Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2016/Failed

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment | 2016

Failed

edit
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 - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hastati

edit
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

Hastati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the hastati were an early example of how small, flexible units can be better than large armies. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there an image that could be used to illustrate this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: What do you think about File:Manipulus hastati - principes Polybius.png? It is about the formation and alignment of troops of Hastati, I think this can added. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would just need to have the source for the information added to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G'day, interesting article, thanks for your efforts so far. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a little copy editing, please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit: [1]

  Done

  • the citations to books do not need accessdates

  Done

  • are there years of publication for the Mommsen, Southern, Penrose, and Smith works?

  Done

  • the table labelled "Organization of republican legions" appears to be unreferenced

  Done (I removed it as I couldnt find a good source)

  • watch out for duplicate links in the body. The duplicate link tool reports the following terms as overlinked: Marcus Furius Camillus, and principes

  Done

  • is there a link for Scipio?

  Added

  • is there a publisher for the Mommsen and Goldsworthy refs?

  Added

Iazyges has nominated four articles on ancient Roman military history, Principes, Triarii, Hastati and Velites. All were taken through GA in 2008 by an editor who ceased editing in 2011. I have looked in detail at Velites. My initial impression was that the content is OK but not the referencing, but when I checked the sources I found that the original editor had misinterpreted them on several important points. Iazyges does not have access to the sources, but has made considerable improvements to Velites in response to my comments, and is looking for reliable sources to bring the article up to A-Class standard. I would therefore suggest that Velites should be kept as a candidate, but it would be better if the other three are withdrawn, as they almost certainly need a complete re-write to get them to the standard to be considered for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Yeah, im happy with all the closes he has proposed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Triarii

edit
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

Triarii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am trying to bring all of the manipular roman types of soldiers up to A class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, not an area I know much (if anything) about, but I had a read through and have some minor comments/suggestions, which might hopefully help a little, at least: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • non internet sources do not require "retrieved" or accessdates;
  • "Autores selectos de la mas pura latinidad..." could the translation be provided here? The "|trans_title=" parameter in the {{cite book}} template could be used here;
  • titles of works should use title case capitalization, e.g. "Lectures on the history of Rome" --> "Lectures on the History of Rome"
  • "This was supposedly a common practice." --> this should be attributed in text, and a citation provided, e.g. "According to the historian, John Smith, this was a common practice.[11]"
  • the article currently appears to have a mixture of US and British English variation. Either is fine, IMO, but consistency is important. For instance, "armour" (British) and "armor" (US);
  • the Google link for the Gaspar ref should be embedded so that it appears as a link with the title of the source, rather than a numbered link
References do not need the repetition of the full details of a source each time it is used. So Southern (2007), p.x after the first instance. Monstrelet (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges has nominated four articles on ancient Roman military history, Principes, Triarii, Hastati and Velites. All were taken through GA in 2008 by an editor who ceased editing in 2011. I have looked in detail at Velites. My initial impression was that the content is OK but not the referencing, but when I checked the sources I found that the original editor had misinterpreted them on several important points. Iazyges does not have access to the sources, but has made considerable improvements to Velites in response to my comments, and is looking for reliable sources to bring the article up to A-Class standard. I would therefore suggest that Velites should be kept as a candidate, but it would be better if the other three are withdrawn, as they almost certainly need a complete re-write to get them to the standard to be considered for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to promote at this time - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Principes

edit
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

Principes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am attempting to bring this, and several other manipular unit types up to A class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, I did some copyediting based on some of the points raised in the other reviews. I can't really comment on content, as I don't know anything about the topic, but I have the following general comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • is there a publisher for the Mommsen work?

  Done

  • Lectures on the History of Rome Georg --> is this title correct? Per Worldcat it seems that it should be Lectures on the History of Rome, From the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire

  Done

  • "wars against Jugurtha in Africa" --> "wars against the Numidian king Jugurtha in Africa"?

  Done

Iazyges has nominated four articles on ancient Roman military history, Principes, Triarii, Hastati and Velites. All were taken through GA in 2008 by an editor who ceased editing in 2011. I have looked in detail at Velites. My initial impression was that the content is OK but not the referencing, but when I checked the sources I found that the original editor had misinterpreted them on several important points. Iazyges does not have access to the sources, but has made considerable improvements to Velites in response to my comments, and is looking for reliable sources to bring the article up to A-Class standard. I would therefore suggest that Velites should be kept as a candidate, but it would be better if the other three are withdrawn, as they almost certainly need a complete re-write to get them to the standard to be considered for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to promote at this time - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

38th (Welsh) Infantry Division

edit
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

38th (Welsh) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division fought in both the First and Second World Wars. Initially it was raised as part of Kitchner's New Army, and first fought on the Somme. It's capture of Mametz Wood is a key part of the division's history, and it is hoped that by July the article has been promoted to FA status and is on the front page for the 100 year anniversary of that battle. It latter fought at Passchendaele, during the German Spring Offensive, and during the Hundred Days ending the war with a reputation as an elite formation (a stark contrast to its initial reputation as a poorly trained political formation). The division was disbanded following the war, and re-raised for the Second World War where it served for the duration as a defensive formation within the UK and later as a training division.

The article has just passed it's GA review, and I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class. All comments are welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
Will do.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I awaited the end of the CE that Keith made, and I have now addressed this   Done.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I did a bit of copy editing. Overall it looks good to me, although I think it would be beneficial to have another copy edit done on it prior to FAC if you are going there. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made a request at the guild of copyeditors, in preparation for the FA push.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the 43rd was re-named the 38th (Welsh) Division...": do we know why?
    The division's history does not explain. This source comes the closest to proving an explanation, rather than just stating a name change occurred as most others do. It notes that in April, the division changed from being the 43rd to the 38th due to the "the dispersal of the reserve Fourth New Army" (although I cannot find further reference to this, in this source or elsewhere) and also notes that in May 1915 the territorial divisions were assigned numbers rather than just regional designations. Yet I have not been able to find why the Wessex division was assigned the number 43, to see if that provided some enlightenment on the 38th's number change.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like to note that I found a source that elaborates on the above, and have added a brief explanation to the article: Fourth New Army was disbanded. Fifth New Army became the Fourth. All involved divisions were then renumbered.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an excellent administer" --> should this be "an excellent administrator"?
    Nice catch, fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • this doesn't quite flow: "On 1 December 1941, the division was placed on the 'Lower Establishment'.[142] During the war, the Army was divided between 'Higher Establishment' and 'Lower Establishment' formations...". I think perhaps it might be smoother if most of the second sentence was converted to a footnote and maybe the wording tweaked. For instance, "On 1 December 1941, the division was placed on the 'Lower Establishment', having been earmarked for a static home defence role instead of deployment overseas."
    I have amended the sentence, and moved some detail to a note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the References aren't quite in alphabetical order, for instance Renshaw and Rawson out sequence.
    Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, that's it from me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

edit
Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Hans-Ulrich Rudel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after a peer review and thorough GA-class review it should meet the criteria. I hope that an adequate balance between his war and post war career was achieved. Please let me know how to improve that article further. Thanks for your effort. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Reading just the lede I'm already going cross-eyed. There is a tremendous amount of detail that can be easily shortened, like the names of the medals - if that really needs to be in the lede at all. Generally there seems to be a lot of words that could be removed without changing the content at all...

