Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2016/Promoted

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment | 2016

Successful

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.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Levant (1758)

edit
Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk)

HMS Levant (1758) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

An eighteenth century Royal Navy frigate with extensive service in the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War. Essentially a privateer hunter, she secured a creditable 24 victories in 21 years at sea. Have done a few GA's but this is my first A-class nomination: all comments or suggestions gratefully received. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "carrying rice and indigo worth £37,200, or £4.5 million in 2015 terms": You do see a lot of inflation figures on Wikipedia, but be aware that economists generally don't support blanket conversions like these from almost 250 years ago as having any meaning.
    • I take your point: have been including these comparisons since it was recommended to me during this FAC. Admittedly that was some years ago. Happy to remove if you prefer.
      • I prefer not to get involved in this issue, actually, just passing the information along. It's annoying that the FAC community can't seem to find consistency on inflation figures, despite what all the reliable sources say.
  • In places where you use "space hyphen space", convert all of them to en-dashes, per WP:DASH.
    • Done
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, the prose is easily good enough for FAC; whether it's comprehensive enough for FAC is something I hope we find out during this review. Gratz on Arbcom, btw, and best of the season to you. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Support: nice work, I have a couple of suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • slightly inconsistent: "97 ft 3.625 in (29.7 m) (keel)" (in the infobox) v. "97 ft 4 in (29.7 m) keel" (in the body of the article);
    • Done. The source (Winfield) goes to the 35⁄8 inch level of specificity, but I've rounded it to 4 for readability.
  • the "Vessels captured or sunk ... during the Seven Years War" table in the 1761-62 section appears to be uncited. Is there a way that you can add citations to it?
    • Done.
  • same as above for the "Vessels captured or sunk ... during the American Revolutionary War" table;
    • Done. I checked through some of the most recent featured lists but could not find a consistent style for how the references should be added; so have gone for the easiest option of a separate column at the right of each table. Suggestions welcome on this or any preferred alternative.
  • in the quote box in the Final voyages section: "[t]he Levant was, after the commencement..." (I would suggest capitalising "[T]he...")
    • Done.
  • "File:Guadeloupe Banat 1.1.png": this might look a little better if the black border was cropped off;
    • Done
  • "File:USS Revenge (1777).jpg": the source link for this is dead, is it possible to find an archived version?

Great article. A couple of minor suggestions from me:

  • Perhaps link sixth-rate and frigate for the non-naval readers
    • Done
  • Perhaps adding ", Hampshire" after Buckler's Hard, just as an added aide (I clicked off the article to see where it was)
    • Done
  • Is there any known split of 200 officers and ratings, or did it vary?
    • Unfortunately it varied, not only from ship to ship but (to a lesser extent) from voyage to voyage. A ship of Levant's size would have had two or three commissioned officers: the captain and one or two lieutenants. There would have been a minimum of 11 petty officers: a master and master's mate, at least three midshipmen, purser, boatswain, gunner, cook, carpenter and surgeon. However its likely many of these had mates who acted as their deputies; if so these also held warrants as petty officers. Some vessels also carried a chaplain, sailmaker, quartermaster and/or master-at-arms, who would also have held petty officer warrants. Altogether, for a small vessel like this there may have been between 20-35 officers or petty officers, but without the paybook or captain's log there's no way to find a specific total.
      • @The Bounder: Success! Found a breakdown of the official complement: 42 officers including 2 with commisisons, and 40 warrant or petty officers; then 158 others as follows - 91 naval ratings, 38 Marines and 29 servants and other ranks (including 4 entirely fictitious people). The petty officer ranks are inflated by the presence of 7 quarter-gunners, a trumpeter and the extremely dubious "Yeoman of the Powder Room," but a reliable source (a work by naval historian NAM Rodger) confirms these people were indeed assigned the status of petty officers, so in they go. Added to the article with ref.
  • Best to link Seven Years' War in the text
    • Done
  • Needs a comma after "of which Levant was part" (as much to split "was part was" as anything)
    • Done
  • Link to smallpox for those unfamiliar
    • Done

That's it: all very minor, nit-picky stuff. I won't pretend to know anything about the subject, so the review is based on prose only. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bounder: Hopefully done except the officer/crew split. Thanks for the review. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nicely done work. I thought that may be the case with the officers, but just wanted to check first. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:48, 21 December 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.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Mincemeat

edit
Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk)

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

Toolbox

This is a story that has fascinated me since I saw the film about it some thirty years or more ago. Most people have heard of it, but even now it seems such an odd long-shot to try that it's difficult to believe it's not fictional. I've been working on the article recently, and I would love this to go through to FA, if people think that this merits the attempt. I look forward to all comments and suggestions people can make. – The Bounder (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lingzhi
  • Support What a very well-written, thoroughly referenced, and lavishly illustrated article on a fascinating topic, The Bounder. It might be nice to put the word "of" between "deception" and "Operation Barclay" in Aftermath and Legacy but, other than that, count me a fan. Also, and I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable than me on this point, but shouldn't Montagu had the Officer of the Order of the British Empire conferred on him in 1944 for his part in Operation Mincemeat be In 1944 Montagu was invested into the Order of the British Empire at the grade of officer for his part in Operation Mincemeat? I don't think one can be conferred an Order, only invested into it. Again, I might be incorrect so please don't act on this as a suggestion without someone else's input. LavaBaron (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSuport: (Harry Mitchell)

  • Is "personal assistant" the correct term for Fleming's role? I don't know if that was his job title but the military tend to use other terms, like aide or military assistant. Just a thought.
  • Was there any significance to the name "Mincemeat"?
  • As mentioned above, the OBE is not generally conferred; "appointed" is the term used by the London Gazette.
  • Is there anything worth adding about the operation's impact on popular culture? It seems to have caught people's imagination more than other deception operations (though I'm not sure if that's sourceable).
    • The main sources don't have much to say on the popular culture side of things. This was the popular culture section before I started work on it: no sources and some rather dubious connections that didn't hold water once the sources are searched for. The books and film were the only concrete connection that were strong enough for inclusion. The Bounder (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious but what do the external links add? Is there a reason to avoid citing them as references? (Not that there's anything wrong with them where they are at all)

This is pedantry really. It's an excellent article, engagingly written and on a fascinating subject. I had a good laugh at some of the details of how far some people went to make it all look real. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's good to see that this article on an important and famous topic is in such good shape. I have the following comments:

  • As an overall comment, the article is well written and comprehensive - nice work
  • I'm a bit surprised to see that Michael Howard's excellent official history of British strategic deception operations hasn't been consulted - it has a few pages on this operation, as well as some nuanced judgements concerning its effectiveness (in particular, that this operation was effective, but only in combination with the other measures and only because they played to a decision Hitler was probably going to make). The volumes by Harry Hinsley on the UK's overall intelligence effort might have material on the use of signals intelligence in this operation. The final section of the article in particular would benefit from using these sources.
    • I can access the Howard material through Amazon's 'Quick View', so I'll add this shortly; Hensley may be a little more troublesome to get hold of, but I'll work on it. The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added some material from Howard to balance out the article a little more. There was nothing from Hinsley on signals in connection with Mincemeat that I found (although I may have missed something, obviously). - The Bounder (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the lead could be a lot punchier: this operation is best-known for its use of a corpse
  • "Forensic examination showed they had been read, and decrypts of German messages showed the Germans fell for the ruse. Sicily was not reinforced, while Greece and Sardinia were" - it should be noted that Mincemeat was only part of the reason for this decision
  • "In late 1942, with on-going Allied success in the North African Campaign, the thoughts of the military planners turned to the next target. An invasion of France from Britain could not take place until 1944, and the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill wanted to use the Allied forces from North Africa to attack Europe's "soft underbelly" - this isn't really accurate: there was a lengthy debate between the US and UK governments before the decision to invade Sicily was made (with the Americans being much less enthusiastic about the idea). But this is beyond the scope of the article, so it would be better to just say that a decision to invade the island was made.
  • There's a bit of a jump from the "Military situation" section to the "Examining the practicalities; locating a corpse" section - a para or so explaining how this operation fitted into the broader deception plan would help to address this
  • "The military historian Jon Latimer observes that the relative ease with which the allies captured Sicily was not entirely because of Mincemeat, or the wider deception of Operation Barclay. Latimer identifies other factors, including Hitler's distrust of the Italians, and his unwillingness to risk German troops alongside Italian troops who may have been on the point of a general surrender." - surely the military success of the Allied forces was a key factor?
  • It's also worth noting that most historians seem to regard the Sicilian campaign as having been a disappointment for the Allied forces, with the first days of the operation going badly for the Americans and the German forces escaping due to unimaginative generalship.
  • Extending the influence of this operation to the Battle of Kursk seems to be going too far: the reduction of German forces was due to the fact of the Allied invasion, not the deception operations which preceded it. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I will double check the sources in this, but I'm not sure that's what they say. The units Hitler moved from Kursk went to the Balkans, which suggests the deception operations were the root of his decision; if they had been moved to Sicily or Italy, that would suggest that the military invasion was the reason. As I say, I'll double check the sources to make sure on this. The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smyth is clear in what he's written, but I've altered the text a little to a. reinforce that it was him that said it, and b. he was talking about the overall Husky operation, rather than Mincemeat specifically. I hope that these allay your concerns on this point. The Bounder (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. After a bit of polishing, I hope that it's bound for a FA nomination. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am very grateful for your excellent and constructive comments. Thank you so much for taking the time and making the effort: it has made a very positive difference to the article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these excellent comments. None are 'quick fixes' I can tick off immediately, but I'll work through them in the next few days. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chipping away at these. There is still one point I haven't touched (the 'jump' after the "Military situation"), but this will be done later today (we already have some limited information about Operation Barclay in there, so it may just need buiilding up a little more to give better context and background, but I want to check the sources properly first). If you feel I have not done justice to your comments in some of my other fixes, please let me know and I'll examine it further. Thanks again - The Bounder (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now worked my way through your comments and suggestions. If there are still any areas where I have not quite addressed your concern, please let me know and I'll see what else I can add. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Cholmondeley.jpg: was this a government photograph or a pre-1966 publication, and do we have anything to confirm either? Same with File:EwenMontagu.jpg, File:Archibaldnye.jpg.
    • I've changed the Nye image, as I can't find any good information to back this up. (Still working on the Charles Cholmondeley and Ewen Montagu images). - The Bounder (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect it was a government photograph and possibly Montagu was also published pre-66, but I can't find any proof of it, although I'm continuing to search. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nikkimaria, I am in a slight quandary over these two. I can find no proof of pre-1966 publication, or that's it was an official photograph (I took the uploaders rationale in good faith and wished they had put some evidence in there!), but image searching is not my strong suit. I would be loathe to remove the images entirely (as they are the two architects of the plan), so are there any other options? Thanks -The Bounder (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are a few things you can try. First, reverse image searching - tineye.com is a good one, or just go to Google Images and click the camera icon in the search bar. Second, try directly searching archives where the images would likely be found - eg. the UK National Archives. Third, see if there are any other images of these individuals available that are definitely free. Fourth, if all else fails, you can try using {{non-free biog-pic}} and providing a fair-use rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've run searches through the IWM, UK Archives, National Portrait Gallery, Flickr and tinyeye.com, as well as through books, other media searches and the internet, but nothing. I've nominated them for deletion on Commons to see if anyone there can find something I haven't, and I'll upload a copy onto WP with the non-free emplate on it. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Nikkimaria, I have uploaded local copies of these two, with appropriate rationales. No-one has stepped up at Commons to provide evidence that they are free, so we shall see what happens once it gets deleated, I guess. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hi Nikkimaria, Could you have a look at the two files on Commons? I tagged them for deletion only to have an admin close them with 'no real doubt about government source', when there is some doubt. They are being obstreperous at having their decision questioned, particularly that these images are shown in the Macintyre book as copyright the respective families. Thanks - The Bounder (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • FWIW I think you are right; there is no clear crown copyright on these. They *may* be official photographs, and they look a bit like they might be, but suspicion is not strong enough evidence. McIntyre cites them to the families so that's obviously where he got them - where they originally came from we don't know. Official photographs were fairly common, but so were private "vanity"/keepsake photographs so it's impossible to be sure. Unfortunately they are very bit bitey at Commons and can sometimes be bullies to newbies; you might be better off just ignoring them as it's unlikely you will get anywhere. It's their loss. You've done all you can from this end. --Errant (chat!) 19:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Harold_Alexander_E010750678-v8.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Seraph.jpg: tag and machine-generated source are not consistent with the description
  • File:Glyndwr_Michael.jpg: the blank fields in the FUR template should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I love deception articles and it's nice to see this more high profile example get some love. Nitpicks!

  • The deliberate planting of fake documents on the enemy; reads oddly. Would you really say they were planted on the enemy?
  • A month after the crash involving Turner, a member of British intelligence, Charles Cholmondeley; the ordering of this fragment makes it ambiguous (was Turner or Cholmondeley the member of British Intelligence). Also called codenamed Trojan Horse seems incorrect grammar. I'd be inclined to rephrase as A month after the Turner crash British intelligence officer Charles Cholmondeley outlined his own variation of the Trout memo plan codenamed Trojan Horse, after the Greek Trojan War deception
  • An alternative theory to Martin's identity; this is the first use of the pseudonym in the body, and it is a bit jarring out of context (who's Martin?). Is the name needed to make the point? If it is, can the name chosen be introduced before this point?
  • The body was found ; maybe be specific about who, as it is a new section. The body of 'Major Martin' was found"?
  • (Subjective) Althought this article is far better than most, there are some adverb usages (in particular -ly words) which might be able to be more specific. Might be worth a quick review, although it's not critical. non-exhaustive examples:
    • but they only lost 12; is that something they were happy about? Or something historians identify as good? In this context "only" makes it subjective without quantifying
    • the canister was eventually destroyed by ; is there any way to be specific about how soon this approach was taken? If not it might be better to avoid qualitative statements ("this effort failed, and the canister was destroyed")
    • consisting of a letter purportedly from Martin's father; this is unqualified, was is "purportedly" to the Germans, or is it "purportedly" to Historians? The answer is obvious but don't make the reader work :) It's probably not necessary to qualify this if it's unambiguous as a letter from the father (having read the sources; my view is that this is fine to state).
    • I've covred these, and I'll go through again to iron out any further examples I come across. - The Bounder (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Subjective) Personal preference, interested in your thoughts; in the legacy section, I'm not keen on listing lots of records and fictional depictions etc. It's a list that can get hard to define ("was referenced in a sketch on XYZ youtube channel"). Personally I think the link goes the other way (from the notable article about the depiction ot this one). Maybe this is better as a well-constructed see-also section. Not bothered either way, just a thought.
    • I hadn't thought of that, but my immediate two thoughts would be that firstly the Montagu-written book(s) should be mentioned in the body because they were by Montagu; the Duff Cooper book was the cause of Montagu's work, so it should probably be mentioned too (any other non-connected author could go in the see-also section). Secondly the two plays don't have articles, so they would be 'lost' to us, which I think is a pity. That leaves the Goons radio broadcast as the one thing to take out and drop into a separate section. I'm certainly not a big fan of the excessive lists of the largely tangential references with no decent citation (aside from the primary source of the youtube clip itself): if there isn't a good secondary source that explicitly makes the connection, then it shouldn't be anywhere near the article, I think - The Bounder (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no obvious answer. I think you've done a fine job with this article but worth keeping an eye on in case some other helpful editors start padding it out with trivia :) --Errant (chat!) 10:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work; still having a read through but I'd probably be happy to support. Cheers --Errant (chat!) 23:59, 13 December 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

North Eastern Railway War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

North Eastern Railway War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another war memorial! Other than London, York was the only city to have two major war memorials by Lutyens, one for the city itself and this one, for the men of the North Eastern Railway; this became the source of considerable controversy when the NER's memorial had ten times the budget of the city's and was built in a much more prominent location. All war memorials are poignant and fascinating but in my opinion this one stands out, both for its design and the story behind it, and this is one of the articles I'm particularly pleased with. I hope you find it equally interesting and I welcome any feedback! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support: Some very minor things in an interesting article. All but one of these are minor copyedit points, am happy to make these myself if that's an appropriate way to proceed. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: 4th sentence – not sure about the plural on NER; suggest just “The NER board voted ...”
  • Lead: last sentence: “...and is part of a ..”
  • Background: first paragraph: - suggest "2,236 men from the company had died on military service overseas; more were ..."
    • Done.
  • Background: Second paragraph – unless I am simply missing it, the points about the Midlands Railway War memorial and the Southend-on-Sea memorial don’t seem to be supported by the linked (Historic England) reference.
    • Leave this with me. It came from somewhere; let me figure out where. Probably Skelton.
  • Inception: 2nd paragraph – “envelop” not “envelope”
    • Done.
  • Inception: 3rd paragraph - consider wikilinking “cable” to cablegram; my first thought on reading this sentence was that Lutyens dismissed the idea on a piece of rope.
    • Done.
  • Inception: 3rd paragraph - Consider removing “the” from next sentence: “In February 1922, the secretary of the YAYAS ...”
    • Done.
  • Inception: 3rd paragraph - “NER met with CR Peers” should read “C. R. Peers” per mos:initials
    • Done.
  • Inception: 4th paragraph - suggest replacing “and for” with “ and with” in first sentence. Also, suggest “NER board” not “NER’s board”
    • Done.
  • History: - Suggest “between 5,000 and 6,000 people” rather than “5-6,000”
    • Done (sort of)
  • History: - The clause “attended the ceremony” seems redundant, how about just “civic officials and officers of the LNER and former NER, including Sir Ralph ...”
    • Done.
  • History: - Last paragraph – “Heritage List for England list entries were updated ...”

Comments, leaning Support

  • Copyedited a bit so pls let me know any concerns -- pretty happy with prose but no particular issues with Euryalus' suggestions either.
    • Your edits are fine; thanks very much!
  • Not an expert on war memorials (I know 'em when I see 'em) but looks comprehensive and appropriately detailed.
  • Structure appears consistent with similar articles (still can't get my head around Bibliography before Citations but I think you knew that...!)
  • No obvious issues with sources or their formatting except, perhaps, should the third Historic England ref (FN17) use the same template as the first two?
    • No, because that one is citing a press release from HE rather than an NHLE entry (but I know they look inconsistent).
  • Image licensing looks acceptable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as always, Ian. Really appreciate you having a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Design: Last paragraph: "The 2,236 names are inscribed on panels which were originally affixed to the wall." implies that the panels are not current affixed to the wall, but there is no obvious mention of where they are now or why they were moved.
    • They're not; apparently if you leave limestone in the Yorkshire weather for 100 years you lose some detail. It's mentioned further down in the history section so I've just left it at "were" here.
  • History: First sentence: "The North Eastern Railway War Memorial was finally constructed after Lutyens submitted modified designs to satisfy the Ancient Monuments Board..." this reads as repetitious of the third paragraph of the "Inception" section and the last paragraph of the lead for those reading linearly. Does it need a third mention?
    • I've trimmed it slightly; it needs something to let the reader know where we are.
  • History: Second sentence: "A crowd of 5–6,000 people gathered for the ceremony, among them multiple civic officials and officers of the LNER and former NER attended the ceremony,..." I don't think you need the words "attended the ceremony" as this is implied by this sentence being about those who gathered for the ceremony. The whole sentence is also rather long, so consider splitting it in two, perhaps "A crowd of 5–6,000 people gathered for the ceremony, among them multiple civic officials and officers of the LNER and former NER. Notable attendees included Sir Ralph Wedgwood, chief officer of the LNER; the Sheriff of York; the lord mayors of Bradford, Hull, and York; and the Archbishop of York."
    • I've removed that clause (it was left over from a previous rewrite) so I think the sentence is readable now (and I'm loathe to use "notable" in an article!).
  • See also: I've added York City War Memorial. It is linked in the lead but having read this article I now want to read that and would prefer not to have to hunt for the link. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you; the MoS doesn't, but the MoS is more concerned pednatry than being useful to readers. Still, it might come up later in this review or at FAC.

Thanks for looking, Chris! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks great, Harry, just a few minor suggestions/observations from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • per WP:LAYOUTEL, the Commons link should be at the top of the last section of the article
  • suggestion only: but I'd consider flipping the Bibliography and Citations sections per the example of WP:LAYOUT
  • Boorman should be before Borg in the Bibliography
Thanks very much, Rupert. I've fixed the alphabetisation, I appreciate the suggestion but I prefer it as it it, and I don't think that part of the MoS is supported by consensus; I may get round to starting a formal RfC on it but MoS discussions tend to get bogged down by a small number of editors with extremely strong opinions on the positioning of commas or floating boxes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Bounder

All very nicely put together yet again. Some very minor points from me:

  • Is it worth having an image of the Southend-on-Sea War Memorial in the Background section to stop people diving away from the article for a look?
    • I didn't put one in when I wrote it because I didn't want to risk the reader confusing the two but there are more photos of the NER memorial now so I think we can manage it.
  • In the image of the "Close-up of the Stone of Remembrance", it may be worth clarifying that it is the bit that stands behind the poppies: a newcomer to the topic with no knowledge of Lutyens' other memorials may think the large stones at the base of the obelisk are the "Stone of Remembrance"
    • Fair point; I've added more detail to the caption.
  • Do we need the additional information 'famous for his remark "the lamps are going out".'? It seems a bit tangential to the NER memorial
    • I think it's worth mentioning for anyone who can't place Grey's name and it explains his significance (beyond his connection to the NER) for anyone wondering why his speech is worth noting; the man seems to have had a gift for summing up the mood in short sentences like that.

I hope these are of help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you again, The Bounder. Thanks for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another excellent piece on Lutyns' memorials. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:48, 20 December 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.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/7th Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/7th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A Victorian infantry battalion of the 2nd AIF, the 2/7th was raised as part of the 6th Division. After taking part in the initial battles that the Australians fought in the North African campaign, the 2/7th took part in the fighting in Greece and then Crete. Their most significant action probably came at 42nd Street on Crete, after which the majority of the battalion was captured. After being rebuilt, the battalion undertook garrison duties in Ceylon before fighting several campaigns against the Japanese in New Guinea. This article recently underwent a GA review and I am hoping to improve it further through the ACR process. Thank you to all who stop by. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder
  • Should "Bren Carrier" be capitalised? (Infobox image caption)
  • You've got both WWII and SWW: should this be consistent throughout? (There is also a WWI in the mix too)
  • Should "all volunteer" be hyphenated? (I am not at all sure about the use, so it may be right as it is!)
  • This is quite a long sentence that carries a lot, using a lot of sub-clauses: "Consisting of four rifle companies – designated 'A' to 'D' – under a headquarters company and a battalion headquarters,[3] like other 2nd AIF infantry battalions raised at the time, the battalion had an authorised strength of around 900 personnel." Perhaps this could be split into two for ease?
  • Do you need "which had served during World War I" in "...7th Battalion which had served during World War I"? You mention the First WW connection not that long before.
  • Should militia be capitalised? (I don't know what the norm is about this on WP, so it's a question asked in ignorance!)
  • What does "After concentrating" mean? (It looks like they all had a very hard think before doing something!)
    • Essentially it means that the battalion's personnel came together at the same location. We have a link for "force concentration" but the Wikipedia article on this doesn't capture this aspect of it very well (focusing mainly on the combat application of the term), so it is useless as a link. Just changed it to "reported for duty". AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Victorians later saw action..." There is a facetious part to me that wonders how those of the Victorian era were involved!

