out)? The picture of the Italian air-raid is out of place in the section it's in, and would fit better in a place where the attacks (if any) were described. I love the picture at the top, though... it's totally badass...And the article is incredibly well-cited, I daresay overly cited(?). I can try to help with some edits, but I've been known to step on people's toes sometimes. I'd say we're 50 good edits or so away from A-class status in my book. Oh and one other thing...there's too very relevant and good quotations in the article (by Hitler and Clifford) but they use two different templates. Is that because one was a direcr quotation and one was the text of a directive? or could they both be treated as quotes? Antimatter--talk-- 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Great feedback guys. I'm going to [slightly] cut down on the redundant footnotes and take up on your other suggestions. As far as I am concerned there weren't any major air-raids, or anything specifically worth mentioning; so the Italian magazine cover is largely propaganda. It is a bit out of place, but I don't know where to put it - I will see if I can find somewhere more appropriate. Hitler's quote is a direct excerpt from the directive whereas the other is a simple quotation. And I known that there is a much better image for the top of the article illustrating the entire Rock and searchlights, I will see if I can get my hands on it. -- Chris.B 10:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've swapped the top image with another and I've changed the introductory sentence; let me know what you think. -- Chris.B 10:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe the article should be organized differently. I would suggest a more chronological lay-out, beginning with a "Background" that gives a brief history of Gibraltar and its preparations for WWII, then goes into the different events in chronological order such as the evacuations of civilians and attacks on the rock. An "aftermath" section should explain Gibraltar's role as a rear-area port and supply base for the remainder of the war and what role it had, if any, with immediate post-war events such as the repatriation of POWs, rebuilding efforts, etc. The intro mentions attacks on the base by Vichy French and Italian frogmen, but I didn't see any mention of these attacks in the main body of the article. The article has good information but doesn't seem complete yet. Cla68 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I totally agree w/ Cla68 re Vichy attacks. For the layout i believe that would need some simple reshuffle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, everything seems to be in chronological order now. The thing is that Gibraltar was scarcely attacked in WWII, there were only the odd frogmen attacks and air raids which failed half the time. There weren't any major damages in Gib (I daresay any noteworthy damages). Gibraltar revolved around the evacuation, the military garrison and Operation Torch, hence the more exhaustive account of this in the article as you can tell. I will try to find a source about the air raids nonetheless. -- Chris.B 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good edits...I like the new picture and chronological layout. This article would still benefit from some minor copyediting...I'm not quite ready to give my full support yet, but we're close to the criteriaAntimatter--talk-- 23:31, 23 August 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.

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.

Byzantine-Ottoman wars

I believe it is well sourced, well-written, with no edit warring. It is an article describing one of the most decisive events in history and its content is broad enough, in my opinion, to begin upgrading its status. I believe that it has the potential, perhaps with a few more edits, of becoming an FA. Tourskin 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose writing style is unencyclopedic and there are grammatical errors. Wandalstouring 14:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Wandalstouring. There are several grammatical errors in the article and it does not flow like an encyclopedia article should. I quote:

After these defeats, Andronicus was in no position to send many troops. In 1320, Andronicus II's grandson, Andronicus III was disinherited following the death of Andronicus II's son.[22] In 1321, Andronicus III retaliated by marching on Constantinople; he was given Thrace as an appanage. However, Andronicus III continued to press for his inheritance and in 1322 was made co-emperor. This culminated into a small scale Balkan war in which Serbia backed Andronicus II and the Bulgarians backed his grandson, Andronicus III. Eventually Andronicus III emerged triumphant on May 23 1328. As Andronicus III consolidated his hold on Byzantium, the Ottomans succeeded in taking Brusa from the Byzantines in 1326.[23] thus beginning what would turn out to be a series of successful sieges The last sentence isn't a sentence, punctuation needs sorted. The dates need to be formatted using the guidelines at WP:DATE particularly under Autoformatting and linking. This paragraph seems like a list at the moment and it is just an example. I think it needs a thorough copyedit before it becomes an A-Class article. Woodym555 22:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose A little more should get it there. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:53, 16 August 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.