"Upon his request, he was transferred" - "He transferred..."
"posted to a base in France" - "posted to France."
"the German invasion of the Soviet Union" - unneeded in the lede
"He received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves" - "added the Oak Leaves" or something to that effect. This is the lede, we can expand the names fully in the body and save a lot of room here.
"awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords " - "added Swords"
"the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds" - "added Diamonds"
"He was placed in command of SG " - wasn't he already? Or do you mean in command of the entire SG?
"the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds" - again, shorten
"Together with Willem Sassen, he helped conceal the identity of Josef Mengele, a former SS doctor in the Auschwitz concentration camp, responsible for the selection of victims to be killed in the gas chambers, and ensured his security" - Together with Willem Sassen, he helped conceal and protect Josef Mengele, a former SS doctor in the Auschwitz concentration camp, responsible for the selection of victims to be killed in the gas chambers"
" In the West German federal election of 1953" - mention he returned to Germany during this period?
"Rudel joined the Luftwaffe" - separate and merge with following paragraph
"Junkers Ju 87 two-man (pilot and rear gunner) dive bomber" - the crew details seem superfluous at this point
And I'm sure the article on the Ju 87 covers that, and that readers will figure it out. We don't have to mention that the sun rises in the east before saying it sets in the west in an article on California. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean but I do think it is important to mention that the Ju 87 had a crew of two. I will rephrase the sentence to "he finally learned to master the Junkers Ju 87 two-man (pilot and rear gunner) dive bomber" MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"commanded by Geschwaderkommodore (wing commander) Major" - again, a level of detail that seems unneeded. Just give the guy's name.
And had I been more active reviewing I would have objected there too. These titles add nothing to the article about Rudel. If person X has one rank vs. another it makes no difference whatsoever, yet it does greatly confuse and lengthen the wording, especially since every instance has an english translation as well.
"headed by Gruppenkommandeur (group commander) Hauptmann (captain)" - same, no one cares what his rank was at that instant in time.
Gruppe of StG 2 "Immelmann" had been placed under the control of VIII. Fliegerkorps (8th Air Corps), led by General der Flieger (General of the Aviators) Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen, subordinated to Luftflotte 2 (2nd Air Fleet) under the command of Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) Albert Kesselring," - yikes! surely there is a better way to state this mouthful. Do we even need to know any of this? It doesn't change anything about Rudel or explain his story, and that's what this article is about. Sure, sometimes you need to include details of the wider world to better understand specifics of an article, but this strikes me as an example of superfluous details that adds nothing but complexity.
Yet if it was under the control of Bob Smith, subsequently Rudel fought where Bob Smith sent him. I don't see why we're interested in the chain of command, as opposed to the actual events. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" That day, he flew another aircraft to Insterburg, ... There, he was assigned to 1. Staffel" - so was this move of his part of a movement of all of the SG? Or was it, as it is worded now, something he was doing unrelated to them?
"Richthofen ordered StG 2 "Immelmann" - no need to repeat "Immelmann" with every mention of the unit, once or twice is enough.
And it is generally agreed that you state the official name of X only once in the body, and use short forms where appropriate after that. Consider HMS Hood. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"With the beginning of Operation Taifun, the Battle of Moscow, launched by Army Group Center on 30 September 1941" - "Army Group Center opened Operation Taifun, the Battle of Moscow, on 30 September 1941"
"the Honor Goblet of the Luftwaffe (Ehrenpokal der Luftwaffe), and" - do we need the german back-translation here?
The issue here is why is the German term not leading, like most other examples in this article, and every other article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the German Cross in Gold (Deutsches Kreuz in Gold)" - or here?
"skiing on the Arlberg. Following this vacation" - this should be a para break.
His 1942 marriage to Ursula "Hanne" - so wait, he married three people all named Ursula? That's weird and definitely worth making clearer.
" Aufklärungsgeschwader 51 "Immelmann" (51st Reconnaissance Wing) of the Bundeswehr, based in Bremgarten near Freiburg, held a reunion for former members of Geschwader "Immelmann", including servicemen who served with Geschwader "Immelmann" during World War II." Hmmm. How about "Aufklärungsgeschwader 51, the latest unit to hold the name "Immelmann", held a reunion for members of the unit including those from World War II".

That's about it for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all your concerns and remarks except those where you think the level of detail is too high. I want to wait a bit more before I address them until other reviewers have commented as well. Thanks for your effort and time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, I think there is an opportunity to reduce some of the detail to improve readability. For instance, "the destruction of 519 tanks, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer and 70 landing craft" --> "the destruction of over 500 tanks, as well as a number of ships"
  • " relief organization for Nazi war criminals that helped fugitive Nazis escape..." --> " relief organization for Nazi war criminals that helped fugitives escape"
  • " visit as being uncritical..." --> " visit as being sympathetic to..."?
  • " included Schweidnitz, present-day Świdnica, Sagan, present-day Żagań, Niesky, Görlitz and Lauban, present-day Lubań": as the links point to the current names, I don't think it is really necessary to keep saying "present-day blah". Removing this will help tighten the prose a little;
  • "World War II in Europe began when German forces invaded Poland on Friday 1 September 1939." This can probably be tightened to just: "On 1 September 1939, German forces invaded Poland."
  • " and tasked with the leadership of SG 2" --> " and given command of SG 2..."
  • "was experimenting with the Ju 87 G in the anti-tank role" --> "was experimenting with using the Ju 87 G in the anti-tank role"
  • "two 37 millimeters (1.5 inches) Bordkanone BK 3,7 under-wing autocannons" --> "two 37-millimeter (1.5-inch) Bordkanone BK 3,7 under-wing autocannons"
  • "Adolf Hitler shifted VIII. Fliegerkorps northwards...": might be clearer if an indicative date was added
  • "30 T-34's from..." --> "30 T-34s from..."
  • " From 7–10 January..." --> " From 7 to 10 January..."
  • "promoted to Major on 1 March 1944, with his seniority back dated to 1 October 1942...": do we know why his seniority was backdated so significantly?
  • Officially, a soldier had to hold rank for a specific timeframe in order to be eligible for the next promotion. The rank age was frequently backdated in order to fast track rank advancement. I have to assume this was the case with Rudel as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On more than 1800 missions he has destroyed..." --> In more than 1800 missions he has destroyed..."
  • "credited with the destruction of 17 tanks...": 17 in one mission, or one day? Some of these numbers are huge. Obviously have to go with the sources on this one, but has anyone questioned the validity of some of these claims? Having started as a relatively mediocre pilot, he seems to have amassed an incredible score.
  • The entire sentence reads "The next day, during the prelude of the First Jassy–Kishinev Offensive (8 April – 6 June 1944), he was credited with the destruction of 17 tanks at Fălești, 40 kilometers (25 mi) north of Iași." So, it means on one day. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rudel did suffer a stroke on 26 April 1970." --> This appears to be out of chronological order, and is a bit awkwardly worded.
  • "Responsible for the authorization of this event was Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Defence, Hermann Schmidt." --> " The Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Defence, Hermann Schmidt authorized the event".
  • "so-called": should be avoided per the guidance in WP:ALLEGED
  • Anyway, that's it from me, I only had a superficial look at the post war period, but will try to come back later. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "helped Rudel find a job, which he did not accept" --> "helped Rudel look for work. He was offered a job as a [INSERT APPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION], but he did not accept the position."
  • the paragraph beginning: "Rudel was married three times. His 1942 marriage to..." --? this seems a little out of place where it is. I suggest potentially just moving it to a "Personal life" sub-section as chronologically it seems to interrupt the flow of the Later life section (I think it would probably work best just before the "Death and funeral subsection"
  • some of the reference titles have translations and some don't. For instance "WM-Anekdoten: Ein Jahrhundertspiel und ein..." doesn't, but "Ein Besuch bei alten Kameraden — Der Nazi Rudel kam 1978" [A Visit to old Comrades — The Nazi Rudel came in 1978]" does. I think this should be consistent.
  • the formatting of the works in the "Publications" section is inconsistent
  • "File:Operation Barbarossa corrected border.png": the source of the original map (please see here) probably needs to be added to the description page of this one, otherwise it is difficult to assert it is the work of a US government employee. Additionally, for some reason this says US Air Force, but the original map says US Army employee.
Tidied a couple of sections with illogical use of alleged war criminals and war criminals, altered citations to L→R as per WP:something or other. Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead
German Luftwaffe seems redundant as phrased. I know you mean he was a German in the Luftwaffe, but.
"all over the Eastern Front" I'd rephrase to avoid the alternate meaning of every place on the Eastern Front.
Matter of taste, but it seems that the changes to shorten the references to the awards of various levels of the Knight's Cross have gone to far, and it's no longer clear what all those diamonds, swords and oak leaves mean. Also the multiple links to the same article violate WP:OVERLINK. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding Maury's comments, I think it depends in part on whether you want to take this to FAC. Because FAs can be long and people put a lot of work into them, people sometimes get the wrong impression that proper FAC style is to include every detail, regardless of relevance. But one of the uses of FAs is to make a good impression on a broad range of readers as the first item each day on the Main Page. Seen from that angle, every one of Maury's suggestions above looks like an improvement on the current text to me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct most of his suggestions have been worked into the article. I believe two comments so far have not been addressed yet, and I am not convinced yet that they need to be. The first, German leading or English term leading, and the second, detail of command. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Antioch (218)