Down to the "Fighting in New Guinea" section: more to follow in the morning. I hope these are of use. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for taking a look. These are my changes so far: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good. Final batch of minor niggles below.

That's my lot, an enjoyable read on something I had no idea about previously! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. I've made those changes now: [2] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure to review. It's engagingly written and summarises enough to provide a full picture without excessive detail. Support. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • No dabs, external links check out, no duplicate links, images all have alt text, no issues with reference consolidation, and the Earwig tool detects no issues with close paraphrase or copyright violation [3] (no action req'd).
    • Prose in the lead is a bit repetitive: "After basic training was completed in Australia, the battalion embarked for the Middle East as part of the first batch of Australian troops to deploy overseas. After further training in Palestine, the battalion went into action against the Italians in January 1941. After participating in the successful capture of Bardia and Tobruk, it was committed to the disastrous Battles of Greece and Crete, where the battalion was essentially destroyed after the majority of its personnel were captured. After being rebuilt rebuilt in Palestine, the 2/7th undertook garrison duties in Syria and then Ceylon before being transported back to Australia in August 1942. In January 1943, the battalion was deployed to New Guinea, taking part in the fighting against the Japanese in the Salamaua–Lae campaign until October 1943. After a period... " (5 x sentence starting the same one consecutively).
    • "In November, a detachment of the battalion's Bren carrier crews were sent to support the Australian and US units fighting around Buna–Gona..." I wonder if the reason for this should be included for context (i.e. as a desperate makeshift measure in the absence of tanks in the theatre, which of course the carriers were anything but - there is a bit on this sad episode in Hopkins Australian Armour pp. 111-112).
    • I made a couple of minor edits [4], hopefully they are helpful.
    • Otherwise the changes that have occurred since I last reviewed look good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:37, 20 December 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Spalding War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Spalding War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Here's another war memorial. This one isn't covered in as many sources as some of the others but it is covered in greater depth because of its interesting background and how the way its history is interwoven with the pain felt by a country and by one aristocratic family in the wake of the First World War. It's the third of several war memorial articles I'm hoping will reach featured article status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day Harry, nice work. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • do the images need a Freedom of panorama tag?
    • I don't think so, otherwise we'd need to tag literally millions of files on Commons; besides, Lutyens has been dead since 1945 so the design is likely out of copyright.
  • the paragraph beginning "McLaren approached the council with her proposal..." appears to be uncited, or is it cited to [1][6]? If so, I'd suggest maybe duplicating the refs earlier to make it clearer
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be in the last section of the article, not the See also section
  • "A central panel bearing further names was added in 2015..." do we know why further names were added? Were these soldiers who subsequently died of wounds?
    • The source doesn't say; it's possible they died of wounds but more likely they were forgotten (due to poor record-keeping) or were omitted (eg deserters).

AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, Rupert! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Looks in great shape, a few comments though:

  • The references heading is the wrong place (should be ahead of the citations subheading).
    • Hmm. This was the result of an edit last night that left it hanging in the middle of nowhere; I've put it back where it was.
  • OK, this could be pedantic, I'm not sure, but shouldn't the Skelton citation be Skelton & Gliddon?
    • I usually just go with the primary author for footnotes (cf. Pevsner); it's only to identify the work.
  • "Barbara McLaren later remarried to Bernard...": this grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "Barbara McLaren was later remarried to Bernard..."
    • I don't honestly know; I'll have to take advice...

Hope that helps. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, Zawed. Dank is my go-to copy-editor ... Dan, do you have an opinion on the question above? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting question. I'd go with "was later married to" or "later married"; some readers will assume wrongly from "remarried" that she's marrying him for a second time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've just gone with "married"; it means the reader has to infer that its her second marriage but I can live that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:28, 11 December 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.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Æthelflæd

edit
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

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

Toolbox

It is ages since I nominated for MilHist as none of the article I was working on were eligible. However, Æthelflæd was the daughter of Alfred the Great and the chief - perhaps only - female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England, so she is eminently eligible. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, overall this looks quite good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In Keynes's view, "The..." (you probably could silently decaps "The" here...);
  • "...as well as reverence for their great Northumbrian royal saint at Gloucester," for stem sentences like this, I'd suggest probably a colon, rather than a comma;
  • "p. 93–94" --> "pp. 93–94"
  • in the References, " The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters" probably should be in italics for consistency;
  • I am not sure how to deal with this. I put the charter as the title and The Electronic Sawyer as the publisher, which is probably wrong. The Electronic Sawyer is mounted on a server at King's College, London, which is described as an integral part of the Kemble website, mounted on a server at Cambridge University. So maybe I should show King's College as the publisher, The Electronic Sawyer as the title and the charter as the chapter? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there page numbers for the two Heighway (1984 & 1999) chapters in the References?
  • same as above for Ryan?
  • be careful of overlink. I removed one for you, but I think Alex Woolf and Mancus are also overlinked;

Comments, leaning support -- with the caveat that although medieval times of course interest me I know little more about them than the next guy...

  • Pls let me know any concerns with my copyedit (a fair bit was fixing apparent typos and inserting punctuation where I felt it helped); I think there was only outstanding point for me:
    • In the lead: "In 909 Edward sent a West Saxon and Mercian force to raid northern Danish territory" -- I don't think you've introduced Edward at this point. The Elder I presume? I debated just putting that in and linking but you may want to mention him earlier, will leave to you.
  • No issues with structure or level of detail AFAIC.
  • I might leave image and source reviews to others...

Nice work bringing this unique woman to the fore on WP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support

  • Great work! Really minor comments below.
  • "to rule all English not living in areas" - felt odd to me. "English people" or "all the English"?
  • ""Æthelflæd (from The Cartulary and Customs of Abingdon Abbey, ca 1220" - elsewhere in the infobox and captions, you're using "c."
  • "The most important source for history in this period is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle but Æthelflæd is almost ignored in the standard West Saxon version in what F. T. Wainwright calls "a conspiracy of silence". - might have added a comma after "version", breaking a fairly long sentence
  • "although it is lost," - "although it is now lost"? Obvious, but would smooth the sentence flow
  • " semi-legendary Irish chronicle" - I wasn't sure what "semi-legendary" meant in this context.
  • This is how it is described by historians. I take it to mean a chronicle which has both stories of miracles and descriptions of events which can be verified from other sources. Do you have any suggestion for a better wording? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After saying that this is how it is described I cannot find where. How about "in the Irish chronicle known as the Three Fragments, described by Wainwright as a source which "contains much that is legendary rather than historical"? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hchc2009 I have given a more extended quote to explain why the chronicle is relevant. "According to Wainwright, it "contains much that is legendary rather than historical. But it also contains, especially for our period, much genuine historical information which seems to have its roots in a contemporary narrative."" Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the twelfth century, Henry of Huntingdon paid her his own tribute: Heroic Elflede! great in martial fame..." - personally, I found the whole quote a bit much, but that might just be me! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments

  • You switch from Three Fragments to Fragmentary Annals.
  • "The land was valuable" land can't show anything.
  • "In the view of Maggie Bailey" Why is Bailey's view privileged over Walker's? Does the former reflect academic consensus?
  • "especially for our period" should it be "especially for [that] period"?
  • "Æthelflæd inherited..." Maybe "Æthelflæd benefited from a Mercian tradition that acknowledged the importance of queens" or similar? Both "inherited" and "acceptance" seem mildly problematic to me, for different reasons.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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

Article promoted by HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Alan Rawlinson

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Alan Rawlinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Al Rawlinson's name has been a long-standing redlink in several articles on the RAAF in WWII. His fairly recent death means he has no ADB entry as yet, and the paucity of details on his post-war RAF career prevented me from attempting an article on him before now. Aided by Lex McAulay's short bio (a Kindle book, BTW, hence the citation of section titles rather than page numbers), I've produced an account of Rawlinson's military career that I believe should satisfy A-Class requirements, but as coverage of his later life is next to zero I'll be leaving it at that for now. Oddly, considering his apparently successful career in the RAF, not the Times nor the Independent nor the UK Telegraph carried obits for him as they did for fellow 3 Sqn commander Bobby Gibbes, who died the same year, never served in the RAF, and had a similar official victory score. Rawlinson also seems to have been forgotten by Australian papers that I've checked. Well, perhaps we can give him due attention here... Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recently reviewed this article for GA, and have subsequently done a light c/e for duplicate links, little else drew my attention.
  • all the tool checks are green.
  • images are all ok
  • a quality article covering his whole life, nothing much I could see that needed addressing for ACR.
  • it is possible that his death was noted by The Border Watch or Naracoorte Herald, but I'm not sure Trove has digitised them.
    • Tks PM! I found evidence of a death notice in the Herald via the Ryerson Index but it was presumably little more than the one I found in the Advertiser on microfiche -- c'est la vie (or perhaps c'est la mort in this case)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Ian, not much to pick fault with as usual. Just a couple of queries/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • was his father a professional AFL player, or did he have some other occupation?
    • I don't know for sure if the WAFL was pro back then but no sources I came across mention him being anything but a footballer...
  • capitalisation: "RAAF Officers Personnel files" --> "RAAF officers personnel files"? or "RAAF Officers Personnel Files"?
  • as above: "RAAF Unit History sheets" --> "RAAF unit history sheets" or "RAAF Unit History Sheets"?
    • Heh, I thought those were a bit odd too but it's the way they're capitalised in the NAA catalogue. 'Course it could be argued that WP convention (title case probably) should override and I have no objection to that...
  • there are a couple of duplicate links in the lead, but these seem fair enough in the circumstances
  • images appear to be appropriately licensed.

Excellent article with just two comments from me:

  • There are a couple of spots (outside the infobox) that the date format is "1949–52"; I think there has been an RfC that suggests is should be "1949–1952" (I don't think it's a positive move, and the closing summary of the RfC doesn't seem to reflect the consensus of the discussion, but what do I know…)
    • Heh, yes, I'd just got through changing 4-digit end years to 2-digit in several articles when they had that RFC... At least we're allowed to leave the 2-digit ones in the IBs (and I think elsewhere for successive years, e.g. 1960–61)! Will action in the main body...
  • Post-war career: "according to Lex McAuley". Two things here. I think the spelling is McAulay, and we don't need the "Lex" as you've given the name earlier.
    • Tks for pointing that out, will action.

I hope these help. I've not done an A-class review, so I'm a little reticent to support outright, but I'd certainly support this at FA, if the co-ordinators want to take that into account. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment, and great to see you at A-Class Review -- one of our editors defined this assessment level as "like FA, but more forgiving"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work as usual Ian. I have the following comments:

  • "was an Australian fighter ace of World War II" - given that he also had a pre and post-war military career, I'd suggest quickly noting this in the lead sentence (eg, "was an Australian airman and fighter ace of World War II" or similar?)
  • "Moving to Melbourne when he was eight years old" - "His family moved to Melbourne" perhaps?
  • Should No. 71 Operational Training Unit be red-linked?
  • Is it possible/accurate to say that Rawlinson was brought back to Australia in early 1942 as part of the efforts to expand and improve the home-based air units?
    • Again the sources don't spell this out -- the best I could do that went beyond mere posting details was mention the desert vets' determination to train new pilots properly at OTU.
      • OK. The Australian military's response to the crisis of early 1942 is a surprisingly under-researched topic by historians, so it makes sense that there's nothing explicitly on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There he was asked to lead the only Supermarine Spitfire squadron to be formed in Australia" - this doesn't seem correct as two RAF Spitfire squadrons were formed in Australia in December 1943 (see: [7] and [8]). No. 85 Squadron RAAF also converted to the type in WA.
  • "to undertake interception and escort duties in the New Guinea campaign against Japanese forces" - you could note that its specific role was to complement and support the Kittyhawks, which explains why it ended up in a wing with two Kittyhawk squadrons in modern PNG instead of Darwin or similar (see [9])
  • I take it that we don't know why exactly Rawlinson joined the RAF, and why they accepted him? (presumably he believed - probably rightly - that it offered better officers and the RAF was happy to take on a proven elite leader?) Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 10 December 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.

Article promoted by Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Velites

edit
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, it has been a good article for some time, more than 8 years, they can be seen as vital to the history of light, irregular forces. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley

  • I am doubtful whether this article and the one above on the Hastati are suitable A-Class candidates. They were taken to GA in 2008 by an editor who has long ago ceased editing, and the A-Class nominator has made no contributions to the articles. The references are all undated books, but most have an access date, and it is unclear whether this is the date the editor read the book or whether they accessed pages online. Neither the nominator or reviewers may have access to the sources, so they may not be able to check references, or assess whether the books are reliable sources according to current standards. A principal source is William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, which was published in many editions between 1842 and 1890. This is far too dated, even if we knew which edition was used. There are a couple of citation neededs in one of the articles, and very little detail about the role these infantry classes played in specific battles. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I will work on what you have mentioned. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I have fixed all of the citaiton, I am working towards adding more and citing more currently. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Lucilius mentioned below is probably Gaius Lucilius, but the citation is a vague reference to an original source. So far as I can tell with no knowledge of the subject, the content is good, apart from the lack of dates in the lead. I would like to see more on specific battles, but if the information is not available that should not be a bar to promotion. The referencing is unacceptably poor. Only four of the 17 citations are OK. The others are vague citations of original sources or far too dated. I think all sourcing need to be re-done by the nominator. Some may be available online, but others will probably only be available in a library. I second Rupert's thanks for Iazyges's efforts, and hope they are able to bring this interesting article up to scratch. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles Which ones are good, and which need fixing.
Sabin and Southern are reliable sources, although in view of the original editor's standard of referencing, they need checking to see that they do really support what the article says. If you cannot get access to these sources then I probably can. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources are not reliable and need replacing - and the text amending if the sources you find do not support the text. Krenz 1991 is an article in [10] - which is probably unobtainable unless you are willing to buy it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have introduced errors in citation 1 which I have amended. "accessdate=" should only be used for online sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: My bad, I was using the cite book tool, I have purged the polybius ones and krentz.

@Dudley Miles: would this be considered reliable?[1] I have sent the non sabin and southern to the gulags. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the book but I assume one published by Routledge should be an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look further over the next few days but some preliminary comments.
  • Refs 1, 3 and 7 are to primary sources. It is better to use secondary works as assessing the reliability of primary sources is original research.

  Done

  • I would delete 1st ed in ref 2 as only 1 ed has been published.

  Done

  • I get a bad link on ref 4.

  Done

  • Ref 13 is Elton (1996) 104. This needs expanding.

  Done

  • You need to delete the reference to Lucilius unless you can definitely establish who he is.

  Fixed

  • I believe this can establish it? [2]
  • You have linked to pages in Google books, but this link does not work for me. I just get sent to the bibliographical details. I may have to wait until I can get access to the sources to comment further, and this may take some time. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

  • I have been able to check print copies of a few references.
  • Ref 8 Lazenby looks OK, although it uses an additional page which I have added to the reference. You cite 1998 as the publication date but the copy I consulted was the original publication in 1978, see [11]. Nikki can you advise please how this ref should be shown? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done

  Done

  Removed

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. The topic is definitely well beyond my area of expertise, so I just have a few general suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there appears to be a mix of citation styles: for A-class these should be consistent. There is no set style, but consistency is the key.
  • the full bibliographic details for Krentz should be provided in some way

  Done

  • what year was the Mommsen work published?

  Done

  • "done away with" seems a bit informal. Would "disbanded" work?

  Done

  • "Lucilius suggests..." is there a link for Lucilius?

  Done I cannot for the life of me find out which lucilius it is.

  • suggest a paragraph split in the lead here: "Velites did not form their own..."

  Done

  • is there a link that could be added for the siege of Capua in 211 BC, if not it should probably be a red link as it sounds like it is most likely notable?

  Done

  • suggest linking Polybius

  Done

  • inconsistent spelling "principes" v. "princeps"; also it should be linked on first mention in the body of the article

  Done

  Done

  • File:Velites.jpg: this is a nice image (except for the large copyright attribution - is there anyway that the author would release it without this?), but the details on the image description page are not sufficient currently. You need to provide more details about where it was published (was it in a book, or on another website?), also if the author has given permission for its use, this needs to be documented through the OTRS system. You can find more information about this here: [12].
  • I note that you have many of the references now due to concerns raised above. Do you have suitable sources to replace these? The A-class referencing standards require at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. Regards,
@Dudley Miles: I am currently looking, I may have found one, would you consider this a reliable source? [4]

AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I've uploaded a version of the image without the watermarking, since derivative works are covered by the OTRS release. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: thanks, for some reason if I try to insert it as a thumbnail, it has the watermark, but if i try to insert it at its full size it does not. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is their anything else you think needs to be changed for it to be up to A status? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) @Dudley Miles:, @AustralianRupert:, and @Hchc2009:, Firstly, thank you all for your work on this article, secondly, I believe all the issues on this have been resolved (except for the thumnail still having the watermark for inexplicable reasons.) Do you also feel that it is ready? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • the lead contains some info not in the body: the length of the javelin and the metal points, the Battle of Zama, the use as a screening force, the fact of rarely wearing armour, and wearing wolfskin, the point about 1,000 velites in an early Roman legion, and the two theories (that rorarii and velities were interchangable, and that the leves' equipment was upgraded etc)? These points should be worked into the body of the article also

  Done

  • if the above information is added to the body with references, then the citations in the lead aren't required per WP:LEAD

  Done

  • there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs (I've marked where I think citations are needed)

  Done

  • reference 4 should be formatted so the bare url isn't visible

  Done

  • I have now had a chance to look at Sabin, and it is clear this article is nowhere near GA, let alone A-Class. It says that the velites "wore a headdress made from wolf skin to allow officers to differentiate between them and heavier legionaries" and "The velites could not receive decorations for bravery in battle if they fought within the ordered lines of the legion". Both statements are cited to Sabin p. 513, and neither are in this source, which says that the velites wore wolf skins so that they could be identified when they performed acts of valour, and nothing about them ever serving in the ordered lines. Sabin says "The velites were placed in front of the array, then, partly so that the boldest of the young men could distinguish themselves by seeking out combat with individual enemies. This is why they need to be identifiable, and why they, rather than the soldiers in the array behind, were awarded decorations." The article misses half the purpose of the velite system, which was as much about giving young men a chance to win glory as it was a tactical formation. There are also many other statements not in the source cited. I regret I have to oppose, although I will be happy to look at it again if you can get access to the print sources and re-write it. 08:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I believe I have fixed it.

Thanks for your efforts, and you have corrected a major error, but the whole article needs checking against the sources and re-writing. Can you get access to the hard copy books? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Ill check, are any of them downloadable as PDFs that you know of? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. You should be able to get them from your local library through inter-library loan, but that would probably take some time. Alternatively, you could enquire about access to the library of a local university or college. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles:, I bought a couple books about rome, ill search them for velites. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, I have yet to find the book, I am still searching. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links
  • Support This short-er article has to be weighed against the potentially available information on a niche, ancient topic. It is well-sourced, composed, and seems to meet the Class A criteria by my judgment. LavaBaron (talk) 02:00, 2 November 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]

@Dudley Miles: Yes I have, a lot of the sources added in are from Google books. There are no google books out that I haven't looked at. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments.
  • I am not sure whether it is a rule but I think it is usual to leave references out of the lead as it should be a summary of deails referenced below.
It is at the editor's discretion, I personally think its better to leave them in in case of any dispute over the lead, the ref is easily available. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some dates in the lead would be helpful. 1. The dates the Velites operated in first sentence.

  Done 2. Date of the Battle of Zama.   Done 3. Date of the Marian reforms.   Done

  • "As backup weapons, they also carried gladii, relatively short thrusting swords 74 centimetres (29 inches) in length that were the main weapons of the hastati and principes." This sentence does not quite work. Maybe "The hastati and principes carried gladii, relatively short thrusting swords 74 centimetres (29 inches) in length, as their main weapons, and the velites carried them as backup weapons."

  Done

  • The Polybius quote needs a citation.

  Done (the citation above it was the same for it)

  • "After they had fallen back, some would fall back behind the Triarii," Repetiton of fall back - I am not sure what you mean.

  Done

  • "some would sustain the Hastati or Principes (Depending on which was attacking) with darts," This reads a bit oddly. Presumably you mean support by throwing darts, and Depending should not be dapitalised.

  Done

  • "however usually a corps of deportates" I do not understand this.

  Done

  • "the advance of the hastati, who were armed with swords, and were the first line of attack." Maybe "the first line of attack after the velites".
  Done I have removed it because the sentence contradicts the previous one, and i feel the part as a whole is better without it.
  • the Second Punic War and Battle of Lake Trasimene - I would give the dates.

  Done

  • "With the formal military reforms of Gaius Marius in 107 BC," I think the word "formal" is superfluous.

  Done

@Dudley Miles: all of your suggestions have been added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After they had fallen back, some would move behind the Triarii, some would supply the Hastati or Principes, depending on which was currently attacking, with darts". This is still clumsy. How about "After they had fallen back, they would move up behind the attacking troops and throw darts at the enemy." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles:   Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I'll close it now that it has 3 supports, and no objections. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:55, 6 December 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.

Article promoted by HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

It's been a little while since the last German battleship graced the Milhist ACR page, but seeing as this one's sister ships are all FAs, I thought it was time to get around to rewriting it. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Parsecboy, nice work as usual. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • inconsistent: " 13,000 metric horsepower (12,822 ihp; 9,561 kW)..." (in the body of the article) v. "13,000 PS (12,820 ihp; 9,560 kW)" (infobox)
    • Fixed the rounding error
  • (in the body) "twelve machine guns" --> should "1-pdr" be included here for consistency with the infobox?
    • Good idea
  • inconsistent: "She was scrapped in 1920" (in the lead) v. "Scrapped in 1919" (in the infobox)
    • Fixed
  • I think the images would be more visually appealing if the borders were cropped from: "File:Die Gartenlaube (1887) b 517.jpg", "File:S.M. Linienschiff Kaiser Friedrich III.jpg"
    • I'll have to address that later - am traveling for the holiday so I don't have access to my home system.
  • "a foray toward Gotland to catch Russian warships" --> "a foray toward Gotland to attack Russian warships"?
    • Sounds fine to me.
  • "Two days later, the fleet arrived off Gotland to show the German flag, and was back in Kiel by 30 December" --> was any action fought? If not, it is probably best to say so, given it seems they went there looking to engage the Russians?
    • Good idea - I've clarified that
  • in the References, is there an ISSN or OCLC (or similar) for the R.U.S.I. Journal?
    • Added
  • same as above for Notes on Naval Progress?
    • Added
  • "United States. Office of Naval Intelligence" --> is the full stop a typo here?
    • Yes, good catch
  • this seems inconsistent: "Ratingen, DE" v. "Bonn"

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always, Dan - everything looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC) This article is in fine shape, I have made a few minor tweaks and only have one minor quibble.[reply]

Image review

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 28 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Rogožarski IK-3

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Rogožarski IK-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Rogožarski IK-3 was the only home-grown modern monoplane fighter aircraft in service with the Royal Yugoslav Air Force when the Axis powers invaded Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941. The aircraft and their pilots gave a good account of themselves during the fighting, but were overwhelmed by the numbers of German aircraft and the expertise of the German pilots. The IK-3 design was used as the basis for the post-war Yugoslav-built Ikarus S-49 fighter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the c/e and review, Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Not a lot stood out for me: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • this appears to be unreferenced: "His rate of climb was too steep and the aircraft fell into a spin at low altitude and hit the water."
  • if possible, another image or two would help to break up the text, but it isn't a requirement
  • Thanks for the review, Rupert. I've fixed the citation and added a couple of pics. Unfortunately there aren't any free pics of the IK-3 that I have been able to locate, but I've added in what I think are relevant ones of other museum aircraft mentioned in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I was the third and final GAN reviewer and passed the article there; I've checked the few edits made since then and find no issues, this meets the A-Class criteria as well.
I've also reviewed images added since GAN and all licensing seems fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 27 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.