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 Panipat (1761)

I have started working on this article recently, but it needs a good look at, to get it up to scratch. Any input would be appreciated! --Zak 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question I think you might want to try a Peer review first. From what you have said, i think you want some editorial input on how best to improve the article. This is best achieved through a Peer Review. A-Class review is a formal assessment procedure against the A-Class criteria. I can put it up for peer review if you want or give you instructions on how to do it. Any questions, do ask on the main project talk page or on my own talk page Woodym555 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A few pointers: There do seem to be large areas of text without wikilinks. This is not a good or a bad thing, although i do think any notable thing should be wikilinked to provide context to the article. Use Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) as a reference. Most of the middle sections have no references or inline citations at all. Also, the number of soldiers involved and the associated casualties need referenced. I note that there has been some debate on the talk page with regards to these; a verifiable reference would help clear this up and and would remove the citation needed tag in the lead.Woodym555 21:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A few things to consider: the lead is very short and should be expanded to fully summarize the article (see here for more details), and there is a great deal of uncited information. Also, the long block quotes at the beginning of each section seem to break up the flow of the page (in terms of both appearance and coherence). Carom 21:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have written a lead for the article now. When i did so i added some example edits in. The summary of the problems is listed below.

• The battle section needs to be cleared up completely. It is currently fragmented and not very clear. It is quite hard to follow and there are several small paragraphs that could be merged.
• I think NPOV is still a minor issue. I think the section header Rout and Massacre is indicative of the problem, i think it should be renamed to Aftermath. I removed some weasel words but there may still be some in the article.

Minor problems with WP:MOS

• I have written a lead, it may need updating though, some information may be incorrect.
• Needs correct citation templates, have done some example ones. See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates for more details.
• It needs some "En dashes" as per WP:DASH
• Other general clearup from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers); times need to be in 24hour clock, i.e 14:00, not 2pm. The dates should be 7 October 1760 or and not the "7th of October 1760" as per WP:DATE.

I think it needs a thorough copyedit and refinement before becoming and A-Class Article. Woodym555 14:05, 11 August 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.

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.

Romanian Land Forces

Significant changes had been made since the last A-class review. Mission, Beginnings and Post-communist era sections had been added (these sections were missing at the time of the first review). I would like to see if there is anything else to be done for this article to become an A-class article. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 09:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have to remain skeptical about this one. There remains very little information about the RLF during the Cold War: its war plans, level of Sov control, order of battle, etc. There is no detailed discussion of the way the RLF structure evolved in 89 onwards also. There is good material available within the Library of Congress country study on this, but it is not included. Cold War International History Project [18] and [19] also has useful info. Eurocopter, if you still can't find any Cold War OOB info after having another look, contact me; I've got some stuff, and user:W. B. Wilson has a book by Keegan which will give another good mid-Cold War picture. Buckshot06 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — I, too, would like to see this article expanded before approval. You've got a great start, well-defined sections and superb organization, graphics, and pictures, but in terms of basic content, it's really lacking. The pre-WWI section in particular, needs quite a bit of work, I feel. A few short paragraphs for seventy years of history doesn't do the subject justice. Buckshot addressed the same issue with other sections as well. JKBrooks85 20:18, 9 August 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.

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) 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ironclad warship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Ironclad warship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Ironclad warship

• Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1

Nominating this for A-class reassessment because of concerns still not addressed from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1. Way too much uncited text. Schierbecker (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose byDelist - Gog the Mild

• You are correct, way too much uncited text, so didn't need to look any further before opposing. I think this needs to be at PR, preferably after the uncited text has been either cited or removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: - just wanting to make sure you are aware this is one in a series of delisting nominations, not an actual a-class nomination to oppose. Hog Farm _Talk 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha, no, thanks; I missed the "reassessment". I shall have a more detailed look, but it is still up for delisting unless someone has access to sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have read through it properly and could add quite a bit, but I see no need to - it is clearly a long way from A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist - Pickersgill-Cunliffe

MilHistBot went through and re-assessed this as c-class last week and I am in agreement with the venerable bot. Per Gog, one need go no further than the twenty-eight(!) citation needed tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist - HF

Besides the uncited text, a statement that I flagged as dubious during the 2022 FAR is still present. This needs major work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 March 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.

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.

Romanian Land Forces

Significant changes had been made since the last A-class review. Mission, Beginnings and Post-communist era sections had been added (these sections were missing at the time of the first review). I would like to see if there is anything else to be done for this article to become an A-class article. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 09:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have to remain skeptical about this one. There remains very little information about the RLF during the Cold War: its war plans, level of Sov control, order of battle, etc. There is no detailed discussion of the way the RLF structure evolved in 89 onwards also. There is good material available within the Library of Congress country study on this, but it is not included. Cold War International History Project [20] and [21] also has useful info. Eurocopter, if you still can't find any Cold War OOB info after having another look, contact me; I've got some stuff, and user:W. B. Wilson has a book by Keegan which will give another good mid-Cold War picture. Buckshot06 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — I, too, would like to see this article expanded before approval. You've got a great start, well-defined sections and superb organization, graphics, and pictures, but in terms of basic content, it's really lacking. The pre-WWI section in particular, needs quite a bit of work, I feel. A few short paragraphs for seventy years of history doesn't do the subject justice. Buckshot addressed the same issue with other sections as well. JKBrooks85 20:18, 9 August 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.