edit
Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk)

Battle of Antioch (218) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria. Please leave as many comments as possible on how I can improve the article (or need to). Summarizing the article; This article deals with the lead-up, battle and aftermath to the ancient battle that took place near Antioch between the ancient Roman emperor Macrinus and the future Roman emperor Elagabalus. Notably in this case, the battle was not the primary focus of the article. You may thank Dio and Herodian for this since they weren't concerned with the battle either and are the primary historical sources for information on this topic. Thanks to anyone and everyone who decides to review this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day and welcome to Milhist A-class Review. Good work with this one. Thanks for your efforts. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • narrative flow, in the lead: "After a period of little improvement, Elagabalus would himself be plotted against before being dispatched after a short reign of only four years" --> "After a short reign of only four years, Elagabalus was also dispatched, after which a short period of stability followed."
Changed, for the better I think.
  • capitalisation: "A 20th Century Map of..." --> "A 20th Century map of..."
Done.
  • "and Historia Augusta, merely gloss over..." (should Historia Augusta be presented in italics here?)
Since you mention it, I think it would be more appropriate in italics. Done
  • inconsistent: "Cassius Dio" v. "Dio, Cassius" (in the References and Citations, I'm not sure which is correct, sorry, but they should be consistent for A-class)
I noticed an edit that changed this in one place, I will revert the edit since surname should always come first before first name. Just standard convention, thanks for picking up on this. Done.
  • inconsistent: "of Antioch, Herodian" v. "Herodian of Antioch" (in the Citations, I suggest changing "of Antioch, Herodian" to "Herodian of Antioch" as it seems more intuitive)
Aye, of Antioch isn't a surname. One minor thing, using the citation template I have to put in a first and last name or else I get this first1=missing and last1=missing error. I reversed it so it comes out as Herodian, of Antioch. Is there anyway to fix this, or will this suffice as a fix?
G'day, I believe if you use the "|author=Herodian of Antioch" parameter in the template (and remove "|last= |first= "), it should work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • in the lead, link: Caracalla, Antioch, Herodian, Cassius Dio; Roman Senate;
Done.
  • in the body of the article, link: Adventus, Sesterces, Apamea (ensuring to choose the correct disambig link), Syria Coele, Syria Phoenice, Praetorian Guard, Emesa, Roman legion, Artabanus V of Parthia, Cilicia, Chalcedon, Procurator (Roman);
Done. However, Adventus links to a few places, but not to the Adventus that is referred to in the article, is their another name for Adventus that I don't know of? Also capitalized Praetorian Guard as it's a noun (in the article).
Potentially, it could just be red linked, then. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure no problem, I'll have it linked. Done.
  • clarity: "may have been observed performing ritual rites by soldiers stationed there..." What is the significance of this? Was this a bad thing...later in the article it seems to be clarified but at this point it doesn't seem clear;
It would have been the first time the soldiers stationed there encountered Elagabalus, and Julia Maesa is hinted at having used this opportunity (not the ritual but the stationed soldiers) to further her agenda. It's not particularly significant as the actual ritual doesn't really correlate to anything. Just that this is how the soldiers came to know of Elagabalus. Should I keep the sentence, dump it, or try rewording it?
I'd suggest rewording it, if possible, otherwise it should probably just be dropped (my opinion only, and I am by no means an expert, though). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ritual part is relevant, but does need a rewrite. The story goes that the soldiers stationed at the city frequently visited the temple where Elagabalus performed the ritual and that during one of these visits, Maesa either telling the truth or inventing the story told the soldiers that Elagabalus was in fact the son of Caracalla. To summarize herodian's words. I will edit this section to make its relevance clearer. And... Done.
  • clarity: "The merits of this sum have been called into question..." by whom?
Andrew Scott, one of the references says it quite openly that Dio wasn't familiar with economics and may have greatly exaggerated the actual figure. Done.
  • "measures to reduce the expenditures of Rome, he reinstated..." --> "measures to reduce the expenditures of Rome, reinstating..."
Done.
  • "however" --> probably needs paired commas (either side of the word in most instances in which it is used)
Done.
  • this is not a sentence: "Enhanced by the monetary contributions of Julia Maesa."
Whoops, let me just fix that, meant to put a comma, realized a comma wasn't necessary. Ended up putting a period. Done.
  • "This forced Macrinus to leave, either in retreat[27] or attack.[22]" --> "This forced Macrinus to leave. According to Cassius Dio, he left in retreat, but Downey asserts that he intended to launch an attack." (or something similar which explains to different intentions and attributes the opinions).
Done.
  • clarity: "his efforts here however..." (to whom does "his" refer here?)
Macrinus' efforts, although this was utterly ambiguous as it was written and has now been clarified.
  • "The shift of power had been..." --> "The balance of power had been..."
Done.
  • "... to the army, as such the..." (comma splice) --> "... to the army; as such the..." or "...to the army. As such the..."
Semi-colon seemed more appropriate. Done.
  • "...while the Senate existed solely to officiate the affairs without any real authority" --> "...while the Senate existed solely to officiate state affairs without any real authority."
Done.
  • watch your English variation. I see some US spelling (e.g. "honor") and some British (e.g. "favour"). Either is probably fine, so long as it is consistent;
I prefer British, cause I live in Australia.
  • clarity: "with one source suggesting..." --> please clarify which source says this, e.g. "with Smith suggesting..."
Done. Added this cause it made me laugh, I accidentally fixed this to say "With one, Downey, source suggesting..." I know, I know, childish out of ten.
  • grammar: "met against the Praetorian Guard of Macrinus..." --> "met with the Praetorian Guard of Macrinus..." or "fought against the Praetorian Guard of Macrinus..." or "clashed with the Praetorian Guard of Macrinus"
Met with seems most appropriate. Done.
  • punctuation: "narrowly-fought pitched battle..." --> "narrowly fought pitched battle"
Done.
  • punctuation: "At this point Macrinus fearing defeat, fled back to the city of Antioch..." --> "At this point Macrinus, fearing defeat, fled back to the city of Antioch"
Done.
  • punctuation: "Beyond this details regarding the engagement are vague, the primary ..." --> "Beyond this, details regarding the engagement are vague. The primary..."
Done
  • " with little detail beyond that a battle was fought..." --> "...with little detail beyond stating that a battle was fought..."
Done
  • "...transported "like the commonest criminal" back to..." --> the quote should be attributed in text, for instance "...transported according to Smith "like the commonest criminal" back..."
Done.
  • "while masquerading as a courier for the military..." --> "while masquerading as a military courier..."
Done
  • word order: " he was beheaded in Cappadocia, shortly after injuring himself in an escape attempt, by the centurion Marcianus Taurus..." --> "shortly after injuring himself in an escape attempt, he was beheaded in Cappadocia by the centurion Marcianus Taurus..."
Done.
I think I've covered all of the major points that you brought up. If I missed something or broke something else, just give me a heads up. Thanks for the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is mainly based on primary sources (and described as such in the article) and thus does not comply with WP:OR. However, I hope that the nominator will not be discouraged and look at a wider range of secondary sources, which in my view is required for A Class standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where specifically, the use of primary sources violates OR please. As I am not aware of this. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to this clause "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." than can you specify where I am violating it. Also thanks for taking the time to review the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the triple post; I think you're referring to this: " Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" yes? in which case, oh boy. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would point to "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". I personally would go further and say that historical articles should never rely on ancient sources for facts (as opposed to illustration) as they are inevitably biased and need expert interpretation, but not all editors agree. I do not know enough about the period to know what are the best secondary sources, but one which is easily available is Gibbon's Decline and Fall.
Thanks for offering a secondary source, I'll take a look at it. In terms of expert interpretation, not really necessary in this case as the sources spelled it out unambiguously, I know what you are referring to with ancient sources being superfluous flowery and full of bias (and the bias applies here heavily) but both sides of the conflict were equally hated. Not a positive thing is said about either party, the only exception being Julia Maesa who was praised for being a genius. However, I will take a look at finding a few secondary sources and confirming that which is already written and dispelling with anything that is not in consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment copied from User talk:Dudley Miles#Request for Opinion so other editors can comment on it:

Hello again, I've taken the time to go through the entire article, I've looked at Gibbon, Downey, (Goldsworthy) How Rome Fell, and a couple others as well. I've managed to get citations and sourcing to about equal, 49 secondary to 44 primary citations. Of these 44 primary ones, more than half are supported by secondary sources and can be removed (if necessary, I'd leave them in for the reader to be aware).

A few are in a state of semi agreement, for example;

"Thus on the night of 15 May 218, Elagabalus was taken, by either Julia Maesa[28] or Gannys,[29] to the camp of the Legio III Gallica at Raphanaea and presented to the soldiers stationed there.[30] Some accounts claim that upon being presented to them, that Elagabalus was immediately hailed Antoninus, after Caracalla.[31] Enhanced by the monetary contributions of Julia Maesa the legion proclaimed Elagabalus emperor on 16 May 218.[26][32][33]" - ignore the numbers, I've left them in if you want to cross reference and confirm what I'm saying.

The first sentence is supported by Scott who also notes the disagreement between Dio and Herodian. The second has no specific support, but also no dissent. The last sentence is agreed upon unanimously by all sources.

This leaves only a single issue almost all of the secondary sources I have come across ignore Macrinus after the battle (aftermath), just saying he escaped and was later captured and killed. Dio and Herodian go into alot more detail here, is it an issue to leave that section as it is (primary source dependent with some secondary source input), or does it need a massive trim. I've taken a look at what would happen and the first paragraph would be reduced to this; "After escaping from the battle, Macrinus returned to Antioch. He was later captured and killed (on Elagabalus' orders (if I'm lucky)). The second paragraph, I'll look into but I'd be surprised if it had any issues. Since, Downey, Gibbon, Goldsworthy (How Rome Fell) are the only ones that even mention this, the other secondary sources just say killed after the battle. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might find Syme at [2] helpful. If you do not have access to JSTOR I can email you a copy. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I'll check if I can access JSTOR today, will tell you later. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay in responding, I'll try to get on it over the weekend, having a busy week. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is an interesting topic and definitely something that should be A-class, but in its current form the article requires considerable copyediting. So much so that I can't believe it made it through GA. I consider myself fairly adept at reading convoluted passages, but some of the wording in this article is really difficult and really has to be fixed before moving on.