Article promoted by Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Isurava

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of Isurava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of the defensive battles fought by the Australians during the initial stages of the Kokoda Track campaign, the Battle of Isurava forms a key part of the narrative of the Australian involvement in the New Guinea campaign. Until recently, our coverage of the campaign was limited to just the overarching Kokoda Track campaign article; however, I have been working to create articles on the individual battles themselves, with this being the last one I have written (the others are all B class, although I hope maybe to take them to GA and beyond later). I have recently expanded this article from a redirect and have taken it to GA status. I would like to improve it further through the A-class review process also. Thank you to Anotherclown for his insightful comments during the GA review and to Cinderella157 for their copy editing and suggestions after the fact, and of course to all those who stop by to help during the review. COI disclaimer: my grandfather fought during the Kokoda Track campaign, but not at Isurava (he was at Oivi-Gorari with the 2/3rd Infantry Battalion). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like this one much.

Fair enough. Blunt, but insightful as always. Anyway, thanks for looking. These are my changes: [13] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • US engineer and service units began arriving to conduct vital airfield and port development work, to help ease the supply situation.[19] Nevertheless, the supply situation – exacerbated by poor staff work and developing aerial supply techniques – continued to limit the ability of the Allies to concentrate troops forward throughout much of the campaign. Can we re-phrase this to remove the repetition of "the supply situation" and make it clearer what is meant by "developing aerial supply techniques"? A much clearer statement of "the supply situation" would help.
  • However, the size of the Japanese force and the extent of their own supply problems became apparent to the Australian high command. But not to the reader, because the infobox (and article) says that the Japanese strength was 3,000-5,000. The latter figure has been debunked. The Allied command knew that at a 1:1 ratio, Potts would not be able to attack, but should have had enough strength to defend. But Williams has established lower figures than the article: 2,130 Japanese vs 2,292 Australians (p. 69)
    • Good point, added this figure now, and tried to clarify for the reader what was becoming apparent, although the sentence is probably a bit cumbersome now. I wonder, would this work: "These orders were changed, though, as intelligence indicated that the force facing Potts was equal in size, if not greater."? (It seems they at least believed the force was greater at the time?) AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-envigorate should be "re-invigorate"
  • For the Australians to be able to mount a counter-attack, it was vital that they build up a stockpile of supplies in order to reduce the burden placed on the native carrier system. Obviously, that would not reduce the burden on the native carrier system, but increase it. Try again.
  • An order to assume defensive operations and to withdraw towards Kokoda was eventually given to Horii, after further defeats around Guadalcanal combined with supply difficulties. This is the first mention of Guadalcanal, so link. And what supply difficulties?
  • In crossing the Kumusi, they were to loose most of their artillery "lose"
  • In this regard, while Potts' handling of the withdrawal, despite his vilification and subsequent sacking by General Thomas Blamey, commander of the Australian Military Forces, has tended to be viewed relatively uncritically. Firstly, this does not make grammatical sense, as it has an opening phrase but no closing one. Secondly, it is not supported by the source. Thirdly, it is wrong. Potts was relieved by Rowell before Blamey arrived, but after talking to Potts and Blamey in Port Moresby 13 September, Rowell allowed Potts to return to command of the 21st Brigade, then resting at Port Moresby. After Herring took over from Rowell, Herring resolved to replace Potts with Ivan Dougherty. Herring knew Dougherty well from his time in Darwin, but was unfamiliar with, and rightfully concerned, about Potts. He arranged with Blamey for Dougherty and Potts to exchange posts (since Darwin was not part of Herring's command).
Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted the sentence, as you are right it was terrible and was trying to say too much. The source (Williams pp. 82-83) says this: "There is little criticism of Potts' handling of Isurava in postwar accounts...", so I've tried to clarify that. Decided not to mention Potts' replacement as it comes later in the narrative anyway and is probably just best dealt with in the later battle articles. Please let me know if you think it needs further work. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have some more:

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Support Comments - only a few minor points as I reviewed previously at GA:
    • I wonder if Port Moresby's strategic importance to the campaign should be explained in brief, i.e. why were the Japanese trying to capture it / what effect was its loss perceived to have on Australian's strategic position? (suggestion only).
    • Repetitive wording here: "...as the terrain lowers towards sea level, the terrain..." ("the terrain x 2 in close proximity).
    • "Following the failure of a seaborne assault on the strategically important town of Port Moresby resulting from the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942 and further losses during the Battle of Midway, it was planned to capture the town via an overland advance across the Owen Stanley Range along the Kokoda Track." By whom?
    • Prose is repetitive here: "...a large number of troops, and a number of artillery pieces..." ("number" x 2 in close proximity), perhaps reword?
    • A bit repetitive here too: "...The Australians were also experiencing their own supply problems. For the Australians..." ("the Australians"). Perhaps consider changing to something like: "The Australians were also experiencing their own supply problems. For them..."?
    • Is there a missing word here: "Casualties during the fighting around have been variously reported..."? (after "around")
    • "The partially successful withdrawal of Maroubra Force..." Is "partially" an accurate description, or would "mostly" be better?
    • I made a few edits as part of a second read-through [15], AR pls review and amend any that are not helpful.
    • Otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 22:12, 25 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Al-Mu'tadid

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Al-Mu'tadid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of the most (and virtually the last) capable Abbasid caliphs, whose life was spent very much on campaign, but who also presided over a transformative period in domestic government and the fortunes of the Abbasid state. I've worked on this article on and off since 2013, gathering material from many sources, and would like eventually to bring it to FA. Thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions for improvement. Constantine ✍ 07:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Another great article, Constantine. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a goal towards which he worked by a mixture of force and diplomacy..." --> "...a goal towards which he worked with a mixture of force and diplomacy"?
  • is there an OCLC number that could be added for the Bowen source?
  • in the notes there are a couple of instances of double full stops, for instance: "57ff.." Can these be fixed?
  • there appear to be a couple of overlinked terms: Baghdad, Fars Province, and Sawad
  • capitalisation in the references, "Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate from contemporary Arabic and Persian Sources" --> "Baghdad During the Abbasid Caliphate from Contemporary Arabic and Persian Sources"?

Support Looks pretty good. Some comments though:

  • Al-Muwaffaq gave his son a military upbringing from an early age, and the young prince became "a keen horseman and took care to inspect both his troops and their mounts in person" (Hugh N. Kennedy). etc We don't normally use that form of inline citation on Wikipedia. Do we need it? It interrupts the narrative.
  • Byzantime empire should be "Empire"
  • Can you get rid of the fixed widths on the images? This causes problems for people using mobile devices.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye7, thanks for your review! I hope you enjoyed reading the article. On the inline citation, I used it because it is a direct quote, but you are right that it is redundant here, where the reference is clearly only to Kennedy. I've also swapped the fixed px in the images for a scaling factor. Anything else, in terms of background information, ease of understanding, etc.? Constantine ✍ 14:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I've added a brief section on Mu'tadid's revival of caliphal patronage for scholars, and his own interest in science. Odd that I had missed that... Constantine ✍ 22:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my area of expertise, but I think the article meets our A-class criteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 14 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Royal Yugoslav Navy

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Royal Yugoslav Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Royal Yugoslav Navy existed between 1921 and 1945. Organised for the defence of Yugoslavia's Adriatic coastline, it developed from a few former Austro-Hungarian vessels. It did not see significant action during the April 1941 Axis invasion of the country, and was mostly captured in port. Several former Yugoslav vessels saw active service in Italian or German hands during the remainder of the war. It was disestablished in 1945 and some of its vessels were transferred to the new Yugoslav Navy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments All good, per my GA review. Found some dup-links, please fix them.

  • Section 1.3.1; para 1; Dalmatian and submarines
  • Section 1.3.2; para 1; Serbo-Croatian
  • Section 1.6; para 1; Split, para 2; Regia Marina
  • Section 2.2; Royal Yugoslav Army
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my GA review, and as the issues were addressed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, PM, nice work as usual. Overall, this looks like an excellent article. I did a little copy editing - please check you are happy with my changes and adjust if necessary. I also have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • per WP:DATERANGE: the guidance here has changed to full dates, e.g. "1923–29" --> "1923–1929" (I did a few, but didn't get all of them);
  • per MOS:TIME, times should have a non breaking space between the numerals and the element that denotes whether it is day or night, e.g. "4:30 am" (I think I got all of them, but please check);
  • emdashes should be unspaced (I did a few, but please check I didn't miss any);
  • inconsistent caps: "with the Navy Commander holding..." v. "Prica retired as navy commander and..."
  • full name for Niehorster on first mention in the body of the article
  • the paragraph beginning "Zara was an Italian enclave on the Dalmatian coast" seems to begin a bit abruptly
  • "a near miss that was believed..." --> believed by whom?

Support Comments

  • I'd like to see a somewhat more in depth discussion of the strategy of the fleet - for instance, I seem to think I've seen in one of your articles some proposals to operate out in the Mediterranean with Anglo-French fleets (I could very well be imagining things - it's been a long day)
  • Ditto on logistics - see for instance what I put together for the High Seas Fleet article (which admittedly needs more work).
  • I'd like to see the Aftermath section expanded a bit too - to what extent did the Royal Yugoslav Navy provide the basis for the postwar fleet (not just in terms of surviving ships, but command structures, ranks and regulations, specific personnel, etc.), for starters.
    • I've added a bit, but the post-war navy grew out of the history and traditions of the Partisan navy (which began with a few armed fishing boats in late 1942), not the JKRM, despite some JKRM personnel deciding to go over to the Partisans during the war. I don't have a source for it, but it seems little of the JKRM survived the war other than a few ships and personnel. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Sondhaus suggests that Austria-Hungary gave the bulk of its fleet to Yugoslavia to try to exacerbate tensions between it and Italy - will have a look later and see if I'm remembering that correctly.
    • Strictly speaking they tried to, but the Inter-Allied Naval Commission quickly put paid to that idea. It didn't get much traction due to the quick action and strong objections of the Italians. I'm not sure it deserves too much coverage given it was a fading idea of the A-H's that didn't get any traction. I think the process is covered adequately in the Origins section. Happy to re-look at it if you can identify sufficient coverage of it to give it more weight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article references "unrealistic expansion goals", but didn't previously discuss what these were. Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 18 October 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.

Article promoted by Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of Indian Coast Guard directors general

edit
Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail)

List of Indian Coast Guard directors general (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. This is currently a B-class list article. I have furnished the prose and list with required references where ever required. As a next step, I hope to take this to A-class status. The article has considerable importance as it provides information about the head of one of the major paramilitary forces of India. Please suggest improvements regarding citations, style, structure etc. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts on this list. Per the usual caveat, lists aren't where my talents (if I have any) lie. Still, I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made some c/e like changes, please check you are happy with them and adjust as desired
  • I wonder if perhaps this should be titled "List of Indian Coast Guard directors general" or something similar.
This is not just a list, but about the position and in that, the list of appointees has been in included.
G'day, ok thanks for clarifying. To be honest, though, I think you would be better off just making it a list of appointees because in its current form that is what most of the content is about. While I think that what you have is sufficient to put the list into context, if you are wanting to make this into an article on the position then, IMO, you need to expand it considerably. Currently there is only one subsection, which is the list of appointees, but for an article on the position it would need more than that. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the title you would suggest, "List of Indian Coast Guard director generals", "List of Director Generals of the Indian Coast Guard" etc.?Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"List of Indian Coast Guard directors general" would be my suggestion as the plural of director general is directors general, not director generals. [17]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the References section should be sorted alphabetically
  • link Indian Coast Guard on first mention
  • the date of the first appoinment (19 August 1978) probably should be mentioned in the prose, as should the first holder (Kamath), as well as the fact that they report to the Minister of Defence and are appointed by the Government of India
  • I would avoid using post nominals in text
  • this sentence probably needs a ref: "Besides the distinction of being the first three-star rank officer of the Indian Coast Guard, Rajendra Singh is the first Coast Guard officer to become the Director General."
  • inconsistent dates: "Singh succeeded Vice Admiral HCS Bisht on 29 February 2016" (prose), "since March 1, 2016" (infobox), and "29 March 2016" (table)
  • I wonder if the correlation between FOC-in-C and HAG could be clarified in the note. For instance, which is higher?
@AustralianRupert: Done, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look good, thanks. I've made a couple of tweaks, but still have a concern about the scope. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert:Thanks for the edits. Regarding the scope, that is all I can obtain from the book and web sources. That is all of it. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is in pretty good shape now that it is a list. I agree with Rupert that it would need a fair amount more information if it was an article about the position. It would need information about the development of the role alongside the development of the ICG as well as notable impacts that those filling the role have had.
  • Initials for people should be per MOS:INITIALS, ie with a full stop and a space for each one
  • I suggest putting the citations in numerical order ie [9][5][10] as [5][9][10], and being consistent with the placement of notes with citations (ie either [2][b] or [3][c], as notes merely modify the information covered by each citation.
  • In the lead, the "FOC-in-C's Scale" and similar information doesn't mean anything to the casual reader, so I suggest you place it in a note explaining it more fully rather than in parentheses. It is currently assuming information the average reader doesn't have.
  • The images appear to be properly licensed.
@Peacemaker67: Please see the improvements so far. As for your first point, this is the maximum information obtainable about the position, if need content about formation of Indian Coast Guard, about the committee that was appointed, that subsequently led to formation of this position, can be added. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given this remains as a list rather than an article, my comments have been suitably addressed. Supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is a list. Thank you PM. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Later served as the Commander-in-Chief and FOC-in-C of the Andaman and Nicobar and the Eastern Naval Commands respectively" I suggest "Later served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Andaman and Nicobar Command and FOC-in-C of the Eastern Naval Command." reads better.
  • Ref 3 is a dead link.
  • Tmh, Tmh (2007), Tmh General Knowledge Manual, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, ISBN 978-0-07-061999-9. This is an odd ref. Tmh is Tata McGraw-Hill, so giving the author as Tmh, Tmh is wrong.
  • Is there a reason that DGs serve for such short periods?
  • List looks OK. Just a few nit picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Addressed the first three comments. Regarding the fourth one, there is no specific reason, may be sometimes this position is assigned at the pinnacle of their career, just before the retirement, that may be the case. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 18 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.

Article promoted by Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients

edit
Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail)

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. I constructed the prose and list closely observing the structure and style of List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army, which a featured-list. I cited each and every sentence and gave clarifications wherever needed. Further suggestions for taking the list of A-class status and subsequently to FL status are welcome. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: sorry, lists aren't my strong suite, but a couple of things stand out to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • the page ranges should have endashes instead of hyphens;
  • the page ranges should have "pp." instead of "p." (which denotes a single page)
  • watch out for capitalization per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • per WP:LAYOUT there is no need for the "External links" section when there is only the box link to Commons (it should just go in the last section - in this case the Further reading section)
  • dates should be consistent in style, e.g. compare "2010-08-08" with "4 September 2016"
  • "The Hindu" appears to be a newspaper source so it should probably be displayed in italics
  • some of the grammar could be tightened, for instance: "...provision for the award to be awarded for the second time, no one has been awarded twice yet..." (try to reduce the use of the word "award" here)
@AustralianRupert: Done. I have fixed the issues mentioned so far. Please have a look. Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, your changes look good. I noticed a couple more things when copy editing, which I will list below. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Category:Civil awards and decorations of India": is this category appropriate as the award seems to be a military one?
  • Do the Topyaps and Factly sites qualify as WP:RS? If not, I suggest replacing them with other refs.
  • Should the article be titled "List of Param Vir Chakra recipients"?
@AustralianRupert: I corrected the categories. As per the sources, both of the qualify WP:RS, because the information published is verified and backed by data from official sources, before they are put on web, so they are reliable. You can confirm the same here, here, and here. And as for the title, I tried moving as the standard naming style of lists, but title you've suggested List of Param Vir Chakra recipients is already a redirect, since I am not an admin or page mover I was unable to do so. As you are an admin, please do so. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've moved the list now and have added my support as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I just want to add a comment so you'll know what's going on here ... I don't keep up with the Featured List process as much as the FAC process, so I'm not really comfortable copyediting lists at A-class. I did one list for you earlier because you were new to A-class and I wanted to help. Best of luck with this; we have plenty of people at Milhist who know what's expected for lists ... but whether they are keeping an eye on A-class is another question. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Please tell me your concerns regarding the list. Is there any copy-editing need to be done? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of cites in the lead; that wouldn't be okay at FAC, but it might be okay at FL, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: This case is a bit different. Lad contains some points about the award and its incentives, so they must cited. I have constructed this list in accordance with the FL, List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army. So we can take that citations in the lead are accepted at FLC. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: What is your opinion, support or is it just your opinion? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion, because I'm not familiar with the standards for lists. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport Having a couple of FLs to my name, this looks to be in pretty good shape. Normally, I wouldn't expect to see citations in the lead, so I would restrict the lead to an overview of the list, and create a new section for the "conditions of award", entitlements etc that needs citing. For example, all the citations in the first para are not needed, as it just summarises the information cited in the table. I would also add to the lead that two of the awards were to members involved in peacekeeping operations. A couple of additional points. I'm not sure about the licensing of the photographs used. I can't see anywhere on the source link that says the photos can be used, you should explicitly link to the page on the Indian Army website where this is stated (in the information field for each image file). Nikkimaria may have a different view on this. Secondly, it makes sense to have citations in numerical order, for example, most of them are in the form [10][3][11] rather than [3][10][11]. The latter point isn't a war-stopper, but the image licensing is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Please see the improvements so far. I have kept some of the references in the lead. Unlike the FA criteria, FL allows citations in the lead, especially in this kind of lists, for examples, see List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army and List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F). The Indian Army website allows reproduction of material, it can be seen here. Please let me know where it should added to images i.e. in which field. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the citations have to be re-instated for the latter paragraphs of the "lead", as they are not covered by the table. The permission field of each image is where I would link to the page you have identified. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Is this okay, File:Major Somnath Sharma.jpg? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion here, we don't have enough information to confirm that derivative works are permitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Can you explain what is a "derivative work" in the sense? (just want to know) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A derivative work is one that is based on or incorporates the image, but is not exactly the same as it. For example, if you included the image as part of a collage, that would be a derivative work. The problem is, even if our use here is a simple reproduction - the image is exactly the same as it originally appeared - we need the image to have a license that allows derivative works in order for it to be considered "free" for our purposes. The issue is spelled out in our image use policy: "If the place where you found the image does not declare a pre-existing free license, yet allows use of its content under terms commonly instituted by them, it must explicitly declare that commercial use and modification is permitted. If it does not so declare, you must assume that you may not use the image unless you obtain verification or permission from the copyright holder." That's basically what's happening here: the website that the images are from says we can copy them without permission, but it doesn't explicitly allow derivative works. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given what Nikki has said, I would encourage you to contact the Indian Army website to try to get their say-so that "commercial use and modification is permitted" for the PVC images (have a read of WP:DCP first so you know what to ask for). However, in the meantime, I think they will need to be removed from the list in order to meet our image licensing requirements. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 and Nikkimaria: I started a contact with the Indian Army and Air Force yesterday, but it would take time to get a clear response (may be a month or two). For now I have removed the images, and will only add them back after there is a clear declaration and consensus of the license. Apart from this, is there anything to be done? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first citation (the number of posthumous awards) isn't needed, as it summarises the list. The last para needs a citation, and the word "carriers" should probably be "carries". That's it for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Actually it is for the first sentence, corrected the position. As for the last para, it is a small summary of section 2, does it need citation? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think that having a section further down works. I think all relevant information should be included before the list, so would encourage you to move the bottom section above the list and dispense with the summary para. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
good work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PM. I ping Nikkimaria for a look back on image(s). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the medal, is the given licensing meant to apply to the medal, the photo of the medal, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It applies to the image of the medal, that is present on the Indian Navy website, for which OTRS confirmation is obtained. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what is the copyright status of the medal itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Per the Indian copyright act, works of the government after 60 years, the medal established in 1950, is free now. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that make it non-free in the US, as it became free in India after 1996? Suggest adding appropriate tagging to the image to explain why the medal is free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Why is that needed? We're using the image of the medial, and which is licensed. And why specifically in the US? It applies everywhere, once it is free in the source country. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First question: in India as in the US, freedom of panorama does not apply to engravings. If you took a picture of a building, we would only need to worry about your copyright as the photographer; however, for engravings we must also consider the copyright of the creator of the medal.
Second question: the situation is a bit more complicated than that. Both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons use US law, whereby to be considered "public domain" the image must be public domain (PD) in the US. (Commons also requires that it be PD in the source country). Just because something is public domain in its country of origin does not mean it's automatically PD everywhere. If you look at WP:NUSC, it explains how to tell if something is PD in the US that was published somewhere else. This work (a) is from a country whose works are given protection by the US, (b) is copyrightable in the US, (c) was created after 1923, and (d) was not in the public domain in its source country on the date of restoration - in this case, 1996. So unless India has special regulations that copyright expiration applies worldwide, or unless there's some other reason why the medal would be free in the US, we have to assume it isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: SO what would you suggest now? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest looking into the copyright status of the medal, first to verify that the expiration date you've proposed is accurate and then to see if there's any reason it would be free in the US. Failing that, see if there are alternate images that would be free - for example, is there an earlier design? Failing that, remove the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Please see the replaced images. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • The lead names two active PVC recipients and a photo 3 living ones. These should be of a specified date as they will become out of date.
Two mean that they are still serving the army, but the photo is of living recipients, one of them is retired from the service.
  • Yes I realise that. I was making the point that at some stage the details will become incorrect - for example if one of the two retires or one of the three dies in 2017. Adding "in 2016" or "as of 2016" would guard against this. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A publication by NCERT is listed in refeences, but it is not used.
Moved it to further reading section.
  • "In addition to these, different ministries under the Central Government have various incentives to the PVC winners." This read a bit awkardly. perhaps "Central grovernment ministries give additional benefits to PVC recipients."
Done.
These columns are completely uncessary, especially in these type of lists i.e. lists of a award recipients. For example, see an FL, List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army.
@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the review, I have addressed your comments. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:11, 19 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.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of National Defence Academy alumni