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.

Cannon

The main article for the cannon article series, presently of GA status. It was initially deemed not thoroughly cited enough in its prior nomination here, and although the problems were fixed, the review expired. It should be sufficiently improved now. --Grimhelm 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. Is the development of rifling part of the history of cannons? Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see this discussed in the article. Cla68 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added it to the See also section, as I think it is more within the scope of Cannon operation or perhaps History of cannon than the main article. --Grimhelm 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think more of the technological development of cannon, such as the introduction of rifling, should be in the body. Cla68 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support, as I did before, although I still believe that the "see also" section should be abandoned, and the relevant links incorporated into the body of the article. Carom 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The article is sufficent but I agree with Carom that the See Also section should be removed. Kyriakos 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. There are many things I did like. Please forgive me on concentrationg on things I did not like, and feel free to disagree. As I see it, every subsection in the "history" section of the article should give a (relatively short) explanation of important technical developments and of a role - with an emphasis on changes in a role - of cannon in the specific era and/or region, while the separate "History of cannon" article provides - or will eventually provide - more detils. Some subsections, however, are far from being good overviews - sometimes a bit too detailed, often missing key points, sometimes too "chaotic". I like the "early" and "medieval europe" (although, the article lets the reader to conclude that cannons played a significant role at Crecy, which is questionable at least). However, the "post-medieval" and the "18-19 century" IMHO concentrate too heavily on siege warfare and on naval artillery respectively. Both seem to ignore field artillery, which started to play a major role in post-medieval campaigns and by 19th century developed into a key factor on battlefield. As already mentioned by Cla68, the "18-19"" ignores important techical developments such as rifling, breech loading (and possibly recoil systems, also one can say that it should belong to the "modern" section). As for the "modern"... may be I am wrong, but I think it needs a major rewriting. Again, key technical developments (recoil systems if not mentioned earlier, possibly split trail carriage, possibly mortars, certainly SP artillery etc, possibly introduction of lots of new ammunition types) and change in battlefield roles (such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft warfare) are missing or almost missing. Moreover, the section simply looks confusing to me, as it seems to run back and forth between different periods, types of weapons etc without following any order. Since there were so many relevant developments in the modern era, perhaps that subsection should be split ? Again, may be I'm wrong or just too pedantic. I do understand that the task is quite ambitious and that a lot of effort had been put in the article. And I did like many parts of the article. And, being an inexperienced reviewer, I don't claim that the article is not good enough for A class. However, as a pedant with some interest in artillery, I have to say that IMHO it still needs a lot of work before I will be able to say to somebody who asks me what cannon is - go read the wikipedia article. Bukvoed 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have removed the see also section, and added a few paragraphs on field artillery. As for Crécy, medieval cannon had more of a psychological impact (which would be useful against an army three times your size), and it was a new experience for infantry unused to gunpowder warfare. --Grimhelm 09:57, 12 July 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.

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 the Plains of Abraham

Previous nomination here.

As this article has been relatively stable for quite some time now, I'd like to bring it forward for another review towards A-Class and, eventually Featured status. The previous review brought forward some concerns regarding balance, quality of sourcing and wording; I found a number of good new resources to flesh things out, replaced some of the questioned sources, reworded, and added some more information where I could. I think the results have turned out fairly well, and would like to hear the views of project members once again. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. I hope though, that you'll continue looking for or draw your own map of the battle that could be added to the article. Cla68 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I do need to try and track a PD map down; I'll poke around and see what I can find. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• And why I didn't check the Commons before now, I'll never know. Article now includes a map - it's a somewhat general view of the area, but at least helps illustrate the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, with a few minor changes. I made a little typo correction already, as that was something I could easily correct. I would like a little more clarification however on the following point, the lead states that the battle involved fewer than 10,000 troops. However, down under "First engagements", it's stated that Montcalm had 13,390 troops and militia available while the British had 3,300. Later in the section though it goes on to say that Montcalm attacked with only 3,500 troops. So, it appears that 6,800 troops participated in the first engagement. The number of artillery and naval personnel involved are unstated, whether they wer included in the numbers or in addition to them. I don't know if that information is available or not, without drawing conclusions, so I'll leave that to you, but a little clarification on the numbers involved might be good, if it's available. wbfergus 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quite right, and thank you for spotting that. I added to one sentence to clarify that the French troops involved in the main battle were those in or close by the city, and that Montcalm felt he couldn't wait to bring the others in from further east. I hope that clears it up a little! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The article has definately improved and deserves A-class. Kyriakos 08:33, 28 August 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.