  • "Rather the importance of the event is in the precursors, beginning sometime during the reign of Caracalla and ending with the end of Elagabalus' reign. " - I'm not sure what "the precursors" refers to here... is it referring to previous battles? General events leading up to this battle? This needs to be clarified.
By events I am referring to Caracalla and his death, Macrinus becoming emperor, the military revolt etc.
  • "was also dispatched" - do you mean "murdered"?
Yes. Will change.
  • "Macrinus' predecessor Caracalla was murdered by Justin Martialus, a soldier who had been incensed for being declined the rank of centurion, while traveling to visit a temple, during a period of war with the Parthians." - uhh, confused... was Martialus incensed while travelling, or did he kill Macrinus while he was traveling? And who was at war when? It seems there are two sentences here that have been mashed together.
He was incensed well before the trip, Macrinus convinced him to betray Caracalla and it succeeded. Parthians and Romans are at war. When? am not sure will have to check.
  • "The reason for Macrinus to plot against Caracalla may have been because he feared for his life" - which is tantalizing, but left completely unexplained!
This section I realize is confusing. The explanation literally comes right after (its the alternate explanation), why I put alternate explanation is because of a section that I have since deleted, so there is no longer an alternate explanation. Will fix.
  • "However, an alternate explanation is also provided alongside this" - what?
As above.
  • "Macrinus would commonly read dispatches sent to Caracalla for him, on one such occasion a dispatch was delivered from Materianus, a friend of Caracalla, detailing a prophecy, that may possibly have been fabricated, that Caracalla was being plotted against by Macrinus and that Macrinus would be destined to become the next emperor" - I cannot make head nor tails of this statement. So some guy had a prophecy and tried to tell Macrinus, and... ugh I can't figure this out.
A lot of things being crammed into a single sentence. Breakdown: 1. Macrinus reads Caracallas letters (it's a part of his job). 2. Materianus sent a letter to Caracalla who was his friend. 3. Materianus claims a prophecy that says Macrinus is plotting against Caracalla. 4. The prophecy may have been given by the Oracle at Delphi or made up by Materianus.
  • "The army then set its eyes on Macrinus" - "set its eyes" is jargon. It also fails to explain the very important issue of what the army is doing in the business of selecting an emperor. Is this the point in time when the army becomes the defacto selector of emperors? That seems to be what is being stated later in the section called "Senatorial response". If that is the case, that seems to be far more important than anything else in the article, and should be the primary focus of the lede. But perhaps this had this happened earlier? If so, the next section seems odd. In any event, I found this confusing and lacking in detail.
To summarize; by this time the Senate was more or less powerless, control the army, and you control the empire. That said, the Senate remains to make things official. They could choose not to, but that would have resulted in an all out revolt (possibly, Dio speculates on this) and with the army so far away and with no one capable of challenging it the Senate would have had to cave. This at most deserves a mention in the lede, the Senate being weakened, as the primary focus is on Elagabalus challenging Macrinus' ascendancy.
  • "Macrinus, they" - Macrons; they.
Macrons??, you mean Macrinus; they?
  • "feelings of 'love or esteem' towards" - is this a quote? If so, double quotes and a ref. If not, why is it in single quotes?
I'll double check, but this may be a quote within a quote.
  • "Thus the army hailed him Augustus, proclaiming Macrinus as emperor" - isn't being "hailed him Augustus" the same as "proclaiming Macrinus as emperor"?
Nope, Augustus is not a title all Emperors held, most did but not necessarily all. That is at least would I have found during my research, I originally had Augustus and Emperor as being one and the same.
  • by the Senate who were glad" - by the Senate, who were glad
  • "As the newly crowned emperor" - did they have a crown at this point? I thought Diocletian introduced this, which would be a good part of a century later.
Ah, no clue, I meant crowned as newly chosen. I can replace crowned if necessary.
  • "the equestrian class, this caused much discontent" - need to explain why, and link to equestrian.
Nobody of the equestrian class had ever been selected as emperor, it was usually a senator that got the position. Will fix however.
  • "about it, the military was at the time so concentrated in force at Edessa that nowhere else in the empire could a governor or senator oppose the army that had proclaimed Macrinus as emperor" - why? Why could the Senate not oppose them? Edessa is a long way from Rome.
Precisely, you know how much of the empire would fall to the army before the Senate could do anything about it. The entire eastern section of the empire is, literally, at risk of destruction. Second, about two thirds of the available Roman forces are at Edessa (maybe more since I'm estimating). Does this need explaining in the article?
  • "Dio is not known for being unreliable when discussing finances" - confused... IS known for being unreliable fits with the gist of the statement.
You are correct, the not is accidental.
  • "by this thus" - urg. "by this, and..."
urg?, will fix however.
  • "Julia Domna who was at Antioch at the time of Caracalla's death attempted suicide, eventually succeeding by starving herself" - Julia Domna, who was at Antioch at the time of Caracalla's death, attempted suicide. She eventually succeeded by starving herself,
  • "returned to Emesa with her finances intact, her suspicions" - what's this about finances? It seems out of place. Would this not be normal? And the part after the comma should be a new sentence.
I would assume not, you're thrown out of the palace and sent home, chances are all your possessions are going to be taken. It was important enough for most sources (the ones I used) to mention it though.
  • "On one such occasion Julia Maesa took the opportunity to inform the soldiers either truthfully or through fabrication that Elagabalus was Caracalla's son" - well it's one or the other, is he his son or not?
It's not black and white, nobody knows. He may be, he may not be. If he is, then he is a bastard (not in a derogative manner) son that's never been claimed.
  • "Thus on the night" - no need for "thus" here or in various other similar situations.
Can fix.
  • "was immediately hailed Antoninus, after Caracalla" - what does "hailed Antoninus", and why is it after Caracalla. Is this some sort of precession? If so, of what?
Antoninus is part of Caracalla's full name; Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Augustus.
  • "however, drifting between the extremes of terror and security" - terror and security are not opposite terms, so you can't really drift between them. I'm also uncomfortable ascribing feelings to people without direct quotes - we know what he did with some certainty, but unless he is recorded at that time to state why, we should generally try not to guess.
I think that's close to a direct quote, from the source, will check. If it is what I think it is then it is slightly paraphrased.
  • "Had time been available" - this should be moved up, where the other issues of pressing time are mentioned.
  • "negating the advantage of light Parthian lancers" - who? where did these guys come from? Or is this "previously" as in "long previously"?
There were light Parthian lancers in the opposing army, part of the Roman troops. This isn't something I wrote tbh, I'll check it but I recall reading it in Dio's work.
  • "break through the enemy line" - break through Gannys' line - I don't think he considered his own troops to be the enemy.
Fair enough, will change. However, in my opinion, if my general had his head cut off and sent to me, I'd consider the opposition my enemy since they want to, you know, kill me.

I'm happy to handle all of the basic grammatical issues myself, but some of the items need your attention and expansion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, I will get to fixing it up as soon as I can, am currently extremely busy outside of Wikipedia and haven't had a chance to go through anything in the past week. Will update as soon as I am able to return to this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'll make an attempt at addressing a couple of these here, since I'm on now. Again thanks for the review, I hope the few notes I chucked in between will help clear up some confusion, these are precursors to my fixing up the issues.