edit
Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

List of National Defence Academy alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. The list is currently a B-class list. As a next step, I am nominating the list for A-class review. The list has a good lead and prose for individual sections have been expanded during the B-class review. Each and every alumni have been referenced with reliable sources. Also the prose content in the lead and individual sections were referenced. The list also holds considerable importance in the scope of WikiProject India as National Defence Academy is of top importance. As the article has undergone a copy edit by GOCE, I don't think there will be much issues with the grammar and MOS. Please suggest any further improvements needed regarding citations, style, structure etc. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 11:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: G'day, just a quick comment at this stage: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The referencing system currently appears to be inconsistent. For instance "Bahukhandi 2004, p. 13" (which uses the sfn template) with "B.C. Chakravorty 1995, p. 166" and "Shankar Prasad (2005). The Gallant Dogras: An Illustrated History of the Dogra Regiment. New Delhi: Lancer Publishers with the Dogra Regimental Centre. p. 132" which do not. These (and the other examples) should be harmonized for consistency. I will try to come back later once this has been resolved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I have fixed the issue. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I ping AustralianRupert to voice his opinion after the improvements are made. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the References should be in alphabetical order (based on the author's surname);
  • in the References, some works have a place of publication, and some don't. Please make this consistent;
  • "File:Air Chief Marshal Nirmal Chandra Suri.jpg": the date parameter on the image description page should refer to when the image was created, not when it was uploaded
  • I suggest cropping the borders off a few of the images to improve their visual appeal
  • question: are there single-service academies also, which serve as officer producing establishments? If so, I think a few brief mention of them might be needed to improve the context. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I addressed all the issues except the last one. Yes, in India we do have single-service academies also, which serve as officer producing establishments. They are Indian Military Academy (IMA), Officers Training Academy (OTA), [[Indian Naval Academy (INA) and Air Force Academy, Dundigul (AFA). Actually NDA produces officers, but they are not commissioned from NDA. After 3 years of training at NDA, the army , the navy, and the air force cadets proceed to IMA, INA, and AFA respectively, for their further training, and they are commissioned from the same. Apart from NDA cadets, these academies including OTA accept cadets at different levels for officer training. In this context, what is the information about these would you suggest me to mention, and where? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I think you just need to differentiate the alumni of this academy v. others. Actually, the system sounds very similar to that which exists in Australia (I think). It seems that not all officers go to NDA, just like ADFA here in Australia. Is this correct? So, perhaps you could make this clear in the lead? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Yes, you are correct. NDA and ADFA are similar to each other. So do you want add information about cadets proceeding to the their respective service academies after their training at NDA and all about that? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I think probably just mentioning and linking the single service academies in the lead would be sufficient, and maybe making it clear that not all officers attend NDA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Please have a look at the lead, and I request a tweak if needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my support as all my points have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I wasn't sure what "notable" means in "Notable recipients include" and "Other notable alumni"; it should probably be made clearer why you're mentioning them and not others. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: I have used the phrase "Notable recipients include" in three sections; Vir Chakra, Kirti Chakra, and Shaurya Chakra. Actually these are the third highest wartime, second highest peacetime, and third highest peacetime awards of India. They have been awarded many and articles of all those subjects don't exist on Wikipedia. So I mentioned those who have articles (which means they meet the notability guidelines). And for "Other notable alumni" section, it includes the subjects who made significant contribution but not covered in any of the above sections in the article, for example Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore was an Olympic medalist, and also a union minister in India, so he is worth mentioning. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:NDA_Insignia-1956.gif: source link is dead, 313.6 suggests that that tag applies to text materials rather than images
  • The Indian Army permission link used by most of the images says that the images can be reproduced; it does not say under CC BY-SA, which includes other rights and obligations. Where does the CC BY-SA designation come from?
  • File:ACM_Arup_Raha,_CAS.jpg appears to be an official image. Same with File:Admiral_Verma.jpg, File:Gen_Dalbir_Singh,_COAS.jpg
  • File:Arun_Prakash.jpg: how do we know that the subject was the copyright holder and that he has released it under the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have adjusted the parameters wherever required, and removed images where there is an ambiguity of licensing, source etc. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you're still running into a problem of disconnect between the source site and the tag. The source site says reproduction is allowed with attribution. It does not specify that eg. derivative works are allowed - it says "reproduction", which wouldn't typically include remixing. They may have intended some sort of CC license to be understood from the text there, but without those details we can't assume that. Your final image is also currently nominated for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I couldn't get you exactly, it would be good if you could elaborate. I modified the licensed as per the images that have been reviewed by a commons administrator. Example go here and here. These were taken from the Indian Army website, and the license that is presently used is put by a commons admin. So I've used it for others also. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, what the website says is allowed and what we say is allowed are not the same thing. The website says we can copy the image if we credit the source. With the tag used, we are saying that plus we say we can create derivative works using the image. My concern is that we are drawing inferences from the website that it doesn't actually say. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: How about the following license, CC BY 2.5 IN? And the attribution will be Indian Army /Air Force /Navy, whatever applicable. If not this, I request you to suggest the most appropriate license. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there is an appropriate license with the given information, unless we can confirm that "reproduction" is meant to encompass derivative works as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: What would you suggest now? I am not a master at image policies as you are. So I request you to suggest me a way out of this. Actually the licensing template that is presently used is placed by a commons administrator and also on an enwiki admin, I ping Magog the Ogre to follow up this discussion, so we can find a solution. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One solution would be to contact the department directly and ask whether derivative works are allowed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: But that would take a long time. However, I'll contact them and also I've started a discussion on commons, A new copyright tag for files from the official websites of the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force. For material from Indian Air Force website, I think commons has already a template, it would be good. Please see that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Please look over the list. I removed the non-free images. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 7 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.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Paravane

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

Toolbox

This article covers the final, and most successful, of the air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz which were conducted while she was based at Kaafjord, Norway in 1944. The raid was among the most complex British aerial operations of World War II, and involved both of Royal Air Force's elite heavy bomber squadrons. Staging through a bed-bug ridden base in a remote area of northern Russia, the bombers only managed a single hit on the battleship. However, the damage caused by the huge Tall Boy bomb was enough to end Tirpitz's active career. In addition to covering the raid, the article also describes the dramatic trip made by the British bombers, and the contribution made by Norwegian secret agents (with User:Manxruler providing considerable input on this topic).

The article is a follow up to the three on Royal Navy air strikes against Kaafjord which I've developed to FA class over recent years, and I'm hopeful that this can also go the distance. Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support: excellent work as always, Nick. Thanks for your efforts. I have a few minor suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox the result is listed as British victory, but I wonder if "Tirpitz heavily damaged" or something similar might be more appropriate. Thoughts?
    • I'd prefer to keep it simple, and this is noted in the casualty field. As the attack knocked Tirpitz out of the war, it was a complete victory for the Allies - they just couldn't confirm this! Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rudolf Peters is mentioned in the infobox but not in the body of the article
  • I wonder if the squadrons that participated should be added to the units field in the infobox?
  • "was mainly attributed to shortcomings..." --> mainly attributed by whom?
  • in the Works consulted section, could the title of the Christensen work be translated into English?
  • same as above for Hafsten, Nokleby, Pedrsen and Ulstein
  • if possible, another image in the Aftermath section would help break up the text a little more
    • For an operation which had a dedicated photo and film aircraft and a dedicated photo recon aircraft, ridiculously few photos are available online. I'll look to add some generic images prior to a FAC. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - just a few nitpicks

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Orjen-class torpedo boat

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Orjen-class torpedo boat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This class of eight German-built motor torpedo boats was produced for Yugoslavia in the late 1930s. Two escaped during the Axis invasion of that country in April 1941 and saw service with the Allies, but the rest were captured and put into service by the Italians. They were used as the basis for another class of 60 tonne Italian MTBs. Four were captured by the Germans in September 1943 and served for over a year before being sunk or scuttled in Greece during the German withdrawal. All comments gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I'm not so sure about the copyright status of the photo, or at least the specific licensing tag - I don't think it passes the second bullet point in the US tag.
    • There isn't a specific copyright notice for the photograph in Jane's, so I think it meets the requirement?
      • The copy I have (Jane's Fighting Warships of World War II - a reprint from 1989) includes the caption "1939, Official". Presumably that indicates it's a Yugoslav government photo - what were the copyright laws then and were there any relevant changes under the postwar government? Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have always assumed that meant a Royal Navy official photograph, not a Yugoslav one. The RN visited Yugoslavia regularly during the interwar period and I'm sure they took plenty of photographs of Yugoslav vessels. Yugoslav vessels also visited British possessions like Malta, and again, it is likely they took photographs then too. I think it is a reasonable assumption that "1939, Official" in Jane's means it is a British government photograph. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why translate Regia Marina but not Kriegsmarine?
    • Done.
  • I might clarify that Stukas were dive-bombers - they're fairly well known aircraft, but I don't think we can assume readers will know what they are.
    • Thanks, I usually call them Ju 87s, so did that as well.
  • I'd remove conversions from figures the second time they're used (eg: 40mm converted twice in the first para of the Axis section).
    • Good point, fixed.
  • "Royal Air Force Supermarine Spitfire fighter-bombers" - I seem to think the MoS discourages multiple adjacent links - you might rephrase it to "Supermarine Spitfire fighter-bombers of the Royal Air Force" to break up the links a bit.
    • Done.
  • I'd like to see some context on why Germany scuttled the boats in Oct. 1944. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Section 1; para 1; It is mentioned that "A Maybach cruising engine rated at 100 hp (75 kW) was also installed", can why was this engine installed be explained? Does this add anything to the original speed of "3,300 hp"?
  • Section 1; para 1; There is a consistency error with the armament. In the prose it reads "550 mm (22 in)", in the Infobox it is "550 mm (21.7 in)". Also in the Infobox, instead of just gun, it would be good if it is specified as anti-aircraft gun.
  • Section 3.1; para 1; It is said that "seven of the eight Orjen-class" were assigned. It is better to mention the ship that was not assigned the same sentence than in the next sentence.
  • Section 3.1; para 1; A comma (,) is needed after "By 17 April".
  • Section 3.1; para 2; It is mentioned that Kern sailed out with Durmitor and Kajmakčalan, but in the last sentences of para 1, it is mentioned that the idea was rejected by their commanding officers. Did these both sail out without their COs, or any other exception. If so I prefer mentioning it with a footnote to avoid confusion.
  • Section 3.1; para 3; A comma (,) is needed after "Once in Alexandria".
  • Section 3.2; para 1; Information about the new guns from this para, can also be added to the Infobox. Also the crew strength was mentioned directly as 16–22 in the Infobox, but that is not the case. Initially it was 16, and then to 22 by the Italians, I prefer this is should be made clear using the years of change or some other parameter.
  • Section 3.2; para 2; Mention what is "Kriegsmarine", perhaps in a parenthesis, as it is for Regia Marina, in para 1.
  • Section 3.2; para 2; Consistency error; In most cases the service number is "S 601", but in one case, it is "S601". Also in one case, for "S 601", "S" is in one line and "601" is in the next (In "Soon after their acquisition by the Germans, S 601 and S 603 were travelling"). May be non-breakable space could be used for all of them.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Krishna. I've made all the changes you suggested, except that there isn't any more detail available about the exact makeup of the crews that Kern took with him. The infobox should have had the "as built" crew of 16, so I've fixed that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: once again, great job, PM. The article looks quite good to me, although I have a couple of minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Service history section, I wonder if a short sentence should be added about the brief period of service before the war?
  • "On MS 41—44" (and similar ranges) shouldn't this be an endash, not an emdash?
  • in the References, "Durham Divine" --> is this a hyphenated surname, or is Durham actually a middle name?
  • "harbor" should be "harbour", for consistency of English variation
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

K-25

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

K-25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Next in the series of articles on the Manhattan Project facilities Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: not a lot stood out to me. I made a few minor edits and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:K-25 (7609929206).jpg": the date parameter on the image description page should be the date the image was created, not uploaded;
  • "File:HD.30.359. (10427116025).jpg": same as above
  • "File:HD.30.360. (10427116085).jpg": as above
  • "File:HD.30.375. (10427417193).jpg": as above
  • "File:HD.30.374. (10427415313).jpg": as above
  • "File:S50plant.jpg": needs a date
     Y Added approximate dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if potentially the article should be titled "K-25 project" - not a warstoper, just a musing. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The name K-25 went through a kind of linguistic drift, referring at various times to the product, the project, the facility, the site and the building. The article covers them all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a few minor cmts:
    • All tool checks look fine (i.e. external links work, no dabs, no duplicate links, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [19] etc.)
    • Minor inconsistency in presentation of percentages, see "that the 1% difference in molecular weights" vs "to enrich to 90 percent" (see MOS:PERCENT).  Y
    • "Chemical researchers at the SAM Laboratories studied the fluorocarbons..." Should this be "...Chemical researchers at the SAM Laboratories studied fluorocarbons..." instead?  Y
    • "...recommended that the K-25 plant would be operated by Union Carbide...", perhaps more simply just: "...recommended that the K-25 plant be operated by Union Carbide..." (suggestion only)  Y
    • "...Since then demolition work has been carried out by DOE's..." I'm assuming DOE is Department of Energy? This abbrev probably needs to be introduced as I couldn't see it anyway prior to this sentence.  Y
    • Slightly repetitive wording here: "...Complete demolition of the K-25 facility was expected to be completed..." (complete and completed - perhaps reword?).  Y
      All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with no edits or amendments LavaBaron (talk) 01:57, 2 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Mark XIV bomb sight

edit
Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Mark XIV bomb sight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Mk. XIV was Bomber Command's primary bombsight for much of the air war over Germany, equipping the thousands of heavy bombers that grew to dominate the UK's air fleet. Although not nearly as famous as the US Norden, The Mk. XIV is still one of the most advanced designs to see service, and had a number of unique features that made it more useful than the Norden in many roles - notably low-altitude attacks where it was used by Mosquitos in several famed raids.

The article has been extensively researched, illustrated by ORTS-released images directly from the surviving units in the RAF Museum, and has been stable for some time now. It's time to take this through to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day Maury, interesting article. Overall, seems like it meets the criteria, although I can't really judge the content. I only have a few nitpicks, which should hopefully help you on your way to FA with it: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Working with Henry John James Braddick..." could we get away with just saying "Henry Braddick" here?
  • "An image of the Mk. XI is available at this page." --> I think this would be better presented as a lettered note rather than a citation
  • for consistency, the Zimmerman citation should also use the short citation format
  • "File:462 Squadron RAAF Halifax bombsight AWM P01523.007.jpg": also needs a US licence in addition to the Australian one. "PD-US-1996" should work here, I believe;
  • Bibliography: probably should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname;
  • Bibliography: titles should use title case capitalisation, e.g. " A forgotten offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command's anti-shipping campaign" --> " A Forgotten Offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command's Anti-shipping Campaign"
  • per WP:LAYOUTEL ("Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates...") the "External links" section header should be removed and the sister links box moved up to just below the Bibliography header.
All complete except for the image tagging - is that something I can do or does it have to be the original uploader? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, anyone can do it, but I've done this for you now. One thing I missed, this appears to be unreferenced: "In other respects the basic operation of the CSBS was considered fine as it was, there was no demand for greatly increased accuracy for instance." Is there a citation you can add for this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it quickly so I just removed it. It's certainly not a loss to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- Been through about half the article so far, copyediting as I went, so pls let me know any concerns there. As far as the content goes, I know a lot more about British bombers of WWII than their bombsights, but I should be able to do a bit of fact-checking as I go. None of the info so far sounds problematic though; it also reads quite well and seems to be comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail. Will try to return soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent edits Ian! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to complete copyedit plus source review -- as always, pls let me know if any concerns with my edits...

  • You should probably use the convert template for your various measures, e.g. altitudes.
  • Citation for end of second para under Operation?
  • Source review:
    • Might be worth putting "SD719" in the Armament, Volume I; Bombs and Bombing Equipment entry of the Bibliography to make the connection between citation and source clear.
    Added... but is there a better way to do this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking again, and checking its entry in WorldCat, where does SD719 come from anyway? I think the citation should simply be "Air Ministry 1952" and leave SD719 out of things entirely (by the same token the "A.P.1730A 1943" citation should probably be "Air Ministry 1943", to also follow the usual author and date format). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the Bomber Command Association newsletter. One can find other articles from this source in RAF Bomber Command and night bomber, for instance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not returning sooner -- tks for those, but they're not articles that have had extensive review so not sure how much they help. @Nikkimaria: could I get a second opinion on the Black source? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. So the immediate source is what appears to be an amateur website; one of the articles but not the other notes publication also in the newsletter. Do we have any information about the expertise of either the website originator or the author? Is the newsletter an official publication, and does it have an editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz I think your response to this is holding up the review, which otherwise looks ready for closure. Is that right, Nikkimaria? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - we need more details about this source to be able to determine whether it is reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Bomber Command Association newsletter was published for decades, but over time has gone moribund. The collection is now maintained by the RAF Museum, but the person in charge of the collection has not responded to my calls or emails. If someone in the UK is willing to take a shot at this, free of the time difference, I will provide the contact info if you email me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, I'll try and return to do some spotchecking of sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - this looks good to me, only a few minor cmts / suggestions:
    • "...was to fly at night, which was taken up as the primary goal of Bomber Command..." was it a goal or would it be more accurate to describe it as a tactic or method of operation?
    • Minor inconsistency in presentation here " AC Spark Plug" vs "A.C.'s" and "A.C. Spark Plug" (i.e. use of fullstops in the acronym - I suggest adopting consistent style at the least, although my reading of MOS:ACRO is that stops should generally avoided but I'll leave it up to you to determine).
    • This might be potentially unclear: "bombing altitude be increased from 20 to 30,000 feet." I'm assuming "20" here means "20,000" and not "20" but perhaps it should be clarified?
    • "...proved almost useless for operations in jet aircraft, as the limited distances visible through the sight from high altitudes made it almost impossible to aim before the aircraft had already passed the drop point." The implication here, as I interpret it, was that this was due to the increased speeds at which jets flew but I wonder if this might need to be spelt out for some readers?
    • Question / suggestion for further development: I'm unsure if its relevant or usual for inclusion is such articles (which I admit I'm not all to familiar with), but I wonder if the article would benefit from some mention of just how in-accurate bombing was overall during this period. Most of our readers probably would be surprised at how limited the technology actually was in comparison to the "precision" bombing that is used today (this limitation arguably necessitated the use of area bombing etc). I'm not suggesting a detailed discussion (which would be undue weight), but perhaps a short sentence in the first part of the article mentioning this might provide some context. Also did the development of improved bomb aiming (i.e. through the Mk XIV etc) have an impact on tactics during the war etc? And is there any assessment of the Mk XIV's impact / performance in general etc?
      • Well there is some of this covered in the bombsight article itself. But certainly a comparison to the Norden would be useful here, and especially the CSBS. Unfortunately, I have not found any really good source on the accuracy of this sight. I think it's the case that all of them were so bad that the accuracy wasn't improved so much as the ease of use. I'll poke about though, I agree it's useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And of course Google's ever improving Books makes a liar out of me, there are now several references available on the topic! I've added a section on the topic and it is indeed a great improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall, the article reads well to me although there are some places where the prose could potentially be tightened with more economical wording. Although this might come up at FAC it seemed a very minor issue to me.
    • Other than this I added some information to a reference but didn't see any obvious issues. My edit is here [20]. Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made that change, it is an improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review: All images are appropriately licensed, source links and license tags verified. No issues with images. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:42, 25 September 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Devon County War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Devon County War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I've been keeping a ow profile for a while, but I've been beavering away on a little project for the best part of the last year, documenting the 40-odd war memorials in English towns and villages (+1 in Wales) by the architect Sir Edwin Lutyens. Having reached my first medium-term goal of creating articles for all the memorials that din't have them, I'm now going back through to see if anything more can be done with those articles before I start improving the articles that already existed, so this is probably the first of several war memorials that will come this way. Sadly, this one is very much the poor relation to the city's memorial (by a different architect, but on my to-do list) and it's not as well-covered as some. Nonetheless, I think this is a respectable article; it breezed through GA a few months ago and I'd like a frank assessment of whether it's worth taking to FAC (my previous FAs have been much weightier articles on subjects with entire books dedicated to them). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost supporting Looks like a decent article which summarises the literature well. I looked to see if I could find something on how much it cost to build, but couldn't find a figure. Some copyediting points below:

  • "stands just to the west of the cathedral, in alignment with the altar." - I wasn't sure about this phrasing. Does it mean that it faced the altar? Or that it faced away from the altar? Or was in some other sort of alignment? I suspect that this means it faced the altar.
    • I assumed it just meant it was in line with the altar (ie if you walked in a straight line from the cross, you'd end up at the altar—solid walls notwithstanding!).
  • "The area around the memorial was remodelled after archaeological excavations in the 1970s." " As a result, the area was remodelled by Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe,..." - this suggests that the remodelling was driven in some way by the excavations - could the article clarify what the link was? Why did the discovery of Roman remains mean that a processional way was built?
    • I was under the impression that the remodelling was done to tidy the area up after the excavation, but I can't find that in the sources. Bear with me while I dig out the book (I've moved house since I wrote this!).
  • "Lutyens was also responsible for Castle Drogo, to the north of Exeter." - certainly true, but the positioning of the text implies that his work there had a link to his constructing this altar; if so, probably worth spelling it out.
    • I've put this in a bit more context now; I don't think there's a direct connection (if there was Skelton would have had more to say about it).
  • "Despite this, the authorities were determined..." - which authorities?
    • Good question. Again, bear with me while I dig out the book.
  • "The memorial is one of two civic war memorials in Exeter, " - the tense here moves from the past to the current, and then back again, which feels awkward/ uncertain
    • I've slightly rewritten this; see what you think.
  • "Exeter Cathedral also contains memorials to the Devonshire Regiment and the Wessex Field Ambulance. The Devon County War Memorial Committee agreed to support the construction of a battlefield memorial at La Ville-aux-Bois-lès-Pontavert in France to honour the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, who endured particularly heavy fighting at Bois des Buttes during the Third Battle of the Aisne." - this bit makes the paragraph rather hard to read - it breaks up the first sentence and the main argument in the paragraph. Could it become a footnote, as it doesn't directly relate to the monument?
    • I've reworded it. I'd like to keep it in the prose because the proximity of so many different memorials is interesting, and the battlefield memorial is directly relevant since the county memorial committee funded it.
  • "At the unveiling ceremony, Lord Fortescue—chairman of the County War Memorial Committee—estimated..." - he's been introduced three paragraphs above, so I wasn't sure you needed to remind the reader as to who he was.
    • Fair enough; gone.
  • "The prince's visit" - I think the MOS would have this as "The Prince's visit" I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments All good, but a few suggestions.