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.

Sino-Indian War

Previous review

I nominate this article for traing and hope to have gathered enough knowledgeable reviewers this time. Wandalstouring 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I think it easily meets the requirements and could even be promoted to FA in the near future. --Eurocopter tigre 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Very thorough, complete, and well-cited article on the subject. My only nitpick is that the phrase "Asian giants" in the infobox photo caption isn't very encyclopedic. JKBrooks85
• Support with reservations Whilst i agree that there are many citations in this article, most of them are not cited correctly or indeed consisently. Recent experience at FA shows me that all citations need a Retrieved date. Many of the notes link to external websites simply with a numbered link. e.g Refs 71, 72, 73, 74. As an example, ref#75 is not very explanatory. I am not saying that they need to use Wikipedia:Citation templates, simply that the link explains who and where it is from. Personally, i like the citation templates as they provide all the information that you need to know. Also several of the notes seem to be empty e.g. refs 30, 48, 51.

This article relies heavily on a few sources. In places it is overcited. Getting the ref name upto cu is some sort of record. In some paragraphs every sentence is referenced, but with the same reference. The convention at FA seems to be to have duplicated references at the end of the paragraph or statement. Whilst i understand that controversial statements in paragraphs should be cited, i think this article takes it a bit far. With the references as they are, it would not pass FA, but i do think it is worthy of A-Class.

It is also very long, 101kb to be precise. (It is #583 on the long article list). It could be broken down a bit more or WP:SUMMARY style could be more rigidly enforced. Saying that, i can't see many areas where the text can be broken down. Again, a possible problem at FA. Woodym555 14:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I see to many problems with the article:
  • The article seems a little long, is there any way to reduce the size without compromising the material?
  • In the second paragraph of the section "The Johson line" is the sentence "China rejected the arrangement, and the British government also harboured doubts, so decided to take up the issue in an attempt to reach a settlement."; however you don;t say who decided to take up the issue.
  • Remember that unless you are using a quote in its entirety you should use three dotes to denote where the quote coems from in relation to the other written material; "...(quote)." or "(quote)...". Case in point: "except through the intermediary of the Chinese government" in the section "The McMohan Line" (the "excpet" leads me to believe its part of a larger quote)
  • Check for consistancey with citation, I see some after periods and commas and some before periods and commas.
  • Toward the end of the Tibet OCntrovery section you the line "Other authors including Roderik McFarquhar also state that the most immediate threat to China was from Taiwan and as such.", but the line has no source and seems out of place. I would suggest removing it or sourceing it and expanding on it.
  • Try not to use the word however, other words like but, and, or, etc work equally as well.
  • There is no citation for the quote in the Ceasefire section
  • Check to make sure no sentences start with numerical quantites (like 1, 2, 3, etc); these numbers hbould be spelled out.
  • There is some inconsistancy in date formatting; make sure the daes are one style and linked whenever possible.
  • There is, as noted above, inconsistancy in the notes section with regard to formatting; this should be fixed. SandyGeorgia may be willing to help if you ask her nicely. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 4 September 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.

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.

First Command Financial Planning, Inc.

A recently written article, am curious as to what changes/improvements might be needed.Balloonman 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment nice article, but I don't want to judge it. It's too alien. Wandalstouring 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support a nice article indeed. Carom 22:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I can't understand the second sentence of the second paragraph in the "History" section. There are a lot of words and phrases throughout the article that are capitalized but don't need to be, such as "Enlisted Personnel," "Board of Advisors," and and the cardinal cornerstones. The quote in the "systematic plans" section isn't formatted correctly as a quote and the last sentence in the section isn't cited. The abbreviation "NASD" is used without being spelled-out until later in the article. I don't think long quotes are supposed to be italicized. I think, perhaps, the article might not be quite ready for A-class review yet, but it's almost there. Cla68 00:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you for some excellent feedback... I'll look at it this weekend/evening and see if I can fix your concerns.Balloonman 14:53, 10 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.

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 Arras (1917)

Renomination. This article was recently added as a Good Article, and I believe that all the concerns raised in the previous A-Class review and the peer review have been resolved by myself or Roger Davies. All comments and concerns welcomed. Carom 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support'. Well written article. Kyriakos 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - a comprehensive and interesting article. My only suggestion is that that the 'Creeping barrage' section needs a citation. --Nick Dowling 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - here's some improvement suggestions from the automated peer review script..