Update: Ok I've made a wide variety of edits that I think have cleaned up the GR to A-class (IMHO). I'm still happy to work with you on the other issues if you can clarify some of the things I didn't understand. My main concern is the section on the murder leading up to these events, which I still don't fully understand. A re-write of that section would greatly improve things. If you just keep explaining it to me I can likely address it myself. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thank you very much for all the effort you've put into fixing up the article while I have been away. I will try to get on to the wiki by the weekend and fix up the murder section. I fully understand the confusion regarding the section. I'll try to get it rewritten ASAP, again thank you very much for helping me with the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: While I had the time, I have made an attempt to rewrite the problem paragraph on Caracalla's death. I think this should clear up the confusion, although I may be overstepping it by mentioning narratives. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Aureus_Macrinus-RIC_0079.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, and based on the licensing I would guess it isn't the uploader's own work. Also, for completeness you should explicitly say that the coins themselves are PD due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry I'm not exactly great with image usage here. I took a look at the image you mentioned and noted the tag, is that an issue? do I need another image instead? also do you mean say that the image is PD on the article in the image description or somewhere else, if somewhere else then where? Apologies for any inconvenience. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the licensing tags, I would guess the author is someone at the Classical Numismatic Group - you could get someone who has OTRS access to confirm that, and we can get rid of the error tag.
As to the PD designation, yes, that would be on the image description page. The current licensing tags represent the photo of the coin, so you'd just need to add {{PD-US}} or {{PD-old-100}} for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hello again, I have added the PD designations on the image description page. As for OTRS members, is there anybody specific to talk to or just message anybody who's on the OTRS volunteers page? Also the original image up-loader has been permanently banned from Wikipedia or blocked (it says both?). Not sure what effect, if any, this has on the image. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any OTRS volunteer should be able to check. So long as the block is not related to copyright issues, it shouldn't matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I totally spaced on this. Mr rnddude's edit does improve things, but we still have this problem:
Macrinus' predecessor Caracalla was murdered by Justin Martialus, a soldier who had been incensed for being declined the rank of centurion, while traveling to visit a temple, during a period of war with the Parthians.
So was Justin incensed for being declined the rank of centurion while traveling to visit a temple? Or did he kill Caracalla while he was visiting a temple? Or was Caracalla visiting the temple? And what does the war have to do with anything? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit complex to respond to this, there's no indication for when Justin was refused the rank, just that he was (But, I think this should be removed in entirety, the cause is of no concern just the act). Caracalla was killed while traveling to the temple. The war has a lot to do with the period right after Macrinus became emperor. First, he made peace with the Parthians at great cost to Rome and this was considered to be a shameful display on his part (as mentioned in the article) and dealt a blow to Roman pride. Second, because of this great cost Macrinus had to make changes to the economic policies of Rome in order to curb spending, main point here is that he reduced pay for newly enlisting soldiers, this angered the entire army and caused the subsequent rebellion (also in the article). I hope that answers any questions on what is meant with the sentence. I figure it needs a re-write due to the confusion it's causing. So here's my suggestion for rewrite (implement if satisfactory);
Macrinus' predecessor Caracalla was murdered by Justin Martialus while traveling to visit a temple. At the time, Rome under Caracalla was at war with the Parthians.
It's pretty basic and limited in scope, The war with Parthia only becomes relevant when Macrinus becomes emperor. If it's of any consequence the cause of the war is debated to be either 1. Caracalla requested marriage to the Parthian king's daughter but was refused or 2. Caracalla requested the marriage, was accepted, and then betrayed the Parthians and had the people at the ceremony slaughtered. Given Caracalla's reputation the second one may be more likely and is the explanation given in the article on Caracalla himself. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm separating this because there is actually a second issue that remains open in terms of A-class for the article. The aftermath section is based primarily on primary sources, more or less secondary sources seem to disregard this period as being trivial. Dudley Miles offered a secondary source that might fix the issue but I haven't had the chance to look at it due to University studies. I am free, or ought to be free, this week to take a look at the source if I have access to it (I think I do). Lastly, there is also a minor image issue left to address. Sorry if it this is a bit long and/or ramble-y. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rupert. At present my oppose stands as much of the article is still based on primary sources, and therefore WP:OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks. Perhaps in this regard the review should be closed so that this issue can be worked on behind the scenes. It could then be renominated if, or when, the issue has been resolved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it clear here that while Ancient historians habitually call anything originally written in an ancient language or within a millennium or two of the event a "primary source", Wikipedia takes a narrower view, and regards them as secondary sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take Hawkeye's point. In some cases ancient historians are describing events they have witnessed, in others events they have heard or read about, so in some cases it is a question of OR, in others RS. Ancient historians vary greatly in reliability, and I think we should be looking to modern ones rather than our own views what is WP:RS. The nominator has said that the great majority of the article could be sourced to modern historians, and I think he should be citing them instead of the original source. In the few cases where events described by an ancient historian are not covered by modern writers, I think it would be OK to say "According to x..." to signal that it is not the view of a modern historian. What does Hchc2009 think? I am happy to accept whatever is the consensus on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a quick look. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concerns with the editors above about the use of primary sources. To take an example, Herodian of Antioch's "History of the Roman Empire" is a 2nd/3rd century Greek writer. He's extensively used in this article as a source, around a dozen times or so. He's an entirely appropriate primary source for an academic to to draw on. But he's equally not a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which is what our policy requires us to use. I'd strongly recommend replacing the primary sources with reliable modern secondary sources, since I'm sure they're available, and then resubmitting for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am here, I would like to point out that while I do have references to Herodian and Dio well over a dozen times each, most of those are backed by secondary or modern sources. This excludes the aftermath section which is almost entirely based on those two sources since none of the secondary or modern sources I could get my hand on discuss anything past Macrinus' and Diadumenianus' being killed. If it would be preferred I can remove all of the references that have been backed by a secondary, leave only the ones that have no modern backing (but also no opposition), and then let that be considered for WP:OR and WP:RS. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to replace the ancient sources where a modern one is available. Regarding the period you do not have modern sources for, you said you have not yet had time to look at the source I suggested. Google Scholar and the ancient history section of your university library are also possibilities. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely true, that's why I excepted the aftermath. I will remove the doubled up references to the primary sources as a first step. This should clear up all of the issues up to the aftermath. Beyond this you are absolutely right, I have not had a look at the source you provided, due time constraints, but I have used library resources at my institute, actually most of my secondary references came from the library. I will most likely have to remove and rewrite the aftermath in order to get this up to the A-class standard or FA class since somebody mentioned it. I can have a go at this Friday 20th May if everyone is willing to wait, if not, I'll do it anyway and then resubmit. Thanks to all that have provided input on this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing co-ordinator comment: Whilst there has been a commendable amount of work done on this article during the review and I note the nominator’s comments above about their intention to rewrite the aftermath etc but for procedural reasons I think this one will need to be closed (in the past we have only kept ACRs open for 28 days, and although we now apply considerable leeway to this rule, this review has been open for double that). This in no way prejudices it from being re-nominated once further adjustments have been made to the article in line with the comments that are still outstanding and I certainly encourage Mr rnddude to do so. Thank you for your efforts in diligently bringing this article this far. Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic)

edit
Nominator(s): Robert Brukner (talk)

Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it substantially fulfils all the criteria, is a meaningful elaboration of the content of the main article Royal Canadian Navy, improves the overall quality of the current body of material about the Canadian military history and deepens a readers understanding of the topic. Robert Brukner (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal Thanks for developing and nominating this article Robert - it's very useful. However, it does not meet the A-class criteria at present as the great majority of its content is not covered by references. As some further comments:

  • I'd suggest that you consider using sortable tables to make it easier for readers to navigate and use the article; this would also allow you to add further details about the ships without compromising readability/usability (for an A-class list like this it would be good to at least say when each of the ships was commissioned and decommissioned).
  • All of the commissioned warships should be linked as they're notable, and potential subjects of articles in the future where they currently don't exist
  • Were the two World War Two escort carriers really ships of the RCN? They were Canadian manned (entirely?), but never commissioned into the force. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the content is covered by references - but not inline references. I will address this asap. Sortable tables is a great idea, but it will lengthen the article considerably (is that not a concern?). The question of what is or is not RCN even up to WWII is really dodgy and a matter of definition. Most historians and researchers seem to agree that a ship is RCN if it meets most, though not necessarily all of the following: commissioned, staffed by RCN personal, paid for by RCN, operated by RCN. There was a lot of horse trading between the RCN and RN. Some RN ships were given to Canada to use, run/staffed by Canadians and they are counted as RCN -this includes the carriers. Some RCN ships were loaned to the RN, but again staffed with Canadians, so they are considered RCN. Some RCN ships went to the RN, but are considered RN as they were run by the RN. Oddly, the RN "Navy List", which is one of the seminal secondary sources for RN ships, lists RCN and other commonwealth ships in its tallies. Sometimes the Navy List also attributed ships to the RCN, which even the RCN didn't consider theirs. "Ownership" was oft times not at all black and white. That cannot be "fixed" as there are so many gaps in the sources and different ways to look at the historical record. Robert Brukner (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RCN is weird. Niobe commissioned into the RCN with an RN commander. Puncher and Nabob commissioned into the RN with RCN commanders. As for why Nabob and Puncher were not HMCS; due to the legalities of Lend-Lease. However, they were intended to become HMCS after the war, but Canada traded them for a Colossus class. As to whether they belong in the RCN page, they were commissioned with RCN commanders and crews and were for all intents and purposes, considered RCN ships. This had happened several times in the war when the UK ran out of people for basic crews. They did it with Flower-class corvettes, River-class frigates, and Town-class destroyers too, however the destroyers were not commissioned into the RCN due to Lend-lease legalities. As for linking commissioned ships, I know some of the vessels listed in this article would not pass the 100 tons, 100 feet rule. The MTBs, drifters and trawlers should just use a class page due to the sheer number of them and the inability to meet the size rules. Llammakey (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (not a full review): G'day, thanks for your efforts with this. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic) contains the..." I suggest removing the bold face type here are rewording slightly, in this case I don't think you need to mention the name of the article title in the lead (see the guidance at WP:BEGIN). So perhaps something like this: "this article (or list, because I think it actually list rather than an article as such) covers surface warships, submarines and auxiliary vessels in service from 1910 up to the early 1990s".
  • "1990's": remove the apostrophe per WP:DECADE;
  • "1910–1922" --> "1910–22" per WP:DATERANGE;
  • "1922–1947" --> "1922–47" (as above);
  • "1948–1989" --> "1948–89" (as above);
  • in the Bibliography, "Royal Canadian Navy honours, decorations, medals, 1910–1968" --> "Royal Canadian Navy Honours, Decorations, Medals, 1910–1968" (title case capitalisation)
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Dittmar, Douglas and Tucker works? They can usually be found [3];
  • "The sea is at our gates: The History of the Canadian Navy" --> "The Sea is at Our Gates: The History of the Canadian Navy"
  • the References seem a bit inconsistent in their style. For instance compare "Schull, Joseph (1987) [1952]. Far Distant Ships: An Official Account of Canadian Naval Operations in World War II. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing. p. 7" v. "Macpherson and Barrie, p.18"
  • "STACEY" --> "Stacey"
  • this note should probably just appear in the main text (of the lead): "Ships in this list also include vessels with RCN crews, such as TR-series minesweepers of the First World War, and aircraft carriers of the Second World War".
  • inconsistent date formatting, for instance compare: "March 10, 2016" v. "2016-03-10" v. "2 May 2010" (please be consistent)
  • I suggest maybe renaming the two articles/lists: "List of active Royal Canadian Navy ships" and "List of decommissioned Royal Canadian Navy ships", or something similar.

Image review

  • File:Canadian_Blue_Ensign_1868-1921.svg should include licensing tag for the original design
  • File:Fisheries_Protection_vessel_Vigilant.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • File:HMCS_Aurora_Patriot_Patrician_Esquimalt_1921_E-6546-2.jpg: source link is dead, and when was this first published?
  • File:Icebreaker_CGS_Stanley,_escorting_two_vessels.jpg: given the unknowns, how do we know that the current licensing tag applies?
  • File:HMCS_Edmundston.jpg: the Naval Museum is not the author but the source - who is the actual author and what was the original creation/publication date?
  • File:Crew_HMCS_Daerwood.png: with the given information, assuming this was not published anywhere else, this would likely not be PD in the US
  • File:Royal_Canadian_Navy_minesweepers_Second_World_War.jpg: do you have a link to support the current licensing? Same with File:Canadian_infantry_landing,_Normandy,_1944.jpg, File:Sickbay_on_HMCS_Provider.jpg, File:RCN_Harbour_craft_Zoarces.jpg, File:RCN_Harbour_craft_Captor.jpg, File:RCN_Harbour_craft_79_(Miss_Kelvin).jpg
  • File:U889_surrender_a171391-v6.jpg: Canadian copyright would have expired, but what about US?
  • File:MTB-460_MIKAN_4821109.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Same with File:HMCS_Cougar_(Z15).jpg

Oppose pending resolution of some of the above. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick tidy of the references and a ce, which took in some of the suggestions here. I'd rather keep 1914–1918 date ranges though.Keith-264 (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:" Unless I am missing something, it seems this is really just a listing of ships of the Canadian Navy that fall into some specific timelines. If this is so, should this not be called List of...? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Absolutely. However its a former part of an article under the name "Fleet...". So I decided to leave it for now. Until I receive further inputs. Then I will change everything all at once, and in line with all the comments I receive. thanks for your input. Send along any ideas you have. I'll be thoroughly editing the article within the week. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Brukner: G'day, Robert, are you in a position to make the changes requested? If not, I will request an uninvolved co-ord close the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Hi, I am. I am also determined to wait a full 14 days after the very last comment to start making additional edits, to avoid all the breathless and tragically "excluded" editors rushing in claiming they were not consulted. The last comment was received April 13. So I intend to wait to April 27. I hope you don't mind. Robert Brukner (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion, but I believe reviewers usually want to see a nominator engaging with them in a relatively timely fashion, otherwise they are less likely to remain engaged with the review themselves (i.e. they either forget about it or walk away from it), which usually results in a "no consensus to promote" closure. Doesn't always pan out that way, of course, but there was a time when most ACRs were closed after 28 days total, with some being closed as early as five days. Now we tend to leave them open longer out of necessity, but I'm not really sure that this is of benefit to the ACR process as a whole. The other issue that you may face with your approach is that reviewers do not always highlight all issues in a single review, either deliberately (because they want to see how you get on before investing more time to review the article fully), or because they are human and miss some things that a later reviewer may pick up. Reviewers also build on the work of those before them. Hence, if you deal with the first reviewer's comments quickly, it allows subsequent reviewers to focus on different things rather than seeing the exact same issues and only highlighting those same points (hence you get a more robust review). Anyway, that's it from me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of United States military premier ensembles

edit
Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk)

List of United States military premier ensembles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the A-Class criteria. (When reviewing, please keep in mind this is a list, each of the units listed have standalone articles that have been wikilinked; exhaustive information about each unit is duplicative and intentionally not provided.) LavaBaron (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I think that this article currently falls short of the A-class criteria for the following reasons:

  • It is overly brief, and does not provide a history of the concept of the Premier ensemble or the individual bands.
  • Related to the above the wording is frequently imprecise (for instance, "and in some cases enjoy enlistment contracts that guarantee they are not deployable outside the United States"; "These organizations have typically attracted"; "some premier ensembles have been administered separately")
  • The article's brief prose seems very positive, and is similar in tone to material produced by the US military. What is the commentary on these bands? For instance, do professional music critics consider them to be particularly good? Are they considered a good use of resources? Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D - all of your issues have now been addressed and rectified except for the third one; the suggestion that music critics regularly pen reviews of military bands that are sandwiched into Billboard between notes on the latest Lady Gaga single and Blake Shelton's new recording contract seems a little out-of-touch with reality. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. LavaBaron (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article's coverage of its subject is still much too brief for A-class status I'm afraid, and your snarky response to my comment is unhelpful: of course I don't think that reviewers regularly review military bands. But they do attract a range of commentary, ranging from their skills to whether they're a good use of taxpayers' money. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great information to have - do you have references I could use, Nick-D? I'm only aware of three instances where there has been a serious debate on expenditures: 1860, 1992, 2010. In each of those cases, which I've chronicled in the separate article U.S. military bands, the debate was over unit bands, not premier ensembles. But if you could forward me the references from this other commentary of which you're aware I will happily incorporate it. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and procedural note

  • I copyedited for prose but tend to agree with Nick's concerns about brevity. I understand that you want to avoid excessive duplication but you may have tipped things too much the other way. That said, the table looks very attractive and consistent, with all the photos, sound samples, badges and maps -- one thing though, why do we need "United States" in every map caption?
  • Now for the procedural: it looks like you have this listed at FLC as well, and articles should not be listed at both ACR and FLC simultaneously -- one needs to be withdrawn, or else a coord for one of the processes will need to arbitrarily close one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your issues have now been addressed and rectified, Ian Rose. LavaBaron (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, but my question/suggestion re. "United States" in every map caption in the Post/Station column doesn't appear to have been addressed. I certainly wouldn't oppose over it, it just seems redundant when it's the same for every map, and I think the implication for a list of "United States ensembles" is that they'd be in the US unless otherwise noted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted this now, with this edit: [4]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G'day, noting the above comments, I only took a quick look. My main suggestion is to change the name of the article to "List of United States military premier ensembles", or something similar, as currently the article name suggests that it should encompass a (potentially) larger topic. I would then suggest changing the second heading in the list from "List of premier ensembles" to "Bands currently designated as premier ensembles", or something similar. Anyway, all the best with taking this list further. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues have now been addressed and rectified, AustralianRupert. LavaBaron (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, yes, looks better. Cheers. My only other suggestion would be to collapse the template at the bottom of the article, but that is not a criteria based issue that I can see. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't be much help as lists aren't my forte. Sorry. Good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, again, I had another look this morning and wonder if there is the potential to mention the relative size of some of these bands (i.e. number of personnel). This source mentions a couple of band sizes: [5] This information could potentially be added to the organization and personnel section. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent suggestion, AustralianRupert, but I've kind-of lost interest in this article now. I went through a phase of a few weeks where I was interested in writing articles on military bands but I've recently become more interested in the history of formal correspondence and most of my efforts are devoted to the diplomatic correspondence article ATM so I'll need to abandon this review. But I wholeheartedly encourage anyone to take-over this article and improve it with that suggestion (maybe this could even be made a separate column in the table?). LavaBaron (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've listed the review for closing over on the co-ord page. An uninvolved co-ord will be able to close it soon. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping -- I've been bold and changed the name of this review page based on the recent article name change (something I've had a bit of experience at as a FAC coord!); think I caught everything but feel free to check, anyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • File:Old_Guard_drummer.jpg: source link is dead
  • All musical performances, whether audio or video, must account for the licensing of the original work as well as the performance - in some cases it is clear, but there are more where it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy

edit
Nominator(s): Robert Brukner (talk)

Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe it substantially fulfils all the criteria, is a meaningful elaboration of the content of the main article Royal Canadian Navy, improves the overall quality of the current body of material about the Canadian Military and deepens a readers understanding of the topic. Robert Brukner (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but this article currently doesn't meet the A-class criteria:

  • The captions appear to have been taken, with light paraphrasing, from the RCN's website. Aside from being non-neutral (the ancient Iroquois-class destroyer is unlikely to still have "one of the world's most advanced integrated combat control systems", for instance) this also makes the text a copyright violation.
  • Much of the content is not covered by references
  • The procurement section looks under-developed Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Thanks Nick. I am addressing these issues now. Please note that I am very new at this, and am unsure if this article is being assessed for AL-class list or A-class article. There seems to be some considerable differences in the approach across various wikiproject groups. I am aiming for A-class article assessment. Robert Brukner (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Welcome Robert ... it would be great to see more articles at A-class and FAC on Canadian military topics. It looks like you've got a lot to offer. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: @Dank: I have revised as per the comments. Thanks again for your direction and support. Robert Brukner (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello again, I'm going to add a few of my own points below on what I think are going to be musts for this article:

  • First, the drop table below is used by most, if not all, A and FA list articles on ships, they detail not only the name and service of the ship but also the basic features; armament, armour, displacement and propulsion systems of the ship. I believe this is a must include for a list/article of this nature as it includes the necessary basic overview of the ship without going into unnecessary detail, those details are usually covered by the ships own article as it is. Obviously the table can be adjusted as necessary, the article already includes pennant number, builder and fleet as well for example and fate does not apply, yet, as the ships are still in active service. I think I've included the necessary adjustment to make the table sortable as requested in your other A-class review for the Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic) by Nick-D. That table is as below:
Ship Armament Armor Displacement Propulsion Service
Laid down Commissioned Fate
  • After taking a closer look at similar articles at the A and FA class I've noted down the basic coverage that each article section does; A short background on the class including its design and construction (and any changes that occurred to the design while they were being built, for example the Kronshtadt class battlecruiser of Russia had multiple changes to the turret List of battlecruisers of Russia), their intended duty (in other words why they were built), any combat they'd encountered (not applicable to the article as far as I am aware), and any particularly notable ships from that class and the reason for their notability. An example would be KMS Bismarck for its activities during the second world war.
    • Specifically applicable to the Iroquois class is the modifications that have been made to the ship for the Gulf War and also TRUMP (Tribal Class Update and Modernization Project) modifications; re-purposed the ships for air defence rather than anti-submarine, new main weapons and an anti-missile system (Phalanx CIWS) and new more powerful engines to counter the increased weight. Which you mention briefly but don't cover to any real extent.
    • The Halifax class has also had some minor modification with additional modifications planned under the HCM which is currently underway and scheduled for completion in 2017? Though I think it may be cancelled due to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
    • Generally speaking these points are usually covered in each subsection, noticeably absent however is usually the origins of the class; for example the Halifax class came about from the Canadian Patrol Frigate Project which sought to develop a replacement for the existing destroyers. Note: the linked article is sub-par and I don't recommend using it for any purpose other than reference. A second example would be the procurement of the Kingston-class vessels under the Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel Project. Am sorry forgot to tag my name to it Mr rnddude (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: @Dank: Thank you both for your efforts and advice. I appreciate the enormous effort from Nick to provide detailed advise and recommendations. I totally see where you are coming from. I too reviewed the FA and featured lists earlier. I was unable to find one that deals with the scope that this article does. Featured lists on military topics range from simple lists with almost no value-added content like Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, to highly detailed examinations such as List_of_battlecruisers_of_the_United_States. I had been aiming for the former. I am concerned that the latter approach will create a very long article. As there is no movement towards approval of the article in its current state, I will withdraw the article and rework it along the lines Nick has suggested. Robert Brukner (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2016/Failed&oldid=749811842"