  • Section 1; para 1; In the sentence "the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world", "anywhere" may be removed. Because it doesn't add any details. Just "the largest British war memorial in the world" would be fine.
    • You have a point; I put it there because I din't want to give the impression it was the largest memorial in Britain (it's in France), as opposed to the largest memorial to British forces. Do you have a suggestion for an alternative?
  • Section 2; para 2; In the last sentence, it is "...our the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, who endured particularly hea...", I prefer "...our the 2nd Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, that particularly endured hea..."
    • Sorry but I think "endured particularly" makes more sense—it's the losses that were significant, not the way they were endured.
  • Section 3; De-link the dup links of Dartmoor and Historic England from para 1 and para 4 respectively. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead; The first line "The Devon County War Memorial is a First World War memorial designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens situa...." may be bit confusing to a general reader. For instance, at once, I mistook it as the first World War memorial that was built, instead of memorial of First World War. Please revise this sentence to eliminate this confusion.
    • I tweaked it slightly by adding a couple of commas and an "and"; do you think it's clearer now?
  • Could add citations to infobox as the military memorial template has field for the sources regarding the information mentioned in the box? This is not a must, but it would be good if you can. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per MOS:LEAD, you may drop the citations. That's OK. But what about the reference number that is mentioned in the infobox? It is nowhere mentioned in prose nor cited. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference number is the Historic England ID number, which is part of the title of reference #1 (it's also inherently self-verifiable, because the ID number alone is enough to find HE's records). :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as all issues were addressed. Good work Mitchell. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I really appreciate you taking the time to review it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:42, 11 October 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)

edit
Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to improve this article as much as possible and the Russian-Soviet-CIS Military History Task Force hasn't had any Soviet Army-related A-class articles added in months. Kges1901 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments: G'day, nice work. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did some copy editing, please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit;
  • per MOS:LEAD citations aren't needed in the lead so long as the information is suitably referenced in the body of the article;
  • in the early life section it isn't explicitly stated that he moved to Petrograd, or when;
  • link "Bolsheviks" on first mention;
  • "Petrov was transferred to Central Asia..." do we know roughly when this was?
  • "...but was moved forward to Baranovichi to stop the German advance". When was this? Would this work: "but was moved forward to Baranovichi to stop the German advance, after the initial German breakthrough"?
  • link "Stavka" on first mention.

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Support Comments All good to go, but there is something to be fixed regarding the death. All the citations regarding the death of Petrov ([21], [22], Vozhakin, ed 2005, pp. 172–173., Parrish 2004, p. 290.) clearly mention that he died on 10 October 1941. But why was it mentioned as "October or November 1941" in the Infobox and lead? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Erickson and Alexander Petrov said otherwise. Kges1901 (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please clarify that using a footnote. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Problem solved with footnote. Kges1901 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901: All good to go. Support per my GA review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:19, 4 October 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Hawker Hurricane Mk I saw service as a fighter with the Royal Yugoslav Air Force immediately before WWII and during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, then the Hurricane Mk IV saw service in the fighter-bomber role with Partisan air and ground crew as part of the RAF contribution to the Balkan Air Force in 1944–45. One squadron worth of aircraft remained in Yugoslav service after the war, finally being retired in the early 1950s. This is the first aircraft-type in service article I've brought to ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- what a great idea for an article, just a placeholder for now but look fwd to reviewing soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read all the way through now and copyedited as I went -- pls let me know if any concerns.
  • Article layout looks straightforward and logical.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read, and couldn't see any issues with the sourcing.
  • Not familiar with the aircraft's service in this neck of the woods but didn't feel the article lacked for detail. Nitpicking: since you mention the two-bladed wooden prop (with constant pitch from memory) for the Merlin II, do you want to mention the three-bladed variable-pitch prop of the Merlin III?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges

@Peacemaker67:

  • First off, great article, quite interesting, I've made a few edits on what I felt were obvious, i've left notes of the edits i made incase you would like to change them back.
  • "with no aircraft being completed by the Rogožarski plant", maybe "With the rogožarski plant producing none"
  • I went in and changed the mark Is to mark I's per little known and quite stupid rule,
  • I changed "at dawn" to 06:45, because the operation retribution page said thats when bombers arrived.
  • "with three pilots from the 163rd Squadron claiming one of the dive-bombers between them." Perhaps "With one of the dive bombers being shot down by three pilots of the 163rd squadron"
  • "after which one of the pilots attempted to intercept some German Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters.[11]" Is this necessary for the article? I would recommend removal or else "The pilots still attempted to intercept german fighters however"
  • "The following day, the 2nd Fighter Regiment continued its patrolling" Maybe "The following day, the 2nd Fighter Regiment continued its patrol"
  • " from potential German air attacks which did not eventuate" Perhaps "which did not occur"
  • "The 4th Fighter Regiment machines were also active" Is machines meant to mean something more than aircraft? if not id recommend: "The 4th Fighter Regiment was also active."
  • "but except for attempts to intercept German reconnaissance aircraft, they saw little action." maybe say what aircraft it was, or if it isn't known maybe add a "Likely Messerschmitt Bf 109 flown by the hungarian air force" (I did some research, the most likely candidate is Messerschmitt Bf 109, hungary used it the most for recon, germany occasionally used it for recon, and as hungary was involved i believe it is likely a messerschmitt bf 109 with a hungarian pilot.
  • "4th Regiment Hurricanes were again successful, shooting down a Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy fighter over Nova Gradiška." maybe: 4th Regiment Hurricanes were successful in shooting down a Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy fighter over Nova Gradiška." as the again successful thing suggested the plane they downed previously was a bf 110, which it wasn't.
  • "while other machines" again, is that meant to convey anything other than planes? if not than it should be planes or airplanes.
  • "I changed bail to bail out
  • for "By 2 October, the squadron had been transferred to an airfield near Cannae in Italy to join the Balkan Air Force's" maybe "By 2 October, the squadron had been transferred to an airfield near Cannae in Italy to join the Balkan Air Force (a joint allied air group)'s"
  • "The mission was a success, but one aircraft was lost to ground fire.[" is this meant to mean it was shot down by AA or other guns, or does this mean a fire started at some point when it was on the ground?
  • That is all of my comments and suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support: fascinating topic, and really well one IMO. I have a couple of nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • plural/possessive: "Mk I's" --> " Mk Is"
  • "carried out Operation Retribution" --> "launched Operation Retribution"
  • "... patrolling between Čačak—Kraljevo—Kragujevac" --> the dashes should probably be endashes not emdashes
  • I'm not sure when it changed, but I think WP:DATERANGE now asks for "1938–41" to be "1938–1941" etc
  • " bailed out" --> I wonder if this needs a link?
  • "...a combined allied organisation" --> probably should be "Allied"
  • "the Hurricanes of 163rd Squadron had been rendered unserviceable by their crews" --> perhaps explitly clarify that this was done to prevent use by the Germans if captured?
  • "Hurricanes were successful, shooting down..." --> "Hurricanes successfully shot down..."
  • "...raised as No. 351 (Yugoslav) Squadron RAF, which was established as a fighter-bomber unit on 1 July 1944"...was this unit also raised in Libya?
  • "The complaints fell on deaf ears within the RAF..." --> "The complaints were ignored by the RAF..."?
  • "as did No. 6 Squadron RAF, which also flew missions over Yugoslavia..." --> "as did No. 6 Squadron RAF, a British squadron which also flew missions over Yugoslavia..."?
  • "...an enemy supply convoy" --> is it possible to specify Axis or German/Italian?
  • "... As the enemy withdrew west towards" --> Axis?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Leader

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) and Manxruler

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

Toolbox

This article covers the only offensive operation conducted by the US Navy in northern Europe during World War II. Operation Leader involved aircraft flying from the USS Ranger attacking a concentration of German shipping near Bodø in northern Norway during October 1943. The German defenders were taken by surprise, and it's believed that five ships were sunk and seven damaged. In common with most of the Western Allies' operations by this stage of the war, Operation Leader was a multinational affair, with the aircraft carrier sailing with many British warships from the Home Fleet and Norwegian secret agents and airmen providing intelligence to guide the American aircraft.

This is a joint nomination with Manxruler, with whom I have enjoyed working with again to recently develop the article to GA status. As a result, it draws on both English language and Norwegian sources to provide a detailed coverage of the operation. The article has been expanded and copy edited since passing its GAN, and we're hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what is the copyright status of the memorial pictured in File:Memorial_pilots_from_USS_Ranger_in_Fagervika.JPG? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the details surrounding the memorial, and check what Norwegian copyright laws say about such things. Manxruler (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the guidance at Commons says that freedom of perspective only applies to buildings in Norway. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no freedom of panorama for works of art in Norway (applies until the artist responsible has been deceased for 70 years). The memorial was erected in 1987 and consists of one of the three blades of the propeller of an Avenger aircraft shot down in the operation. The propeller was recovered from the sea in 1987, one blade used in this memorial, one sent to the US and one kept on display in a Norwegian Home Guard base (will add this info to the article soon).
The question is, is an aircraft propeller blade mounted on a rock a work of art? If it is a work of art, then it is under copyright. I could find no mention anywhere of an artist, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Manxruler (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on adding info on the memorial, will have to visit a library to complete the job, which I'll do tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've replaced the Commons version of this image with a small fair use version. As the memorial is discussed in the article and it's not possible to get a guaranteed to be free equivalent, I think that the fair use claim is sound. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

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

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Asad ibn Abdallah al-Qasri

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Asad ibn Abdallah al-Qasri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another old GA from 2013, also from the era of the Muslim conquest of Transoxiana. Asad was a pivotal figure, being far-seeing enough to conciliate the local population (an unusual feature for an Umayyad governor), and laid the foundations for the Islamization of Central Asia in the process. More importantly, he defeated the Turgesh and the rebel Harith ibn Surayj and prevented the imminent total collapse of Umayyad rule in the region. The article is comprehensive, uses the major sources for the period and subject, and I think fulfills the criteria for A-class. Constantine ✍ 19:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Hi Constantine, is this one headed to FAC eventually? - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be in China for the next two weeks and will probably not be able to respond swiftly to any further comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance for your patience. Constantine ✍ 20:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • What I know about this theatre of operations I've pretty well learnt from Constantine, so I can't claim any prior expertise but certainly it reads very well, like all his articles; in fact I always find his prose engaging, even if I do want to tweak the odd word or two... ;-)
  • Image licensing looks okay to me.
  • Not familiar with the sources but the publishers look reputable, and couldn't see any obvious issues with ref formatting.
  • No dab or duplink issues.

Well done as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian for the review and your kind words. Best, Constantine ✍ 12:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • All toolchecks ok - no dabs, external links ok, no duplicate links, no errors with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrase [25] (no action req'd).
    • I am unfamiliar with the topic but read through the article in its entirety and couldn't see any major issues.
    • Article seems to be well written and well referenced.
    • Is there any information available about his family (i.e. did he marry, have children etc)? Unless I missed it I didn't see this covered in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anotherclown and thanks for taking the time to review this. On the family, Crone's Slaves on Horses, which is an authoritative source that covers such matters and which I usually rely upon, mentions no sons for Asad. I re-checked Tabari and the EI2 article, which don't mention anything either. Any further questions or comments? Constantine ✍ 10:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 20:56, 2 October 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Geier

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Geier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another old German cruiser article for your delectation - this one ended up as a US gunboat that was sunk after a merchant ship collided with her, and she's now a popular diving site. Thanks for all who review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments: Great work as usual, I have a couple of observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "LOST AT SEA" per MOS:ALLCAPS should be title case
    • Fixed
  • slightly inconsistent presentation of body v infobox: "83.9 meters (275 ft)" v. "83.9 m (275 ft 3 in)"
    • Fixed the conversion templates for these three
  • same as above: "10.6 m (35 ft)" v. "10.6 m (34 ft 9 in)"
  • same as above: " 4.74 m (15.6 ft)" v " 4.74 m (15 ft 7 in)"
  • link revolver cannon
  • "decommissioned temporarily in Kiel" --> do we know why?
    • HRS don't say why - I'd assume the foreign stations were all filled, so there was no need for the ship at the time.
  • Honolulu and gunboat are overlinked

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I suggest to adding the service history with the United States to the info-box. the "fate" field in the German service must be removed. Because it was sunk while it was with the US not Germans.Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Here is my suggestion for US service:[reply]

History
 United States
NameSchurz
Launched9 June 1917
Commissioned15 September 1917
FateSunk 21 June 1918 after collision
A good idea - added to the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added my support and also listed at ACR. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:08, 26 September 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Dick Cresswell

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Dick Cresswell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Unusually among the subjects of my Air Force bios, Dick Cresswell was not an ace, nor did he achieve high rank, but he did have the knack of being in the right place at the right time to achieve several 'firsts' in RAAF history. His main claim to fame was commanding No. 77 Squadron three times, most notably during the Korean War, when he oversaw its conversion from Mustangs to Meteors, and so became the first man to command an RAAF jet squadron in combat. He also seems to have had a reputation as a bit of a cowboy, so perhaps it's no surprise that he once got himself into hot water for practicing with his revolver near the feet of a fellow officer who was ticking him off... I plan on taking this to FAC if things go all right here -- tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work as usual Ian, and a fine tribute to this remarkable airman. I have the following comments:

  • "Cresswell took command of No. 77 Squadron in combat for a record third time" - this record is noted in the first para of the lead, and could be omitted here
    • Will do.
  • Can the first para of the "World War II" section be expanded? At present it's not clear why Cresswell was appointed to what must have been one of the most significant squadron commands in the history of the RAAF (those three fighter squadrons service in 1942 now having near mythical status). Is there material you can add on Cresswell's flying and leadership skills here?
    • Funnily enough, Odgers doesn't give any clear reason why Cresswell, with so little experience, was chosen for such a responsible job. The implication is that he had useful familiarity with the P-40 as liaison with the 9th USAAF Squadron, and one can surmise that commanding 77 Squadron in Perth wasn't considered as big a deal as commanding 75 or 76 Squadrons up north, but nothing explicit.
  • Perhaps note what the role of a wing leader was
    • Heh, I'd considered that and searched long and hard to nail down a decent definition, only finding one in Darwin Spitfires -- didn't add it in the end but happy to do so now someone else thinks it might be worthwhile... ;-)
  • "he believed that attempting to resign their commissions en masse was not an appropriate response" - do we know what response he preferred?
    • Odgers states "He felt that other courses of action could have been pursued" but doesn't elucidate.
  • Why was Cresswell selected to command No. 77 Squadron in 1950? Presumably the RAAF decided that this unusual move was justified as the squadron needed an experienced combat leader with a record of whipping units into shape, but can this be said explicitly? Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have an official reason why, but Odgers offers his thoughts on Cresswell's suitability, and I can always add something along the lines of "According to his biographer..."

Tks as always for your review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Nick, I think I've actioned everything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. As a final suggestion for improvements as the article heads towards FAC, extra material on Cresswell as a person (rather than as an aviator) would be particularly valuable. If Odgers doesn't have much extra material here, it would be worth checking Trove. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick -- I was wondering when I finished the article if I'd included too much potentially extraneous detail but I think you're telling me that isn't the case! I've combed Odgers and Trove once more and added a couple more snippets, see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "subsequently": soon, later, consequently, or none of the above?
  • "further offensive sweeps with USAF Sabres, and escorting": I can't tell which is meant, "and escorted" or "escorting".
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Dan. Have to admit I prefer my wording in a few of those instances, and reverted a couple where I felt the meaning was changed...
      • I realise that "three times" might sound repetitive with "twice" and "again" following, but the sources do tend to emphasise the total of three and I feel we should too -- left as is for now.
      • The lead now makes it appear that the conversion to Meteors took place upon Cresswell's arrival in Korea, which isn't the case, so I've changed back.
      • "Fired" is as in "fired the imagination" -- don't know if it's an EngVar thing but I've changed that back for now too ("Motivated" might also be correct but seemed less engaging somehow and "fired up" sounds a bit extreme to my ears)...
      • To me, "returned to Korea in March and April" sounds like he made a couple of trips but it was only one, so again changed back pending further discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is in very good shape to me, some minor points / suggestions:
    • All the tool checks are fine - no dabs, external links work, no citation consolidation errors, no duplicate links (that aren't necessary at least), Earwig tool shows no issues with close paraphrase / copy violations etc [26] (no action req'd);
    • The lead is a bit repetitive in that it mentions each of his "firsts" twice, I wonder if that is necessary?
      • I take your point, AC, and the possibility that this would come up was in my mind when I wrote it. My rationale was that given he wasn't an ace or senior commander, I wanted to establish his notability in the first paragraph in part by listing his "firsts", then expand upon those and the rest of his combat career in the second para. If you think there are other ways to achieve that, of course I'm happy to discuss.
    • Minor inconsistency in presentation / hyphenation of rank "Lieutenant General" Sir Horace Robertson vs "Lieutenant-General" Sir Horace Robertson (in the image caption);
      • Tks, made consistent.
    • Otherwise I couldn't find any major issues after reading through it completely. Quite an interesting article and I certainly learnt a few things about RAAF operations in Korea that I hadn't been aware of before. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 24 September 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service

edit
Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk)

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been updated and amended since achieving GA status and I wish to take it to the next level along in the hope of eventually obtaining FA status Hammersfan (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: good work on this. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "...a number of different roles including air defence, close air support, low level strike and tactical reconnaissance." I wonder if some of these roles can be linked?
  • "RAF Leuchars, the UK's most northerly air defence base": the article on Leuchars itself says that the base was the second most northerly. Was Leuchars the most northerly at the time? If so perhaps say " RAF Leuchars, which was the UK's most northerly air defence base at the time";
  • in the Variations section, I suggest trimming the subheadings a little to remove the word "Between";
  • "AAM" - the abbreviation probably should be formally introduced on first mention, i.e "air-to-air missile (AAM)";
  • slightly redundant wording: "compared to the then current US Navy carriers of the period..." --> "compared to the US Navy carriers of the period";
  • there are a few terms that appear to be overlinked, for instance "English Electric", HMS Hermes (R12), De Havilland Sea Vixen, HMS Eagle (R05), HMS Ark Royal (R09), Aeroplane and Armament Experiment Establishment, Touch-and-go landing, RAF Leuchars, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy...are a few examples. If you install this script (User:Ucucha/duplinks) it will help you find the duplicate links so you can work out if they are totally necessary.
  • the citation style is a little inconsistent. For instance compare "Buttler 2000, pp. 118–119" with "Richardson, Doug (1984). "Chapter 3: Propulsion". Modern Fighting Aircraft F4. London: Salamander Books. p. 26. ISBN 0861011333." (There are other examples).
  • per MOS:ALLCAPS: " "Part 15. ROYAL AIR FORCE – Role & Operations. BATTLE ATLAS of the FALKLANDS WAR 1982 by Land, Sea and Air" --> " "Part 15. Royal Air Force – Role & Operations. Battle Atlas of the Falklands War 1982 by Land, Sea and Air";
  • the citation to "Legendary F4 Phantom jet fighter comes ashore in Larne" should have date, work or publisher and access/retrieved dates";
  • in the Further reading section, the word "since" probably should be capitalised in the titles to conform with the style of title case capitalization;
  • "lost a total of 9 of their..." --> " lost a total of nine of their..."
  • "1966–1969" --> "1966–1969" per WP:DATERANGE;
  • suggest linking "No. 229 Operational Conversion Unit RAF";
  • this probably needs a citation: "As a consequence, it was then decided to further reduce the FAA's Phantom fleet to just 28 aircraft. The remaining 20 aircraft were then allocated to the Royal Air Force."
  • same as above for: "The overall changes to the aircraft led to the two variants being given their own separate series letters, with the FAA version being designated as the F-4K and the RAF version as the F-4M."
  • as above for: "Eventually, the Tornado accounted for the two FG.1 squadrons at RAF Leuchars (43 and 111 Squadrons), plus two FGR.2 units (23 Squadron and 29 Squadron), with 56 and 74 Squadrons remaining with the Phantom."
  • as above for: "The Phantom's versatility was such that, in the RAF and Royal Navy, it was the direct replacement in squadron service for a total of four different aircraft types, with nine separate variants amongst them. In turn, when the Phantom was replaced in service, its major roles required three separate aircraft."
  • as above for the table in the "Aircraft replaced by and replacing the Phantom" section.
Gone through list and dealt with all above areas. Hammersfan (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, thanks, your changes look good. Thanks for your efforts. Please don't strike my comments, though, as it makes it harder for others to read. I've added my support, but have a couple more suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • this sentence is still unreferenced: "The Phantom subsequently served as the RAF's primary interceptor for over a decade until the introduction into service of the Panavia Tornado F.3 in 1987."
  • The "Basic specifications" table probably should be cited
  • The Further reading section should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- I started copyediting with a view to a full review but it looks like other changes are happening simultaneously; pls ping me when done and I'll see about getting back to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead - I will hold off making any changes for now. Hammersfan (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I took so long to get back to this, but I've now completed my planned review:

  • Prose-wise, it read quite well but needed considerable tightening IMO. I may have addressed some of Peacemaker's original concerns in the process of copyediting, although I'm probably not the best person to tackle jargon as the terms are mostly familiar to me.
  • Structure-wise, I can imagine the article was a challenge but no obvious improvements occurred to me.
  • Image-wise, I defer to Nikki's review.
  • Source-wise, I only checked the bibliography but they all looked pretty reliable to me.
  • Content-wise, it seems a thorough history of the subject, very detailed in parts but not inordinately so.