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 yards, use 000 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&nbsp;yards.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Medains 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, although I have a few suggestions. I suggest a few more sentences in the background explaining how the Allied and German armies ended-up facing each other in 1917. I'm somewhat familiar with WWI but I don't know exactly the chain events leading to where those two adversaries found themselves in 1917. Also, there's a lot of one-paragraph sections, although in this case that might be ok since each section is usually on a completely different topic than the preceeding and following sections, but I still think some sections could be combined. Otherwise, I think it meets the criteria. Nice work. CLA 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Leaning towards opposing

• Under the Commanders section it says Falkenhausen was removed from the Third Army. Surely you mean Sixth Army.

There are an awful lot of small sections. Can the Commanders section be merged with the Aftermath?

• In the Political Background an entire paragraph consist of the line: “In Germany, the storm clouds were gathering too.” This is not very informative.

Additionally, the US declared war in 1917, not 1916!

• Three sections are completely unsourced.

What’s the source for the strengths?

• Needs a thorough check for typos and errors. Eg: citations come after punctuation and without spaces:

Additionally, German records excluded those "lightly wounded".[27] Captain Cyril Falls (the British official battle historian) estimated that 30% needed to be added to German returns for comparison with the British". [27] Falls makes "a general estimate" that German casualties were "probably fairly equal". [27] Nicholls puts them at 120,000.[26]; and Keegan at 130,000[28].

Others errors throughout. Raymond Palmer 10:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Various things went wrong whilst I was editing it this morning. I've fixed (most of) what you mention. Commanders was meant to be part of aftermath and now is. 1916 was a typo. Roger 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and done some ref cleanup; it appears your specific objections have been addressed. Carom 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Please check the change I made in the Second Battle of Bullecourt section, and the Battle of Arleux section. I reworded the original sentences that didn’t seem clear (to me at least), and I hoped I haven't changed the history.

In the Commanders section it quotes a Times article on ‘Falkenhausen's reign of terror’. It was common practice for opposing media to vilify the opposition with tales of atrocity, was it not? Is this story verifiable from another source other than the British press?

Nicely done overall IMO. Raymond Palmer 21:59, 6 June 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.

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.

Eiríkr Hákonarson

I make no comment on the content of the article. I came across it while assessing articles and it had A-class status from other WP projects so I wanted to put it through our process to see if it held up.--Looper5920 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The sections on the Battle of Svolder and the Battle of Hjörungavágr are completely uncited, but other than that, it seems like a worthy candidate. If those sections were cited, I would change to support. Carom 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Carom re: the two battle sections. Also the prose could use some minor tweaking and I'll be happy to help with that. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• SupportThere is definitely enough content, and it seems to be well formatted. I support, because the preceding criteria mean alot to me. --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the comments above, the two battle section need cits and I would like to see a bigger lead if possible. Kyriakos 00:00, 14 April 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.

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.

Egyptian Invasion of Mani

This article recently passed as a GA and I would like to see if it can become A-class. If you do oppose the article's nomination could you please write why. Thanks. Kyriakos 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support A little editing to clean up some clunky phrasing wouldn't hurt, though. Carom 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Minor oppose This may be seen as a purely opinion based opposition but the tone of the article seems too dramatic in its portrayal of greek heroism and the value of the battle. Reading the article I didn't feal it as objective as it should be. As well work should be done on further explaining in article the 22 000 men involved in the battle indicated in the infobox. Are the 7 000 men from the initial invasion really different from the 6 000 used in august? Only 2 000 maniots and 500 refugies are mentioned in the article yet 7 500 greek fighters are counted in the infobox. A few points that I find need to be polished.--Dryzen 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have fixed the info box. Kyriakos 21:40, 3 April 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.

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.

World War II

I nominated this article for A-Class because of its great in-depth explanation and good refrencing. --Pupster21 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. This article has the making of a FA bit for the moment I can not support it. Some secions do not have citations which I think is a must for passing the article. I am a little concerned about the lack of a lead but I think the overview section makes up for it. Kyriakos 09:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I kinda agree, the overview needs refrences... Well, they are had, but they need to be footnoted and linked, It is there but not shown. If I knew how to footnote, I would do it my self. --Pupster21 12:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a good article overall, but there are entire sections without any citations at all. A copyedit wouldn't hurt, either. Carom 19:53, 21 March 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.