Just one other thing, you have several duplicate links; some may be justified in an article of this length but pls review in any case, you can use this script to highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Unable to find original source, so have replaced image with self-created one Hammersfan (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport (this will take me a few days to work through) by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
    • United Kingdom is probably linked unnecessarily. - Done
    • the last sentence is too long. Needs to be broken down into several shorter sentences. - Done
  • Background
    • explicitly introduce RAF as an initialisation, same with USN, FAA, NAS, SACEUR etc. Be consistent with initialisations, introduce them then use them. - Done
    • "new-built" is a strange combination. Perhaps just "new" - Done
    • drop initial caps on General Election - Done
    • the sentence beginning "As a consequence, the government..." is too long. Needs to be broken down. - Done
    • The sentence beginning "Although several had received major..." doesn't make sense. Perhaps {{xt|Although several British carriers had received major upgrades, they were all smaller than the USN carriers that J79-GE-8 and −10 powered Phantoms operated from. - Done
    • The sentence beginning "Initially, there was an intention..." is also too long. Needs to be broken down. - Done
  • Variants
    • " fit check" and " full up" are jargonish, could be deleted without losing meaning. - Provided link to "fit check", which is accepted terminology in aviation testing; reduced "full up" to "full", as it needs to be clear that this testing was full launch and recovery
    • "consisted primarily of" - if they were the only carriers, it "consisted of", if not, more explanation is needed. - Done
    • suggest In 1970, Ark Royal embarked 892 NAS as part of her air group for the first time, with a total of 12 aircraft - Done
    • AoA is only used once, so doesn't need an initialization - Done
    • leaving no ship left - Done
    • "During the type's service with the Royal Navy, a total of 10 of the total FAA fleet of 28 were lost." I would expect some simple explanation here of how they were lost, ie x damaged during landing, x ditched, etc - Indicated they were lost in crashes; more detail in reference
    • As an air force numpty, I have no idea what interdiction means in terms of the F-111K. It needs a link or explanation when first mentioned. - Done
    • "stood up" is also jargonistic ( a couple of examples) - "standing up" is the recognized terminology for the beginning of service of a new military unit
    • avionics should be linked when first mentioned - Done
    • suggest A further four Phantom squadrons were formed in RAF Germany - Done
    • recce is jargonistic, you could drop it. - Done
    • 4 should be four per MOS - Done
    • sentence beginning with "The conversion of the RAF's FGR.2..." is too long, break it down. - Done
    • sentence beginning with "As more Jaguars were delivered..." is far too long, break it down. - Done
    • bolding of "air superiority grey" isn't called for. - Done
    • I know what Operation Corporate was, but few casual readers will. Suggest using a direct link to the Falklands War. - Done
    • sentence beginning "Initially, it was intended that Phantoms and Tornados serve alongside each other; a total of 152 Tornado F.3..." is far too long, break it down. - Done
    • suggest were thea special production batch - Done
    • sentence beginning with "The major difference between..." is too long, break it down. - Done
    • in the same sentence, "with instead the aircraft" doesn't read well, suggest refactoring as part of the rewrite of the sentence. - Done
  • Variations
    • sentence beginning "In addition to the folding nose..." is again too long. - Done
    • sentence beginning with "McDonnell Aircraft had been conducting studies..." is also too long. - Done
  • Aircraft on display
    • The first sentence doesn't make sense. - Done

Overall, the article looks in pretty good shape to me (but I'm an aircraft numpty). There are some formatting issues around sandwiching text between infoboxes and images (eg in the F-4K Phantom FG.1 subsection) and with hidden tables that drop down below a neighbouring infobox (in the same subsection) when viewed on narrower screens. The prose needs some work, with a fair amount of jargon and initialisations/acronyms, and quite a few overly long sentences. The sources all look reliable for what they are citing. I haven't looked at the image licensing, but generally feel some of the images are of limited value, and removal would help with some of the sandwiching. Well done so far. Ping me when you're done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersfan, what's the status on this one? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersfan: I was advised that this was ready for closure, after a cursory review of the article everything appears to be in order however in a toolbox check you hit a roadblock: Some of the external links used in the article are reported as dead. This needs to be addressed in the article before I can pass it, particularly if any of the sources are used as references in the article itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: Fixed the links, please have a look. These are my edits. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:41, 25 September 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Osvetnik-class submarine

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Osvetnik-class submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Osvetnik-class was a class of two French-designed submarines built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy between the wars. Both boats were captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion, and after modernisation, they were utilised as training and experimentation boats. They were both scuttled in September 1943. I have nominated both submarine articles along with this class article to capture all the suggested improvements in one hit. If you review this article, please take a look at the two individual submarine articles to see if your feedback applies there too? Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm... these articles are about 2/3rds cut and paste and perhaps two paragraphs of unique material. I have to ask, is there enough unique material for three A-class articles here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Class articles generally are, Maury. The last class article I submitted (on the other WWII class of Yugoslav submarines) was cut-down considerably during the review process. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is not the class article, but the articles on the two ships themselves, which have little unique material. They consist largely of the class article text, unchanged from what I can see, with a different lede and a little expansion at the bottom. Based on this bar, I could write a multi-page article on every Mosquito ever built, and I don't think that's appropriate. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • inconsistent: "Osvetnik (Nemesis) and Smeli (Daring)..." v. "names of Osvetnik and Smeli translate as "Avenger" and "Daring" respectively..."
    • the translation is a bit fraught, but I've gone for consistency.
  • " a surfaced draught of 3.8 m": is "surfaced" needed here (I'm strictly a landlubber but is there such a thing as a submerged draught?)
    • Indeed.
  • "submarine" is probably overlinked in the infobox
    • I don't think so, I think they are templates.
  • "Adriactic Sea" is ovelinked
    • Fixed.
  • the preceding and succeeding classes are mentioned in the infobox but not in the body;
    • I didn't think that was necessary, maybe Parsecboy can help?
  • "She was captured then scuttled by the Germans in September 1943..." probably best to mention the Italian surrender here (on first mention of their "re-capture" in the body)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Well constructed article. Here are my observations:

  • In the first sentence of the lead, there's a comma(,) missing after "France".
  • Lead; It is good that the meanings Osvetnik and Smeli are mentioned in brackets. Consider specifying the language too.
Image licensed and all good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. All done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 25 September 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav submarine Smeli

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Yugoslav submarine Smeli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This was a French-designed submarine built for Yugoslavia between the wars. It was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and saw service as a training and experimentation boat until she was scuttled at the time of the Italian armistice in September 1943. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks, but overall the issues have been sorted in response to my review on the sister boat. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – some minor points:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Kamarja

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Siege of Kamarja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

An old GA of mine, this conflict between Arabs and Turks in 729 was one of the most dramatic and famous (and hence well described) battles of the Umayyad era. The article is quite complete, utilizing the description of the siege in al-Tabari as a primary source, complemented with more modern works for corroboration (Tabari's text is not always straightforward) and to highlight specific issues and provide context. This is one of a series of articles on the Muslim conquest of Transoxiana, which I hope to bring to A-class or even higher. Constantine ✍ 18:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, overall this looks pretty good to me. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, AustralianRupert! I've fixed most of the issues you raised. Other than these, was the article comprehensible, or do you think that more background information would be needed? Generally I tend to be rather brief with sections like "Aftermath", especially since in the case of this topic it is rather well covered by a whole series of articles, but my perception of what is sufficient context may well differ from the average reader's. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, it seems sufficient to me. I think you have managed to find an appropriate balance. Thanks for your efforts as always. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support:
    • Tool checks ok - no dabs, external links work, no duplicate links, no errors with ref consolidation, image has alt text, Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [29] (no action req')
    • Image / map looks to be public domain and has the appropriate information (no action req'd).
    • After reading through it I struggled to find anything to take issue with. Article looks ready for promotion to me. Anotherclown (talk) 20:55, 10 September 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Seeadler

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Seeadler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Perhaps inspired by its appearance at PoTD, I'm nominating this article for A-class, after a bit of a hiatus at ACR over the last year or so. Thanks for all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day and welcome back to ACR! I have a couple of comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • inconsistent: "83.9 meters (275 ft) long overall" v. "Length: 82.6 m (271 ft 0 in)"
  • inconsistent: "4.42 m (14.5 ft) forward" v. "4.45 m (14 ft 7 in)"
  • inconsistent: "displaced 1,864 t (1,835 long tons; 2,055 short tons)" v. "Displacement: 1,868 t (1,838 long tons; 2,059 short tons)"
  • inconsistent: " range of approximately 2,950 nautical miles (5,460 km; 3,390 mi)" v. "Range: 2,990 nmi (5,540 km) at 9 knots (17 km/h)"
  • "...shipyard director, Kapitän zur See Aschmann" --> I wonder if the rank should be translated here, for instance " shipyard director, Kapitän zur See (Captain) Aschmann
    • Good idea
  • "Korvettenkapitän (Corvette Captain)" --> I think it might be better with the English language equivalent rather than a literal translation, e.g. "Korvettenkapitän (Lieutenant Commander)"
    • Works for me.
  • "In mid-October, Seeadler sent a landing party ashore...": it might be a good idea here to re-iterate the year
    • Sounds fine to me
  • "File:SMS Seeadler Daressalam1907-14.jpg": probably needs a PD-US-1923 licence

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Support I remember seeing the photo at FPC, and it's good to see the corresponding article here and in excellent shape. I think that the A-class criteria are met, and have only the following minor comments:

  • What does Kaiseradler translate as?
    • Added
  • "Seeadler first went to the Admiralty Islands on 18 January 1900 in response to the murder of European businessmen by natives there" - do we know what she did after arriving there?
    • HRS don't say - I would guess simply a show of force, since it seems they generally record landing parties and such.
  • "During Seeadler's operations in China, her crew suffered only one casualty from enemy action." - do we know when and how this occurred? Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- all licensing seems to check out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:20, 10 September 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Osvetnik was a French-made submarine built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in 1929. She was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and used by them as a training and experimentation boat until the Italian surrender in September 1943, when she was scuttled off Corsica. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Simonot design": I wonder if this could be linked or explained somehow
  • "1929–1941" --> "1929–41"
  • "1941–1943" --> 1941–43"
  • the infobox conversions seem slightly different to the body of the article in places, e.g. "surfaced draught of 3.8 m (12 ft 6 in)" v. "Draught: 3.8 m (12 ft)"
  • "14 January 1929": appears in the infobox, but not in the body of the article
  • "17 April 1941": same as above
  • there is a mixture of US and British English spelling variation, for instance "maneuvers" (US) but also "metres" (British)
  • "On 14 September 1943, she was captured by the Germans at Bonifacio at..." (the Italian surrender is not mentioned here, but appears in the lead)
  • Beyond this, I believe it meets the A-class criteria. Good work, as usual. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • Tool checks all report no issues (i.e. no dabs, no dead links, no duplicate wikilinks, image has alt text etc).
    • I assume the sources don't expand on M. Simonot's full name but if they do I'd suggest adding it.
    • "Still in good condition, she was taken as war booty, and initially designated N1..." by whom? I'm assuming Regia Marina from what is written in the lead but it might need to be written here to be clear.
    • Otherwise I couldn't see any issues from reading through it. Coverage seems sufficient to me given limited service etc. Anotherclown (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

This looks very good albeit brief. A few comments:

  • add range/radius of action to infobox?
  • wikilink Bajamonti-class submarines? Someone may well create the page in the future.
  • Did the flotilla have a formal name eg. 1st Submarine Flotilla? Was the Navy even big enough to have more than one?

Otherwise looks good for A-Class. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Zawed! All addressed. These are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, have added my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, would you mind doing an image review on the pic used in this and the sister boat and class articles (all at ACR at present). I believe they are PD-UK-unknown, but have added NFRs for use on the three articles. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 4 September 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of destroyers of the Indian Navy

edit
Nominator(s): KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛

List of destroyers of the Indian Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. The list is currently a B-class list. As a next step, I am nominating the list for A-class review. The list has a good lead and prose for individual sections have been expanded during the B-class review. Each and every ship and every class is cited with reliable sources. The sentences in the lead and the prose throughout the sections are referenced. Please suggest improvements regarding citations, style, structure etc. The list also has considerable importance in scope of WikiProject India and one of the most important lists relating to the Indian military and the Indian Navy. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 15:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Below I'll be including some comments on how the article might be improved. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly extended discussion on table format, nowiki-ed, and collapsed for ease of navigation
* I have noticed a long-standing tradition that list articles for military ships use the following table:

{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" |- valign="top"|- valign="top" ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 | Ship ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 | Armament ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 | Armor ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 | Displacement</small> ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 | Propulsion ! align= center scope=col colspan=3 | Service |-valign="top" ! align= center scope=col | Laid down ! align= center scope=col |Commissioned ! align= center scope=col |Fate |-valign="top" |}

  • I would expect that any A level list article about military ships, and indeed any article about a military ship, be able to describe the ship to at the least this detail. It's rather important that a person going through this article is given an overview of the ships in terms of the guns and weapons on it (armament), the thickness of the armour, how heavy it is (displacement; the amount of water it displaces in weight should equal the weight of the actual ship), the propulsion system (engines, shafts, what have you), and a brief overview of the ships service (as described by the table). I am however okay with the current additions of origin and references and definitely recommend they be left as part of the current tables.
  • Sub-note; if one or more of these pieces of information is not available, on the count of the fact that these are current military ships and detailed data on them may not be publicly available, then the omission of that information is of course acceptable. I can't expect you to add information that isn't available after all. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; implementing this will still affect the way the article is written, each of the classes would need to have their own table and section which should include a summary of the ship class as well. The images in the table would probably need to be moved out of the table and set neatly under the section title and above the actual table. The no. of ships section would become redundant in this case. I'll add however, if each of the ships in the class are identical to each other in terms of the raw data (armament, armour, displacement etc) then it may not be necessary to redesign the article entirely in this way. Just include the missing information pertinent to each class and that should solve this issue.
  • There is are a few bolded words in the lede, is this necessary or can we de-bold all these words?
  • Temporary note; I have only skimmed the article at this point, I will take a more in-depth look at it tomorrow and will update with further thoughts. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Thank you for the suggestions. I will work them on accordingly. But before that, I have some doubts regarding the table you've suggested. Firstly, I cannot find the information about the 'Armor' for any of the ships. So, I wish to omit the column. And the same with 'Propulsion'. In this case, I am considering of replacing the 'Propulsion' column with 'Speed', which is available for all the ships. Secondly, it is regarding the armament. It is good to provide the information which is available, but I think adding information about the armament will make the column too heavy. For example: When you consider INS Kolkata (D63), it information regarding it armament from the article's infobox is as follows:
Anti-air missiles:
  • 4 × 8-cell VLS, for a total of 32;
  • Barak 8 missiles (Range: 0.5 km (0.31 mi) to 90 km (56 mi))
  • Anti-ship/Land-attack missiles:
  • 2 × 8-cell UVLM for 16 BrahMos anti-ship and land-attack missiles
  • Guns:
  • 1 × 76 mm gun Oto Melara SRGM
  • 4 × AK-630 CIWS
  • Anti-submarine warfare:
Do you want me to include all this information. If it is required, I'll definitely. Please clarify me on this dubiety. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 00:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that armour and propulsion might be a problem, I had looked at the Kolkata class ships and noted that armour information was not available. In terms of armament, it does seem to be a bit unwieldy, perhaps condensing it to something like;
  • 4 × 8-cell VLS, for a total of 32 anti-air missiles;
  • Barak 8 missiles (Range: 0.5 km (0.31 mi) to 90 km (56 mi))
  • 2 × 8-cell UVLM for 16 BrahMos anti-ship and land-attack missiles
  • 1 × 76 mm gun Oto Melara SRGM
  • 4 × AK-630 CIWS
  • 4 × Mark 46 torpedo Torpedo tubes
  • 2 × RBU-6000 anti-submarine rockets
I'm not sure that the headings are entirely necessary since each line will describe the type of weapon itself. The downside is it looks less clean then with the headings. I do note however that both ships in the Kolkata class have the same armament, perhaps just have it look like this;

{| class="wikitable" |- ! style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|Class ! style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|Picture ! style="text-align:left; width:20%; background:#9cf;"|Type ! style="text-align:left; width:20%; background:#9cf;"|Ships ! style="text-align:left; width:20%; background:#9cf;"|Armament ! style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|Origin ! style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|Displacement ! style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|References |- | {{sclass-|Kolkata|destroyer|4}} | [[File:INS Kolkata.jpg|200px]] | [[Stealth ship|Stealth]] [[guided missile destroyer]] | {{INS|Kolkata|D63}}<ref name="INS Kolkata - IN Official">{{cite web|title=INS Kolkata|url=http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/node/1183|website=Indian Navy|accessdate=10 July 2016}}</ref><ref name="India welcomes its first home-built warship">{{cite news|title=India welcomes its first home-built warship|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2726840/India-welcomes-home-built-warship-PM-Modi-commissions-INS-Kolkata-Defence-Minister-prepares-launch-INS-Kamorta.html|accessdate=10 July 2016|work=Daily Mail UK}}</ref><br>{{INS|Kochi|D64}}<ref name="INS Kochi - IN Official">{{cite web|title=INS Kochi|url=http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/node/1187|website=Indian Navy|accessdate=10 July 2016}}</ref><ref name="India’s deadliest naval warship INS Kochi commissioned in Mumbai">{{cite news|title=India's deadliest naval warship INS Kochi commissioned in Mumbai|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/indias-deadliest-naval-warship-ins-kochi-commissioned-today/|accessdate=10 July 2016|work=Indian Express|date=30 September 2015}}</ref> | *4 × 8-cell [[Vertical launching system|VLS]], for a total of 32; *[[Barak 8 (missile)|Barak 8]] missiles LR-SAM *2 × 8-cell UVLM for 16 [[BrahMos]] anti-ship and land-attack missiles *1 × 76 mm gun Oto Melara SRGM *4 × [[AK-630]] [[Close-in weapon system|CIWS]] *4 × [[Mark 46 torpedo]] Torpedo tubes *2 × [[RBU-6000]] anti-submarine rockets | {{IND}} | 7,500 tonnes | <ref name="Kolkata Class Guided Missile Destroyers">{{cite web|title=Kolkata Class Guided Missile Destroyers|url=http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kolkata-class-guided-missile-destroyers/|website=Naval Technology|accessdate=10 July 2016}}</ref><ref name="Vikramaditya, Viraat, Delhi Class, Rajput Class, Kolkata Class : Indian Navy Official">{{cite web|title=Vikramaditya, Viraat, Delhi Class, Rajput Class, Kolkata Class|url=http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/vikramaditya-viraat-delhi-class-rajput-class-kolkata-class|website=Indian Navy|accessdate=10 July 2016}}</ref> |}

I might also consider suggesting yet another version, Alternative the third;
Kolkata class

{| class="wikitable" |- valign="center"|- valign="center" ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 style="text-align:left; width:20%; background:#9cf;"|Ships ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|Picture ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 style="text-align:left; width:20%; background:#9cf;"|Armament ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|Displacement ! align= center scope=col colspan=2 style="text-align:center; background:#9cf;"|Service ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|Origin ! align= center scope=col rowspan=2 style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|References |-valign="center" ! align= center scope=col style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|Laid down ! align= center scope=col style="text-align:left; background:#9cf;"|Commissioned |-valign="center" | {{INS|Kolkata|D63}}<ref name="INS Kolkata - IN Official">{{cite web|title=INS Kolkata|url=http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/node/1183|website=Indian Navy|accessdate=10 July 2016}}</ref><ref name="India welcomes its first home-built warship">{{cite news|title=India welcomes its first home-built warship|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2726840/India-welcomes-home-built-warship-PM-Modi-commissions-INS-Kolkata-Defence-Minister-prepares-launch-INS-Kamorta.html|accessdate=10 July 2016|work=Daily Mail UK}}</ref><br>{{INS|Kochi|D64}}<ref name="INS Kochi - IN Official">{{cite web|title=INS Kochi|url=http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/node/1187|website=Indian Navy|accessdate=10 July 2016}}</ref><ref name="India’s deadliest naval warship INS Kochi commissioned in Mumbai">{{cite news|title=India's deadliest naval warship INS Kochi commissioned in Mumbai|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/indias-deadliest-naval-warship-ins-kochi-commissioned-today/|accessdate=10 July 2016|work=Indian Express|date=30 September 2015}}</ref> | [[File:INS Kolkata.jpg|200px]] | *4 × 8-cell [[Vertical launching system|VLS]], for a total of 32; *[[Barak 8 (missile)|Barak 8]] missiles LR-SAM *2 × 8-cell UVLM for 16 [[BrahMos]] anti-ship and land-attack missiles *1 × 76 mm gun Oto Melara SRGM *4 × [[AK-630]] [[Close-in weapon system|CIWS]] *4 × [[Mark 46 torpedo]] Torpedo tubes *2 × [[RBU-6000]] anti-submarine rockets | 7,500 tonnes | September 2003 | 16 August 2014 | {{IND}} | <ref name="Kolkata Class Guided Missile Destroyers">{{cite web|title=Kolkata Class Guided Missile Destroyers|url=http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kolkata-class-guided-missile-destroyers/|website=Naval Technology|accessdate=10 July 2016}}</ref><ref name="Vikramaditya, Viraat, Delhi Class, Rajput Class, Kolkata Class : Indian Navy Official">{{cite web|title=Vikramaditya, Viraat, Delhi Class, Rajput Class, Kolkata Class|url=http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/vikramaditya-viraat-delhi-class-rajput-class-kolkata-class|website=Indian Navy|accessdate=10 July 2016}}</ref> |} The above are just a couple alternatives that would allow you to include the armament details. To just quickly explain this change, it's based on the premise of setting the class as the heading, including a paragraph about the class, and then using the table to deal with the major aspects of each ship. I will note that this will have a rather significant impact on the article, as such, I'm willing to get some outside opinions on my suggestion. I based my original comment off of prior experience with AL and FL class articles of this type, usually dealing with WW2 ships and not modern ones. Sorry for the walls of text though. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Thank you. I will work accordingly and will notify you once done. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 06:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: I have reconstructed the commissioned ships section accordingly. Please review it and suggest the improvements required. If it is well and good, I'll the apply the same to the other two sections. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 08:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga I think it adds quite a bit to the list in both quantity and quality (will confirm on further reading) and I note that each class, currently operating, has been expanded quite a bit. Feel free to do the same to the other two sections as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: I have expanded the other two sections too. Please review the entire article accordingly and suggest any further improvements required. I have not included prose for the Kolkata class in future ships section, as prose of the class is already mentioned in previous section of Kolkata class in commissioned ships. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I have collapsed our discussion above on the format of the wiki table to make it easier to navigate through the review, I will respost this part of the discussion on to the article's talk page for anybody who would like to review it. I'll look at the rest of the article soon and update you with any improvements or findings that I make here. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Thanks for that. Looking forward to hear from you. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 14:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, but, I too will wait for the GOCE edit. I haven't noted anything otherwise problematic with the article barring a few prose issues. I assume GOCE will clear those up and then I'll give it another look. I am also otherwise occupied doing GA reviews so my apologies for the delay in responding here. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: No problem. I am too waiting for the GOCE edit. I'll notify you once it is complete. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 11:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: The GOCE edit was complete. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with optional suggestion; I think this is a lovely article, I only wonder if there's inconsistency in having a references column in the table at the same time you have references within the table itself (as in the row on the Kolkata class)? Not a deal-breaker, though. LavaBaron (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LavaBaron: Thanks for your support. Actually I have some about placing the references. But as you have mentioned the Kolkata class, the references I have included are for individual ships, but the for the others the references are applicable for the whole class. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 01:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=oo6CAgAAQBAJ&dq=Lucilius+7.290+Rorarius+Veles&source=gbs_navlinks_s
  2. ^ https://archive.org/details/cluciliicarminu01lucigoog
  3. ^ http://sites.psu.edu/successoftheromans/wp-content/uploads/sites/10644/2014/03/Veles.jpg
  4. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=oo6CAgAAQBAJ&dq=Lucilius+7.290+Rorarius+Veles&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this list. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, I suggest adding a total number of decommissioned destroyers, to balance the line where you talk about the 10 current vessels;
  • the lead should be no more than four paragraphs per WP:LEAD, so I suggest merging a couple;
  • I suggest requesting a copy edit from the WP:GOCE, as there are still a few places where the grammar could be tightened;
  • SS-N-15 'Starfish' or possibly... the MOS requests double quotes here, I believe. For instance: SS-N-15 "Starfish" or possibly;
  • there is a mixture of US English spellings and British spellings in the article (for example, "centreline" (British) and "maneuverable" (US)). Either would be fine, IMO, but consistency is the key;
  • in the R class table, the date Rana was laid down appears to be missing;
  • in the Hunt class table, the date Godavari was laid down appears to be missing;
  • citations 29, 30 and 31 should have publisher, author and accessdates added to them;
  • Lyon appears in the References but isn't used as a citation: suggest creating a Further reading section and putting it there, potentially with one or two more relevant, but uncited works (if they exist).
  • citations 32 and 33 should be converted to short citations, and the full reference listed in the References. Both citations should have page numbers, also.
  • Anyway, that's it from me: I will come back once the copy edit is finished. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Thanks for the suggestions. Fixed the issues with references. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 06:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: The GOCE edit was complete. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've made a couple more tweaks and added my support. If you wish to take this to FL, I suggest trying to cover off on the hidden comments the copy editor left in the article, but otherwise it looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Quite a bit of duplicate links - there's a script here you can install that will highlight them for you.
  • "This also makes the Kolkata class the heaviest of the destroyer classes presently in active service with the Indian Navy" - this seems to be redundant to the sentence that precedes it. Obviously, if the ship is the heaviest destroyer of the Indian Navy, the class will necessarily also be the heaviest class.
  • "they have 2,363 modifications" - this strikes me as puffery
  • Are the Kolkata class destroyers or frigates? The two ship types are not one in the same.
  • Why is the displacement figure for the Kolkata class given by the media used in the table instead of that from the Indian Navy? I'd think the Navy ought to know better than the media what their own ships displace.
  • I might recommend a photo like this one for the lead section - helps to illustrate just what the destroyers do. Of course, if there's a better option that's fine too.
  • File:INS Kolkata.jpg - not real sure I buy the uploader's claim, given they uploaded this obvious copyvio.
  • File:HMS Raider 1942 IWM FL 9760.jpg - not sure the copyright tag is correct. Photo is attributed to a Stewart Bale Ltd, Liverpool, so it's clearly not a work of the British government. We also need to know how the photo is PD in the US, since Wikimedia servers are in the US.
  • File:Slazak wraca spod Dieppe.jpg - this photo was likely first published in Britain, not Poland. Without a source, it cannot be definitively proved either way, and of course evidence of free usage in the US is also necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: I have fixed all the issues you mentions; duplicate links, sentences, displacement and all. Regarding the image suggestions; the image you've suggested was added in the lead section. The issue with other three images; I have used these images [(Kolkata), (Raider), (Slazak)]from commons which are licensed under the free license of CC by S.A 4.0, per the policy of UK and per Polish Copyright Law Act of February 4, 1994. And they are available on commons I think they can be used in the list. Please suggest further improvements required. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but what I'm saying is the license tags for those photos are not correct. The first is likely a copyright violation (i.e., the uploader is not the creator, given the very dubious nature of his other uploads), the second is not a work of the British government, and the third is likely not under Polish copyright law. Parsecboy (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add to that slightly; the issue is, that anybody can place any license they wish on an image. I could go to google images, take any image I want, upload it to Wikimedia Commons and tag it with CC-BY-SA-3.0, or PD-1923, or whatever. The onus is on the uploader to also include proof that the attributed license is correct. As an example for license abuse; {{PD-1923}} This page is now in the PD in the US, even though it was clearly published long after 1923, the date of creation as you can see is 28 July 2016, but, I am claiming it was before 1923. Similarly, Parsecboy has suspicions that the uploader may have done a similar thing, included an appropriate license that they fabricated to suit their purpose of adding it to Wikipedia quite illegally. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: and @Mr rnddude: I have replaced the image for INS Kolkata, think it has been licensed appropriately. Regarding the other two please consider this for Raider and this, this for Salazak. Please review those images before I add them. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 11:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link for the Kolkata photo, the suggested image for Raider should be fine, and the second option for Slazak is good (but the first one is a no-go). Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Replaced images accordingly. Thank you. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 13:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: The GOCE edit was complete. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads better now, though I'm not thrilled with the new title of the list. The previous title was the standard format adopted by several editors (including me) - see for instance List of cruisers of Germany, List of battlecruisers of the United States, List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, etc. The ideal title should probably be List of destroyers of India. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Actually I have expressed the same opinion in the move discussion on the article's talk page. Anyway I have moved the page as per the standard format. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I ping Parsecboy and Mr rnddude to give their final vote regarding the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 29 August 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/43rd Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/43rd Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A South Australian unit this time, or at least it was when it was first raised as heavy casualties resulted in its demographics changing over time. Part of the 9th Division, the 2/43rd fought at Tobruk and El Alamein against the Germans and Italians, before fighting in the Pacific against the Japanese in New Guinea and on Borneo. I took this article recently to GA and would like to improve it further. Thank you to all who stop by. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • image licensing looks ok
  • with the specialist platoons it might be worth linking them to the relevant article (ie military communications, Pioneer (military), anti-aircraft warfare, Universal Carrier, Mortar (weapon) etc
  • might be worth mentioning that the original 43rd was also raised in South Australia, and that it was "re-raised" in 1921, as I believe the 43rd (Hindmarsh Regiment) was the successor unit to the 1st AIF one.
  • there is a bit of jargon, bull-ring, collective training, etc
  • battle flag or colours?
    • The source says "battle flag" and refers to it being saluted from the main flag pole on the parade ground, so I'm assuming it was the Australian flag that they were to take with them on deployment, rather than their actual battalion colours. I could be wrong about this, though. Just went with a link. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Adelaide and Oakbank
  • suggest breaking up the sentence beginning with "Leave was granted...", it is too long
  • suggest "subsequently remain"
  • suggest linking Fieldcraft
  • how did they get from Milne Bay to Buna?
  • suggest the information on casualties incurred during the advance on Lae be offered at the conclusion of that para
  • do you mean "the 2/43rd established a blocking position around Jivevaneng"? It reads oddly at present.
  • link Reconnaissance at reconnoitre
  • link Beaufort, Malaysia
  • Several drafts... several months is a bit repetitive
  • I don't understand the use of "frontage" in this context. Perhaps "strength"?
  • suggest linking Cadre (military)
  • suggest "subsequently disbanded"
  • fully cited and all references are properly formatted and reliable
  • CommentsSupport
    • I'll have time to look over this a bit later. In the mean time casualty figures for the bn from Johnston That Magnificent 9th pp. 248-249 could be included, specifically:

Support -- I thought the prose could use a fair bit of tightening but don't hesitate to let me know any concerns with my copyedit; the only query I still have is:

  • "In early August, the battalion moved by road to Cairns. The following month, a new commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Joshua, arrived. On 8 August 1943, the 2/43rd embarked upon HMAS Manoora, bound for Milne Bay in New Guinea. [...] In mid-August, the battalion moved by sea to Buna in several landing craft." -- chronology seems a bit askew: early August, 8 August, and mid-August make sense but between the first two we have the new CO arriving in what I assume is September...
  • Structure seems logical and there's no shortage of detail.
  • I'll take PM's image review as read.
  • Referencing-wise, just a couple of formatting thingies that I tweaked; not familiar with all the sources but nothing stood out as being of questionable reliability.

Well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My Grandad served in this battalion during the Borneo Campaign, and it's interesting to read a history of the unit. I'm happy to support as I only have a couple of minor comments:

  • "early in 1943 as the Australian Army's focus turned to fighting the Japanese in the Pacific" - I'd suggest tweaking this as the Army's focus had been almost entirely on fighting the Japanese from early 1942 (the Government only agreed to leave the 9th Division in the Middle East in exchange for US reinforcements being sent to Australia)
  • "Many of the commissioned officers and some of the non-commissioned officers had previous military experience in the Militia" - do we know if many of the soldiers also had this experience? (presumably many did) Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 9 August 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.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Probably the dullest unit name the RAAF could think of but its story belies it. The oldest continually operating formation in RAAF history, 1AD's heyday was before World War II, when it was not only responsible for aircraft maintenance but also for organising several pioneering survey flights in Australia and overseas. Its testing program during the war prefigured the work done by the RAAF's current test-flying facility, ARDU. After the war 1AD got the RAAF's first jets ready for service, before losing first its airframe and then its engine maintenance responsibilities in the 1960s, and seeing out its days supporting mainly ground equipment. This has been GA for a while but I've recently expanded it and while I don't know if I'll ever get round to taking it to FAC, I think it's worthy of A-Class -- tks for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Looks pretty good. One typo: "reconnoitered" should be "reconnoitred" Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Four images, all from AWM and all copyright expired. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks again, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this looks very good to me, only some minor points:
    • No dabs, external links check out, no citation errors, no duplicate links, image captions look fine to me (no action req'd)
    • "...near a railway station eight kilometres inland from Point Cook..." - you might consider using the {{convert}} template here (suggestion only)
      • Quite right -- I usually do this but was a bit lazy here... ;-)
    • "...aircraft fitters and riggers" - are there any suitable articles we might be able to wikilink here to explain of our readers what fitters and riggers do perhaps? (suggestion only)
    • "...Hawker Hurricanes" - I'm a bit curious about this entry, didn't the RAAF only operate one in Australia (the rest being in Europe)? I believe it was based at Laverton for a bit so I guess No. 1 AD would have probably been involved in its maintenance etc. but does a single aircraft warrant mention? If its in the sources I guess keep it (it probably works to indicate the range of aircraft the unit maintained I concede); however, it stood out to me as potentially implying that a more significant qty were in service and therefore *might* mislead some readers. (this is really very minor and probably only exists as an issue in my mind)
      • Well spotted, I haven't checked but from memory you may well be right -- the source in fact uses singular for all types (perhaps to hedge as well!) so I've done the same.
    • "... for the Air Force and other sections of defence..." should "defence" here be capitalized as a proper noun?
      • Heh, I was in two minds and decided to leave it but happy to alter.
    • "By now the depot's functions had largely..." perhaps "by then" might work better? (suggestion only). Anotherclown (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, no prob.
Tks for reviewing AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, those changes all look good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the link to the Imperial Gift is insufficient, some sort of brief explanation of what it was is needed.
    • Quite agree, done.
  • I suggest putting a comma after "ground equipment" in the post-war section.
    • Re-worded with a little more detail.
  • Suggest "Ground Equipment Maintenance Squadrons"
    • Well spotted, tks.

That's it from me, looking very good.

Much appreciated, PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 9 August 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T3

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This steam-powered torpedo boat saw service in both WWI and WWII, finally being sunk in early 1945. She was one of the 250t-class torpedo boats whose class article I took to ACR in August last year. This article successfully went through GAN in May last year, and has had a couple of tweaks since then. All constructive criticism taken on board. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article has no obvious issues and appears to meet the A-class criteria. Kges1901 (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I made a couple minor tweaks, please adjust as you see fit. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Acquired: March 1921": this appears in the infobox, but I don't think you mention it in the body of the article;
  • "classified as sea-going": I wonder if the significance of this could be clarified a little more?
  • I wonder if a general sentence could be added about what the vessel did between entering KJRM and April 1941;
  • "T3 was captured by the Royal Italian Navy": did the vessel put to sea, or its crew resist?
  • in Italian service, where did the ship operate, is it stated?

Support Comment -- Only a minor ce from me, reads well, logically structured and couldn't see any issues with image licensing or source reliability/formatting. I suppose it's on the cusp of what I would consider detailed enough for A-Class but I know there are precedents; be good if we could get a bit more meat on the bones a la Rupert's comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support What a silly article! On a Yugoslavian torpedo boat - I saw this and though it was some kind-of joke! Anyway, love it! This is an absolute delight and I wholeheartedly support! LavaBaron (talk) 01:35, 29 July 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Prince Romerson

edit
Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Prince Romerson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this article can be considered an A-class article but may need extra peer review to get it there. The ultimate goal is to get this to feature article status as a very short featured articles along with a few other articles on Hawaiian and Pacific Islander combatants in the American Civil War. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments: just a quick comment at this stage. In the citations you have "Manning & Vance 2015", but in the References "Manning, Anita; Vance, Justin W. (2014).". I assume 2015 is a typo. Can you please confirm? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it is a typo.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the format for the reference format 2015 NPS book based on advise from Trappist the monk on FAC review page for Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, no worries, but it seems there is now a citation error due to the presence of the "National Park Service 2015, pp. 142–145" citation, without a corresponding long reference in Bibliography section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I changed that as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment -- copyedited a little but in general I found the article well-written and easy to comprehend. It's brief, but I can see you've mined many sources and appreciate there may not be a huge amount of detail on the subject. I note Nikki's image review above, but would prefer to see a source review from her if possible (more for reliability than formatting) before I support, especially if the article's ultimate destination is FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting is quite inconsistent, but I'm not seeing any significant reliability concerns. Looks like Bookhaus has subsequently gone out of business(?), but from what I can tell it appears to have been reputable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The inconsistency lies in the fact that news and web sources can't be cited with Harvard referencing style. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, actually they can. Either harv or sfn can be used to produce these results, you just have to include a ref tag within the cite web or cite news template so that the short citation can be anchored to it. There's an example at Australian Flying Corps if you want to see the html mark up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys -- if the formatting can be improved I'd suggest doing so before FAC, but I won't hold up support on that account here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an utterly fascinating article. My only comment is that I wish the second image could be staggered to the left because I prefer the aesthetics of left/right images but, sadly, yours is the correct format. LavaBaron (talk) 01:37, 29 July 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Montreal Laboratory

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Montreal Laboratory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Latest in the series on the Manhattan Project. This is about the Canadian part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Support Comments second reading goes well, good to go. Still like to see something on that 185l issue, but that can wait. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Overall, looks quite good to me, Hawkeye. Just a few minor comments or suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • technical review: no dup links were identified; no dabs identified; ext links all work;
  • suggest adding alt text;
  • "File:C.D. Howe, wartime.jpg": should have a description added to the image description page on Commons;
  • "File:C.D. Howe, wartime.jpg": not a warstoper, but if there was any way to move the handwritten comments on the image, it would probably be a bit more visually appealing;
  • image licencing looks ok to me, assuming that the assertion on "File:NRX Pile Building and ZEEP Building- Cooling Tanks 1945.jpg" that URAA does not apply, means that no US licence is required. If this is not the case, it shouldn't be a drama: PD-US-1996 would be applicable in my opinion then.
  • "File:C.D. Howe, wartime.jpg": probably needs a US licence;
  • "File:Montreal Group.jpg": same as the above
  • "File:TrumanAtleeKing1945.jpg": US licence should probably be adjusted to "PD-US-1996"
     Y All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the References, the Manhatten District History: is there an OCLC number that can be added here?
     Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • citation order: "...including J. Carson Mark, Phil Wallace and Leo Yaffe.[19][2]" --> "...including J. Carson Mark, Phil Wallace and Leo Yaffe.[2][19]" (this is a very pedantic nitpick...there are a couple of other examples that I could see elsewhere, too)
     Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • if there is a particularly iconic image, potentially it would enhance the visual appeal of the article if it were added to the lead;
    We could use the one of the Big Three? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, that's all I've got. Once again, Hawkeye, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 22 July 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Western Area Command (RAAF)

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Western Area Command (RAAF) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Parallel to the ACR for North-Eastern Area Command, I present one on the longest-surviving RAAF area command, which operated from 1941 to 1956 and covered most of Western Australia. Geography meant that its prime focus was maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, so its story was never going to be as action-packed as its northern cousins but, unlike North-Eastern Area at least, it did get to control an RAAF B-24 Liberator heavy bomber squadron, No. 25, which still exists as the non-flying "City of Perth" squadron. FWIW, this will probably be my last area command ACR for a while, until more of the others' operational records are digitised... :-) Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: just a few minor suggestions/comments, otherwise fantastic work as always, Ian: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • tech review: alt text present, no dabs, ext links all work;
  • the article is well referenced, and the prose seems fine to me;
  • suggestion: perhaps mention something about the post war drawn down (to clarify why units were disbanded in the aftermath of the war, or something about demobilization). It wouldn't need much more than half a sentence, probably;
  • "File:OperationHurricane.png": also needs a US licence;
    • Hmm, yes, it probably does but PD-1996 wouldn't apply in this case and I'm not sure offhand what would. @Nikkimaria: this did get through FAC when I used it in William Hely a while back but I'm wondering about it now (I wasn't the original uploader)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there anything to the trade agreement mentioned in the description? I haven't seen that raised before that I can recall. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't know anything about it, Nikki, I guess I just assumed at the time (for Hely) that being on Commons it was fine to use. According to the user page the uploader has died so we can't ask him. I'd love to use this if you think there's a way but if not then I guess I'd better remove and find something else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Labuan-Brunei": probably should have an endash instead of a hyphen;
  • "D.E.L. Wilson": Wilson's full name was Douglas Ernest Lancelot Wilson. Refs: [34] and [35] (suggest maybe just calling him "Douglas Wilson" in the article)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Looks to be in really good shape, as expected. I have a few minor queries.[reply]

  • perhaps it is worth explicitly mentioning that Kormoran sank Sydney and was scuttled as a result of the battle. Without that context, locating the crew of the Kormoran doesn't really make sense.
  • suggest By end of that month, headquarters
  • I assume the difficulties with identifying the aircraft flown by the various squadrons at various stages also apply here? I note that you have done this in later parts of the article, but I mean in the early bit.

Source review All sources appear reliable and are properly formatted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything looks good to me. Nothing to add. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 26 July 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

No. 37 Squadron RAAF

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

No. 37 Squadron RAAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A belated follow-up to GAN/ACR/FAC noms over the past few years for other RAAF transport squadrons, namely Nos. 33, 34 and 36 Squadrons. For 40 years, Nos. 36 and 37 were the RAAF's twin C-130 Hercules squadrons, until the former converted to C-17 Globemasters in 2006 -- No. 37 is expected to continue flying its C-130Js until 2030, and after that who knows? The C-17 may be superior in range and payload, the new C-27 Spartan might be able to get into smaller landing grounds, but no aircraft has spelt "disaster relief" in Australia and the region like the RAAF's Hercs, not to mention their combat support role from the Vietnam War onwards. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great article, I don't see any obvious issues. Kges1901 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article recently for GA and have reviewed the changes made since. I am of the opinion that it meets the A-class criteria and am happy to offer my support. Great work, as always, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Couldn't find anything either, so I thought I'd do an image review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images are appropriately licensed. Was a bit surprised to learn about the Dakota in the picture. "On 6 July 1945 this aircraft flew the body of the late Prime Minister of Australia John Curtin from Canberra to Perth for burial" I would have added that to the caption. But it's up to you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much for all that, Hawkeye -- yes, fair point about the caption, I might just corroborate the AWM with the squadron's unit history or some such first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 22 July 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand)

edit
Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to improve this article and hope to eventually get it to FA. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments: G'day, I really like what you've done with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did some copyediting; please check you are happy with my edits;
  • "However, the structure was soon changed to conform with that of the British Divisional Cavalry Regiments": can it be clarified here what that structure was?
      Done
  • perhaps the march through Auckland could be mentioned in the body of the article (possibly just before embarkation)
      Done
  • "On 19 June, the regiment lost its first man...": this seems a little awkward, perhaps: "On 19 June, the regiment experienced its first fatality..."?
      Done
  • "The regiment became part of the Second Echelon's Headquarters...": --> "'C' Squadron became part..."
      Done
  • "With the remainder of 5th Brigade, C Squadron..." (missing definite article before "5th")
      Done
  • "In July 1940, the division was sent to Mersa Matruh...": the 2nd New Zealand Division hasn't yet been introduced in the body of the article, so I suggest mentioning it by its full name here;
      Done
  • "The mortally-ill Caro Pierce" --> "The mortally-ill Pierce" (as you have already mentioned his first name). Also, it should possibly be clarified what illness he was suffering from
  • "Lieutenant Colonel Carruth": mention first name on first mention
      Done
  • "Cut off from 10th Brigade headquarters..." --> move the link for 10th Brigade to the earlier mention
      Done
  • "Composite Training Depot on 26 July": suggest removing the red link here, as I'm not sure of the notability of the topic for a stand alone article
      Done
  • "would cross the border north": clarify which border
      Done
  • "Fourteen Bren Gun Carriers arrived on 22 August 1941..." suggest removing the link here for Bren Gun Carrier, as it has already been linked earlier in the article
      Done
  • wikilink 9th Brigade
      Done
  • "General Schmitt": full name (if known), and link if possible
      Done
  • "Major Nicoll succeeded..." mention first name on first mention (same for the other COs referred to in the body of the article)
      Done
  • As the Reorganization section is quite short, I suggest merging it with the one below it under the one heading (this will also help shorten the Table of Contents, which will reduce the whitespace at the top of the article);
      Done
  • As the Syria paragraph is quite short, I suggest just merging the section with the one below it under the one heading
      Done
  • "Rommel's offensive": Rommel hasn't been mentioned prior to this, so a little more context needs to be given to the reader about who he is, and a link should be included;
      Done
  • the "Rommel's offensive" section is largely about the "First Battle of El Alamein", so I suggest adding a wikilink to that article in the body of the article somewhere;
      Done
  • add a wikilink for "Battle of Alam Halfa"
      Done
  • I suggest adding a couple of sub headings to the Italy section for consistency of style with the North Africa section
      Done
  • wikilink "Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry"
      Done
  • watch out for overlinking terms. I removed a few, but there are probably a few more: 4th Brigade, 21st Battalion, 5th Brigade, Mersa Matruh, Ordnance QF 2-pounder, Bernard Freyberg, are a few examples. If you instal this script, it will help you find them: User:Ucucha/duplinks
      Done
  • did the regiment receive any battle honours or theatre honours?
      Done - Battle honours were indirectly awarded to successor unit New Zealand Scottish Regiment
  • if known, perhaps you could include a short sentence on the numbers and types of gallantry awards members of the regiment received?
      Done
  • in the Further reading section, the two works by Deed probably should clarify that "Matamata" is in New Zealand, e.g. "Matamata, New Zealand"
      Done
    G'day, I've made a few more tweaks, which you might like to check you are happy with. I've added my support for promotion, also. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Just some minor points: Went over the rest with a fine comb, everything looks good.