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 longer meets A-Class criteria at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

Current A-class assessment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War/Archive2.

This article was awarded A-class by a WP:MILHIST review on 28 March 2007 (see above). It went through a few GARs and was kept, but was later delisted as a GA on 28 July 2012 (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/2). Despite this it looks like it kept its A class rating by default. The article would seem to fail our A class criteria on referencing alone as there are quite a few paragraphs without citations. As such I request this be reassessed / demoted. Anotherclown (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote as it stands on, as AC indicates, referencing alone. Formatting-wise, there's also lots of Harv errors to be tidied up. I'd love to see someone rescue the article before next year's sesquicentennial of the end of the war but it doesn't do WP any good to claim it as a MilHist A-Class article in its current state. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote on A1, there are sections with no citations at all. Which is a shame given the importance of the topic. Agree that the number of Harv errors is very ugly, and the See also section is not MOS-compliant. I haven't checked the images, but doesn't even look B-Class in its current state. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote: per nom and others, this doesn't meet the A-class criteria at the moment. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote: I did some copyediting, but it really didn't make a dent. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 30 May 2014 (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 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.

Anthony Eden

Former British Prime Minister. Long, thorough, well-written article. Has earned an A-class from WP:Biography, thought I should nom it to have the assessments match. LordAmeth 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose No citations in the first 2/3 of the article is a little problematic, particularly in the case of assertions such as "the marriage was not a success, and broke up under the strain of Eden's political career." Beyond that, it needs a copyedit - a lot of the phrasing is a tad clunky. Also, the lead is a little on the short side, but that's a minor quibble, really. Carom 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as above Wandalstouring 20:46, 11 March 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.

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.

Japanese castle

I've placed this article through peer review, took action based on the comments & suggestions received, and am ready to nominate this for A-class. There aren't yet have any A, GA, or FA class articles which are primarily my work, as far as I'm aware off hand, and as this is a very broad and important (and likely fairly popular) topic, I should like it to be able to stand out as an example of some of my best work. Thank you. LordAmeth 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Support:

• 1a. Well written - Yes. Though I trimmed a sentence which was self-referential and unessential.
• 1b. Comprehensive - Yes. I took to add a map of the layout of Utsunomiya Castle to also show a plan/layout, which had been lacking. I also suggest writing about the multi-tiered roof designs common to traditional Japanese architecture.
• 1c. Factually accurate - Yes, conditional. I noted that many of the footnotes are not to external references, but to further uncited statements. Try to add more external references and avoid using references for making additional unsupported statements. Elsewise, the "cite" police will come after you.
• 1d. Neutral - Yes.
• 1e. Stable - Yes. Other than my dinkings around today. :)
• 2a. Lead section - Yes.
• 2b. Hierarchical headings - Yes.
• 2c. Table of contents - Yes.
• 3. Images - Yes, though I added two to support a plan/layout map, as well as one to show Kokura Castle against the foreground of its garden to support the adjacent text regarding gardens.
• 4. Length - Yes. Only 39k.

--Petercorless 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and for your continued help in improving this article. Regarding your point "1c" though, on citations, I wonder what the alternative should be. Much of this is just basic explanatory stuff which can be easily cross-referenced on the appropriate Wikipedia pages (e.g. samurai, Mongol invasions of Japan). I'd be happy to seek out citations for these things too, but I do think that they are better placed in the footnotes than cluttering up the main portion of the article, no? Some of this was added during the Peer Review process, as at least one editor said the article wasn't clear enough on specialized terms like "samurai". LordAmeth 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know you're not a big fan of citations, but there are some really, really bare patches in this one, particularly towards the end. It's quite good otherwise, but I don't think the citations are up to the level of recent A-class promotions. Carom 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you point out exactly which statements you think need citing, I'll be happy to look for sources. LordAmeth 09:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added about a half-dozen fact tags, let me know if you think any of them are unreasonable. Also, in some places, it's difficult to tell whether or not the citations are intended to refer to an entire paragraph, or just a sentence; this could be clarified in the notes themselves. I do like the notes you have, however - very scholarly, very useful, I just wish there were more. Carom 18:27, 3 March 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.

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.

Operation Igloo White

Previous nomination

Finally finished this article. Hope past criticisms have been addressed. RM Gillespie 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

weak oppose. I think it is almost there but not yet.

1) The introduction is lenghty and should preferably be focussed.

2) Some of the supporting pictures are really low quality book or newspaper scans (including the lead figure).

3) Some sections, including the conclusions are riddled with jargon and abbreviations. Although some helpful between bracket explanations have been given; and many were explained. adding so many highly cryptical abbreviations, even if explained asks a lot of the readers and should be sparingly if at all be used - consider this sentence from the conclusion: The stated goal of the American aerial interdiction campaigns was to force the DRV to pay too high a price in blood to make the continued support of its goals in the RVN tenable.[50] In this effort, the U.S. failed. Not only were the PAVN/NLF.

4) Notes (including inline references) and References are largely overlapping sections and should be merged.

IMHO none of these is in itself a major problem, but taken togehter I see some room for improvement before A-class. Arnoutf 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the intro should briefly summarize the entire article. Am I wrong in this assumption? As to the illustrations, there are very few sources in the public domain that pertain to this topic. RM Gillespie 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For reference, from WP:LEAD:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article.

Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note my carefull wording; I do not say it is definitely too lengthy; only that a slightly shorter intro may help readers. The second line, for example may also read: The operation used state-of-the art technology in an effort to automate intelligence collection. But take that remark more as an advice than as a definite do. Arnoutf 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the pictures; of course I understand there is limited material available, however the scans used are of low quality; and should preferably be replace with better (i.e. a better version of the same picture). E.g. the lead picture shows something of a rainbow colour scattering that maybe removed with some 'polishing' of the picture; or other scan-options. The picture is also slightly skewed; which is easily corrected, and some remaining caption is visible, which should be removed by cropping the scanned image. These issues go for some of the other images as well. Arnoutf 14:38, 17 February 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.

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.

1st Infantry Division (United States)

I nominated this article for A-class because it has historical importance and good content.--Pupster21 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - While it has the makings of a good article it also has some serious flaws at the moment and may have been nominated a bit prematurely. I would say it still needs:

• Expansion of introduction. An explanation of the motto should not account for half of it.
• Overall format is all over the place. The list of commanders are unnecessary. Important commanders should be mentioned in the prose itself. Various lists that break up the article (Interwar years OOB & Assignments in the European Theater of Operations) are best turned onto prose or removed.
• Lacking any inline citations
• De-Army the text...For example I'll say 99.9% of readers do not know what a TO&E,IFOR2 / SFOR1 are...also the prose does not flow. Much of the writing is just "On this day this happened."

I am a bit short on time and these are just initial impressions. I'll add more later. Cheers--Looper5920 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - for many of the same reasons. I just added the first inline citation to the article because the existing link was malformed. Also added a link to the term TO&E. It's fair for military jargon to be cited, but it might be better to enumerate some of those elements as a diagram or at least a bulleted list rather than having to read through the TO&E by text. I was somewhat confused as to what happened to the aero squadron that had initially been assigned in 1917, which was missing (apparently) when the unit got to France, even though the division was larger. There could have been links to the first instances of such terms as brigade, regiment, battery, etc., so those unfamiliar with such military units could read more about them. The article also had a propensity to refer to units such as "1-4 CAV." What is that? It should more properly spell out specifically what that unit would be the first time: 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment] (1-4 CAV). Actually there is an article on Wikipedia for the U.S. 4th Cavalry Regiment, which could be linked to, rather than an off-site link to GlobalSecurity.org, though an inline citation could reference the other site. --Petercorless 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm afraid that this article currently doesn't come close to A class, though it is a lot better than most of the articles on US Army divisions. My main concerns are:
  • Much of the article is just lists of commanders and assignments. These should be converted to prose.
  • There's lots of military jargon - eg "World War II Prep", "CONUS", "TO&E", "reconnaissance-in-force". These should be converted into terms a general reader can understand.
  • As noted above, the article needs lots of citations to reach A class. --Nick Dowling 06:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the previous comments, especially concerning the long lists of deployments and units and whatnot. Furthermore, I think that a lot of the sections need some expansion - especially the combat sections (alternatively, if there's nothing more to write they can be merged). But a lot of these short sections can have expension, given that many of them offer no details on operations during the deployment to that area - see: Bosnia/Kosovo and especially 2006 Iraqi Freedom, which I think you can find online media sources on. That said, the article needs many more inline citations, but this has already been mentioned before. JonCatalan 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for much the same reasons as above. Introduction too brief, too many lists (reads difficultly), too much jargon, way too few references for A-class. Arnoutf 14:35, 11 February 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.

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

Previous nomination

Renomination by Wandalstouring. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support as before. Carom 02:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - needs a few more refs in places. Buckshot06 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Until its cited sufficiently. Many paragraphs are noticeably bare.

Seems to be very well written though, and deserves to be A class at least. Raymond Palmer 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very well written, just needs more inline citations. Cla68 07:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Lengthy, one of the most detailed, well-written, and nicely formatted (i.e. looks nice on the page, lots of quotes, pictures, maps, which are well-placed, well-labeled, not overwheleming, etc) articles I've seen in some time. LordAmeth 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great article, but needs more cits. Kyriakos 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support as it is. The refs are a slight problem, but not big enough to incite rejection in this case. And on another note, per Raymond, the prose is fantastic. Kirill, don't be afraid to exercise some dictatorial authority in ignoring the opposing votes (kidding).UberCryxic 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support (I want to point out that my nomination was only a formal issue because this article had failed for lack of assessments.) The citation can be improved as a lot of sources are used. Probably someone started this from a not too well referenced article. Wandalstouring 02:32, 13 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.

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.

---

Operation Igloo White

For your perusal. RM Gillespie 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see a few more citations to cover a couple places that are pretty bare. Specifically, the first paragraph of "Pinball Wizards" and the first two paragraphs of "Conclusion." Other than that, it looks good. Carom 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose In general well-written and well-cited, good flow. However:

1. Needs a proofread. There are missing quotation marks, many broken citations that appear as question marks in the references section.
2. Every book-scanned image is completely crooked. Look at the margins of the images compared to the margins of the surrounding boxes.
3. Lacks depth. I was expecting a much more technical article with descriptions of the sensors, this is a nice overview but it left me wanting for more info. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose there are to many question marks in the reference section. When these question cites are replaed with cites that have meaningful information I will reconsider. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm gonna have to go with oppose also for alot of the reasons that Emt147 listed, specifically the depth of the article and the images included in the article. It is a well organized and well written article, however it lacks detail and depth. The image issue is secondary, but better images would only enhance the article as a whole. Spot87 02:08, 8 January 2007 (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.

---

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.

---

B-17 Flying Fortress

Article was been extensively reviewed and sourced, is comprehensive, follows guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and this project. Hoping FAC is next. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It does appear to be long, detailed, thorough, and well-written. The introduction, while concise, accurate, and also well-written, somehow seems a bit off to me. Maybe a bit too short. Maybe if you could add a sentence or two? Or smoosh the whole thing together into one paragraph, eliminating the line breaks, to make it look more solid on the page? Just an appearance-on-the-page thing, not really a content of the writing thing. LordAmeth 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. While the article is well-written and well-referenced, it lacks comprehensiveness. Specifically:

1. The lead section is too short (at least by FAC standards), and also contains some gushing POV (B-17's most notable features were high cruising altitude and durability, its payload, speed, and range were small compared to its contemporaries like the B-24 and the Lancaster). "One of the most significant" and "devastating payload" could be done away with.
2. The development section is too short. B-17 was a fairly unique design. The section essentially only deals with the prototype crash.
   1. I agree, and have tried to add content, but I find it just overlaps with whats found in the "Variants/design stages" section, so I've kept the development section to just the development up to the YB-17s and the entry into the war, and everything afterwards to the later section. Should this be changed? How about if we change the variants section to just a list and short description of each variant and move the current content to the design section? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      1. Comment No, you have the right time span for development (conception to entry into operational service) but a lot more can be said about B-17 development. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
         1. 'K, I'll work on it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
3. The operational history section is too short. There is no comment at all on the poor operational accuracy of B-17 formations, on the fact that only the lead aircraft actually did the aiming due to mid-air collisions early in operational career resulting from all bombardiers looking down on the ground while maneuvering their aircraft. There should be some discussion on B-17's advantages and disadvantages compared to its contemporaries as well (see above, and of course without violating WP:NOR).
4. The post-war section is longer than Development and as long as Operational history and deals primarily with the few surviving warbirds.
5. The section on foreign service is non-existent. What about German-captured B-17s shadowing American formations? What about all the other countries in the "Operators" list (number serving, anything notable?)
   1. Foreign service operators (specifically Germany and Israel) are mentioned under the "Operators" section, but since Germany used them during the war I'll add a bit to the "Operational service" section as well. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Survivor does not equal Notable B-17. Most of the warbirds are late-war built cargo/hack aircraft with no notable history. Perhaps the section should be split up into Survivors and Notable aircraft.
7. IMHO nothing demonstrates the B-17 durability better than the photos of "All American" after it was rammed by a German fighter. http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselag2.htm
   1. I'd love to add a pic of this but I can't find a source (although I'm sure it'll end up being an Airforces pic) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

All in all a good start but I think it needs a lot more contents. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Emt147. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 30 December 2006 (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.