  • "... British force sent to Greece to defend the country from Germany. ... from Greece." - perhaps the second should also be "the country." For some reason it reads oddly right now.
      Done
  • "After reequipping for several months" - "After spending several months reequipping"
      Done
  • "C Squadron tank during exercises in England" - is the image a Mk. II or Mk. III? I think it's worth mentioning here.
    • The caption doesn't say. I'm no expert at tank identification, perhaps a more knowledgeable editor can figure it out. Loughnan, p. 39, states that the squadron did use the Mark VI in the UK.
  • "was diverted to the United Kingdom" - from where? I assume enroute to Egypt? If so, I'd recommend "while enroute to Egypt, it was diverted..."
      Done
  • "Russell Force was moved to Aghya in early May 1941, and German paratroops attacked Crete on 20 May" - this suggests there was some sort of linkage between these two events, which I don't think is the case. Suggest making a new paragraph at "German paratroops".
    •   Done
  • "discovering 29 tanks in a wadi near the coast" - This section could use some clarifying. So they discovered these tanks, and then withdrew?
  • "protect against an Axis attack from Turkey" - the prospect of an Axis attack...? I don't believe any such attack actually occurred?
    •   Done
  • "which created a need for more troops to stop the Axis advance" - suggest removing this statement, it breaks up the sentence it is in and doesn't really need to be said.
    • The statement was an attempt to explain why the NZ division was sent back to Egypt. Kges1901 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I get that, but it seems it is obvious without mentioning it in the middle of this sentence. It's not clear it needs to be there at all, but if you think it's worth it, perhaps make it its own sentence or combine it with a description of the overall issue. IIRC the Turkish issue quickly resolved itself as a non-threat, so perhaps a statement like "As the threat of invasion from Turkey faded, and new pressures emerged in Egypt..." Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Done - split the sentence Kges1901 (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:37, 13 July 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Following on from the ACR for North-Western Area Command last month, I present one for the other half of the former Northern Area Command that had covered the whole of Northern Australia and Papua New Guinea. Like NWA, NEA was right in the frontline of the Pacific War in its early period. You'll note, however, that after an action-packed first year the level of detail in the article tapers off, which I think is a fair reflection of the sources and the diminishing importance of NEA in the war effort. As witness, the Americans took direct control of USAAF units in the area from mid-1942, the RAAF formed No. 9 Operational Group (Northern Command from April 1944) a few months later, denuding NEA of its units in New Guinea, and by the time Australia acquired a heavy bomber force of B-24 Liberators in January 1945 the place to base them was NWA. Like NWA, NEA continued to operate after the war but it had little to do operationally except oversee maritime patrol by its Townsville-based Lincoln squadron, until being consigned to history by the RAAF's reorganisation into a functional command-and-control structure. As ever, I look forward to any and all comments! Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Ian, looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • tech review: alt text is present; ext links all work; no dabs;
  • images seem appropriately licenced to me;
  • article is well referenced and the prose seemed fine to me;
  • in the first paragraph, "Queensland" is linked on second mention, although I suspect you have done this to avoid having two linked terms side-by-side;
    • That was my reasoning though I admit it's produced a bit of an anomaly here; my first instinct is to leave as is but it's not a huge deal...
  • suggest linking "New Britain" on first mention;
  • "J.H. Summers" --> Summers' full name was John Hamilton Summers. Photo here: [36]
  • "US invasion of New Britain" --> probably could link to New Britain campaign
  • "SWPA was dissolved and RAAF Headquarters again assumed full control of all its operational formations, including the area commands..." --> was there some level of demobilisation at play here? If so, I wonder if that could be mentioned (wouldn't need to be more than half a sentence, I think). Thoughts?
    • Certainly demobilisation was occurring but double-checking Stephens in Going Solo it seems the main thing was simply that SWPA was a wartime expedient and once the war was over full control over RAAF elements reverted to RAAF Headquarters, as it was before SWPA.
  • "P.G. Heffernan" --> Heffernan's full name was Patrick George Heffernan. Ref: [37]
  • in the References, I think Ashworth should come before the Australian War Memorial (alphabetically)
  • in the References, link "Allen & Unwin" for consistency

Support Comments

  • "Each was led by...": on first pass, I read this as referring to the roles of air defence, etc... before realising this was in relation to the area commands. Would it be unduly repetitive to have area commands in successive sentences? I.e. "Each area command was led by..."
    • Fair enough, I just said "area" to reduce the repetition a bit while being clearer.
  • What was the NEA initial OOB? It seems that at first it was only 24 Squadron but this is not explicitly stated.
    • Oddly enough, an OOB is given in the operations record book but it seems confused as it includes units at Darwin (North-Western Area's HQ and main air base) and leaves out units at Townsville (NEA's HQ and main air base) -- so I think it'd be best not to include it. FWIW, we do have an OOB from only a few months later, i.e. April 1942.
  • Do we know the number of headquarters personnel at the time of its formation or shortly afterwards? It may be useful to get an idea of its growth from creation, or at least shortly after its creation, to August 1942 when its size is first mentioned.
    • Agreed, not sure why I left it out.
  • An OOB as of the end of the war would be nice, if it is available (suspect not, as I'm sure you would have mentioned it).
    • I would've liked to include it too but, as you guessed, it's not spelt out.

That's it for me. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for taking the time to review, Zawed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All good Ian, I have added my support. Good work. Zawed (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) G'day Ian, this article looks to be in good shape. I have a few minor suggestions:[reply]

  • Two units to coordinate fighter operations, Nos. 3 and 4 Fighter Sector Headquarters, were established at Townsville and Port Moresby, respectively, on 25 February. is a bit clunky. I suggest refactoring it, maybe into two sentences? On 25 February, Nos. 3 and 4 Fighter Sector Headquarters were established to coordinate fighter operations. They were based at Townsville and Port Moresby respectively.
    • Heh, fair enough.
  • it would be good to know what sort of aircraft were operated by each squadron when they are first mentioned in the text. ie No. 76 Squadron (Kittyhawks) or something like that. I feel it would add significantly to an appreciation of the span of command and the types being operated. Then if they changed aircraft, doing the same when they are mentioned next. For the non-RAAFies like me, it helps a lot.
    • Agree, I generally try to do that. I'll double-check the sources and if an aircraft type is mentioned in the same breath, I'll add it in. I'm always a bit leery of synthesizing a source that says a unit was at a certain place at a certain time, with another that says that around this time the unit operated this aircraft type (or types!) as there was quite a bit of chopping and changing during the war.
      • Following up, I've noted all the aircraft types that are clearly mentioned when referring to the squadrons (including, now, 76SQN during Milne Bay) but unfortunately the list of units following the formation of Eastern Area comes from NEA's operations book, which is very useful for checking squadron movements but not what they operated at any given time... :-( Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would be good to clarify (if that was the case) that Garing was at Milne Bay himself. Perhaps by adding During the battle, in front of "Cobby exercised..."
    • Okay, will double-check the source to get the right wording.
  • No. 42 RDF Wing should probably be in full
    • While I know what it stands for, I've never know it to be spelt out in the wing's name sources, but it's also rendered as No. 42 (Radar) Wing, which should do the trick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • and "was " succeeded by?
    • I think it was okay English as was but not no prob changing it.
  • I think the orbat section would benefit from having the aircraft type included after each squadron.

Image and source review by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 21 July 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

James Wood Bush

edit
Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

James Wood Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this article can be considered an A-class article but may need extra peer review to get it there. The ultimate goal is to get this to feature article status as a very short featured articles along with a few other articles on Hawaiian and Pacific Islander combatants in the American Civil War.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Great little article! Only minor comments:

  • "Grzyb 2016," - this ref is not listed in the bib.
  • "more than one hundred documented Native Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants" - ok I find this a bit confusing. Is it "documented Native Hawaiian", like "card carrying communist", or is it "Native Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants who are documented to have fought in the American Civil War"?
  • From a pure readability prospective, there's one too many "Native"s in the lede. Since his lineage has already been stated, perhaps the second one can be reduced to "hundred documented Hawaii-born combatants", which is still factually correct?
  • How about removing Native from descent instead? I think it is important to distinguish between the non-Native Hawaiian but Hawaii-born combatants and the Native Hawaiian combatants. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should work. Just trying to get it to read smoothly, it's not a factual complaint or anything like that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I second Maury's comment above about this being a fine short article. I have the following comments:

  • The lead is a bit short - I'd suggest expanding on what his naval service involved, given this is his reason for notability

Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: Just a quick one at the moment, according to this script, there appear to be a couple of ref anchor errors relating to the Manning & Vance references. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fixed now. Thanks for the catch.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:29, 14 July 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/15th Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/15th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A Queensland-raised infantry battalion of the Second Australian Imperial Force, the 2/15th Battalion was part of the 9th Division who held Tobruk during its siege in 1941 and then later took part in the fighting around El Alamein in 1942. Returning to Australia in 1943, the battalion later fought against the Japanese in New Guinea around Lae, on the Huon Peninsula and then northern Borneo. I have recently taken this to GA, and would welcome suggestions to further improve it. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- Copyedited as usual so pls let me know any concerns; that aside, no other issues with prose, structure and detail. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- Formatting looks okay but I'm just considering the reliability of the Austin work, as something published by the unit association (as it appears to me -- correct me if I'm wrong). Is Austin known for other works? That said, I don't have an issue with the work being used for non-controversial info, which it mainly is in this article, but I'm a bit dubious about taking it at face value for the more dramatic episodes currently cited at FN22, FN40 and FN50. Pending confirmation of the source's reliability I'd prefer to see these bits corroborated -- at least in the basic facts -- by other clearly reliable sources. Happy to discuss of course, or listen to other reviewers' thoughts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Ian, thanks for the c/e and review. I've made a few adjustments based on your comments: [38] Regarding the Austin work, the author is a former Army officer with post grad qualifications. He has written at least 16 other infantry battalion histories/military history works, per [39]. The work cited in this article was written using a variety of primary sources (CARO records, operations reports, war dairies, letters, maps, photographs, orders, interviews, award nominations/citations, etc.), and secondary sources including works by Fuller, Horner, Maughan, Hamilton, Long, Walker, Wilmot, Connell, Fearnside, etc. I was also able to verify the info for FNs 22, 40 and 50 in Field, Dexter and Long, and have added citations to these works now also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks so much for prompt and thorough response, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- Looks good, all PD-Australia/PD-1996 or simple geometric shapes in the case of the patches. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- my only concern has been dealt with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Sorry, off to the cottage later today, so this will take me a while...

"Formed in May 1940 from primarily Queensland volunteers," - "Formed in May 1940, primarily from Queensland volunteers,"
"In early 1943" - break paragraph here.
"It was one of three infantry battalions assigned to the 20th Brigade – the other two being the 2/13th and 2/17th Battalions[4] – which was initially assigned to the 7th Division." - no need for the break, just "It was one of three infantry battalions assigned to the 20th Brigade which were initially assigned to the 7th Division, the others being the 2/13th and 2/17th."
"pioneer" - are these engineers? If so, any reason to use this term? Or perhaps add "(combat engineers)"?
G'day, I've added a link. Pioneers are a mixture of infantry and engineers, with combat engineers as a concept developing later. Today's combat engineer regiments are similar to the pioneer battalions that existed during the war, while each infantry battalion usually (currently) maintains a platoon of assault pioneers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"who arrived on promotion" - what does this mean?
"World War I.[12] After the first" - split para here?
"The main body of the battalion remained in Darwin, forming part of the town's defensive garrison, until late October 1940, when they were relieved by the 2/25th Battalion,[15] and embarked again on the Zealandia." - somewhat wordy, suggest "The main body of the battalion remained in Darwin, forming part of the town's defensive garrison. They were relieved by the 2/25th Battalion in October 1940, and reembarked on the Zealandia."
"Sailing via Colombo, the battalion disembarked in Bombay, transferring to the Rohna for the remainder of the journey through the Suez Canal, disembarking at El Kantara, in Egypt, in February 1941." - similar - "Sailing via Colombo, the battalion disembarked in Bombay, transferring to the Rohna for the remainder of the journey. Transiting the Suez Canal, they disembarked at El Kantara, Egypt, in February 1941."
"battalion subsequent fell" - subsequently?
"towards Tobruk, during which time" - towards Tobruk. During the retreat"
"painting by Ivor Hele.[28] The 2/15th subsequently" - split para here?
"By now the Australian Army's focus" - move this down into the next section, which it's kind of part of?
"return to their home locations" - "homes."?
Stopping there for the moment. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Maury, thanks for taking a look. These are my changes: [40]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: A good article, which I believe meets all criteria although I do have a few suggestions and comments (mostly nitpicky):

  • Link Brisbane, Sydney, Western Desert, Mersa Matruh, Finschhafen, and Labuan
  • Can dates be added to the two UCPs in the infobox? This way, the reader has the info at a glance rather than two paragraphs in (although the info is very well placed right next to the images)
  • "In the absence of the Darwin personnel, the battalion's rear details shifted from Redbank to Grovely in September – October, returning to Redbank at the end of the month.": If I am not misunderstanding this sentence, those who were not transported to Darwin did some shuffling around? If so, the current wording seems a little confusing and took me a few looks to realize what it meant; can it, I guess, be simplified? In addition, was there any particular reason why these troops were moving around (if not known, not to worry)?
  • A prefix was used for the Zealandia, why not the Queen Mary, the Rohna, the Acquitania, the Klipfontein, the Charles Lummis, and the Pachaug Victory?
  • Middle East: a 'see also' link to the Med and ME article would seem approbraite to provide readers with wider context
  • "as the 9th Division attempted to make good its equipment and training deficiencies": Unlike the other two battalions, was the 2/15th fully equipped before it departed?
  • "where a German invasion was expected.": Could link to the article here
  • "that followed the landing of German forces around": Likewise
  • "Axis efforts to reinforce the Italians in North Africa": A little context in regards to Operation Compass wouldnt go a miss here
  • "Italian or Yugoslavian partisans": wikilinks for both
  • "advancing German and Italian armies": nitpicking, but prehaps a change to just "forces" or "troops" (or something to that effect, considering the lack of a "German Army" being in NA at this time etc,)?
  • "one dead from accident": missing word?
  • "Throughout August the 2/15th": comma after August?
  • "on the line from Hill 33 to the coast": Where in NA is this?
  • "9th Division's diversionary attack, codenamed Operation Bulimba": A little context, what was the larger battle or why was the division launching a diversionary attack?
  • "later depicted in a painting by Ivor Hele": Any chance we have permission to use a copy?
  • "The 2/15th subsequently took part in the First": The First took place in July, and the previous para is talking about events in September. Can this be reworded?
  • "suffering heavy casualties in September during the lead-up to the final assault in late October and early November 1942.": Is this re-referencing Op Bulimba?
  • "Trig 29": This is?
  • "Following training, the battalion was deployed to New Guinea": I believe this should be the beginning of a new para
  • "action in the final stages of the Salamaua–Lae campaign in September 1943 and then the Huon Peninsula campaign from late September 1943 until March 1944": I think reference to the Huon should be dropped (and the link used in the following para on the subject), as the rest of this one talks about the battalions' actios around Lae.
  • William Woods: Do we know why his VC nomination was deney and he only received the DCM?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ikarus IK-2

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Ikarus IK-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

My first attempt at getting an aircraft article to A-Class, so be kind... The IK-2 was a homegrown Yugoslav monoplane fighter aircraft that saw service during the German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. After the creation of the Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, several of these aircraft were employed in the ground attack role against the Yugoslav Partisans. No examples survived World War II. All review comments will be promptly responded to. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: looks pretty good to me. I have a couple of nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there appears to be a mixture of British and US English variation, for instance "emphasised" (British) and "maneuverability" (US)
  • "Badjak was appointed as test pilot..." the spelling of the name here is inconsistent with "Leonid Bajdak" where it first appears
  • "the IK-01 was that the IK-02": inconsistent with the headers "IK-1" and "IK-2"
  • "Poručnik Janko Dobnikar": can the rank be translated here as you do with "Potpukovnik (Lieutenant Colonel)"?
  • same as above for "Kapetan" and "Podnarednik"
  • "The pilots subjected them to considerable additional testing, they entered normal service around mid-year, and the remaining six entered service during the rest of 1939." ---> Might be better/smoother as: "The pilots subjected them to considerable additional testing, and they entered normal service around mid-year. The remaining six entered service during the remainder of 1939."
  • "patrol in the poor flying weather" --> "patrol in poor flying weather"
  • "one of the IK-2s force landed": do we know why? Engine trouble?

Image is a bit problematic. First, do we have any leads on the original, or at least an earlier source? Second, "purpose of use" should be more extensive. Third, the "unique historic images" tag is generally reserved for instances where the image itself is the subject of commentary - eg. File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg. The other tag is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments: As a first attempt this is an amazing start! My only real suggestion is to break up some big paragraphs into smaller ones - paras should generally focus on a single topic.

  • "The gull-wing design emphasised power, speed, maneuverability, climb and firepower." - and cook breakfast too? The concern I have here is that these parameters are physically incompatible, especially speed vs. maneuverability/climb. These are perhaps in order, IE, the designers considered speed more important than maneuverability, and that more important than climb. Is there any language to that effect? If not, this list just seems to mean "we want a good plane", at which point I don't think it's worth mentioning.
  • "The parameters of the evolved concept" - I found this a bit wordy. I think this is really saying "The aircraft was designed to use the..."
  • "The pilot was installed aft" - The enclosed cockpit was located to the rear...
  • Do we have any details on the design of the cockpit canopy?
  • "adjustable in pitch. A considerable amount" I think a para break between these statements would improve flow.
  • "his own test program. Permission was granted" - and the same here.
  • "designers closely involved. The main difference" - and here.
  • "machine guns.[8] After the second prototype" - and here.
  • "The pilots subjected them to considerable additional testing, they entered" - two separate statements here. I'm not sure which of two possibilities to use though, "After the pilots..." or "additional testing before they entered..."

That's it, the whole thing seems to be in excellent shape already. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • G'day Maury, thanks for the review. I have implemented all your suggested paragraph breaks and other suggestions. I had another look at the design concepts and it seems pretty clear that power and manoeuvrability were prioritised over other aspects. There is nothing in the source about the cockpit canopy, I'm afraid. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, on the "qualities" bit I'm not sure we have to remove it completely, just make it clear that it was an ordered list. But in retrospect, I'm not sure we've lost anything important by removing it. Ok, one last one:
"them to evolve their initial ideas into" - evolve -> modify. We use this interchangeably in many dialects, but in others evolve means something very specific.
That's it! Looking really good now. I've always liked these lesser-known designs, so it's nice to see quality articles on them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks again, I actually quite enjoyed my first aircraft article. I also rather like obscure topics... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Maury, if you are happy to support now, this looks ready for promotion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - yes, everything has been addressed, let's get this one rolling! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- I'll take a proper look at this but will wait until the above comments are actioned as I've already found one that I'd have put forward myself and don't want to double up; watchlisting this so I know when that's done... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- copyedited a bit so pls let me know if I've inadvertently altered meaning; structure, level of detail and referencing look okay to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 25 June 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Metallurgical Laboratory

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Metallurgical Laboratory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of the Manhattan Project's key sites. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Personnel and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dank: G'day, Dan, given that this has been open over two months now, and reviewers have been hard to come by, I wonder if you wouldn't mind running through the article as the third reviewer? I know you are scaling back your involvement at A-class, though, so no dramas if you are too busy. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping ... it's in my list of notifications, but I didn't see it, and I don't remember a notification from 6 days ago. Not sure what's up with that. Anyway: we have a slow crisis at TFA ... because only about 20 FAs are being promoted each month, TFA is having to pull in older, more problematic FAs over time. I would rather review the article for prose when it gets to FAC. Thanks (to you and AC) for your amazing work at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks like it is up to your usual standard, Hawkeye. I have a couple of minor nitpicks, but overall I believe this meets the A-class criteria: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a couple of duplicate links identified by the script: cyclotron; neutron cross section; neutron; George Herbert Jones Laboratory; University of Caliafornia, Berkeley; United States Atomic Energy Commission;
     Y Resolved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hanford Engineer Works in Washington state..." --> "Hanford Engineer Works in the state of Washington"?
     Y meh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • not really relevant to this review, but do you think Chicago Pile-4 should be created as a redirect to Experimental Breeder Reactor I?
     Y Done. My sources all refer to it as ZIP. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Szilard drafted a confidential letter to the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning of the possibility of a German nuclear weapon project, and convinced his old friend and collaborator Albert Einstein to co-sign it, lending his fame to the proposal..." --> "...the proposal" doesn't seem to be defined here. Perhaps this might be smoother, "Szilard drafted a confidential letter to the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning of the possibility of a German nuclear weapon project and proposing a US government sponsored project. He convinced his old friend and collaborator Albert Einstein to co-sign it, lending his fame to the proposal." Would something like this work?
     Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • does "File:Eckhart Hall.jpg" need a freedom of panorama tag?
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:HD.5A.013 (10692501095).jpg": the date should probably be when the photo was taken, not when it was uploaded (i.e. c. 1940s? instead of 2013)
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Argonne history Chicago Pile-3.jpg": same as above, the date should probably be when the photo was taken not when it was uploaded;
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, is there a place of publication for the Szanton, Holl and Waltham works?
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of the ext links ([42]) appears to be dead. Can an archive link be added? [43]
     Y Fixed the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surprisingly little was known about uranium..." Probably better just as "Little was known about uranium..."
     Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Health and safety section, I wonder if you should outline the measures that were taken to protect the workers. Currently the coverage seems a little light here...?
    Added another paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stagg Field had been demolished in 1957". This seems a little out of place chronologically in the paragraph in which it is currently included.
     Y Moved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (with the caveat that this is well beyond my technical knowledge)
    The article is essentially an administrative history; you have to drill down two levels to get to the real technical stuff. According to the readability tool, it should be intelligible by 12 to 13 year olds. As it was intended to be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the usual tool checks etc reveal nothing (i.e. no dabs, external links work, no issues with ref consolidation, no duplicate links, Earwig tool is broken). (no action req'd)
    • Is there a suitable image that could be added to the lead? (suggestion only)
       Y Moved the images around to effect this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead: "The Metallurgical Laboratory or "Met Lab" was the Chicago-based part of the Manhattan Project – the Allied effort to develop the atomic bomb." Perhaps mention that this was during World War II for context? (suggestion only)
       Y Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead: "Chicago Pile-1 ceased operation in February 1943..." When did it start operation? This isn't specified in the preceding paragraph.
       Y On 2 December 1942. One of those dates burned into my brain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also it might also pay to Met Labs was established in February 1942 in the lead.
       Y Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some minor inconsistency in presentation of states, for instance usage such as "state of Washington" and "state of Illinois" vs "State of Illinois".
       Y Illinois is a very special state. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherclown (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go Comments: Everything has been addressed

  • "In August 1942 its chemical section was the first to produce and weigh a chemically isolated sample of plutonium." - this is a minor nit, but I think the "chemical separated" has to be emphasized here - Pu had already been extracted in a cyclotron before this. A simple fix - "In August 1942, chemical section of the Lab was the first to successfully produce plutonium through chemical separation."
     Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compton's Metallurgical (also known as the "Pile" or "X-10") Project" - confused, X-10 formerly referred to a single project administered by the MetLab, but this wording suggests the entire Lab was also known this way? Or...
    Where did it say that? This is the first mention of X-10. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely... was the Metallurgical Project ever referred to as X-10, or was X-10 one of several projects run by the Metallurgical project? The current wording suggests that X-10 is a synonym, which I don't believe is the case and I can't find any references that make this inference. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Metallurgical Project was codenamed X-10. [44] Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished skimming all of Book IV. I cannot see any evidence that the Pile Project, X-10 and the Metallurgical Project are synonymous.
To start with, the term "X-10" does not appear in any of the documents (barring OCR errors). It appears only on the title cards. No explanation of the term appears in the text, nor is it referred to in the general index.
Moreover, the document clearly separates the Pile Project and Met Lab - the later being one of a number of efforts run by the former. The books describe many projects under the Pile Project that were not under the auspices of the Met Project, both before the Project's formation in 1942, and after, including Hanford. It is not clear to me if the Pile Project was some sort of organization within OSRD (and later, Manhattan District) or simply the name that the authors are using to describe the effort as a whole. I suspect the former due to the way the project refers to various contract details and the terminology, but I can't convince myself of that.
There is also nothing in this document that directly states that X-10 specifically refers to the Pile Project either, although one sees that inference on the title card (where, it is worth pointing out, the Met Lab does not appear). However, reading other Books one certainly gets the feeling that is at least possible, although it seems there is no clear answer. For instance, the S-25 project was the gas diffusion plant, but then P-9 refers to the entire heavy water provisioning project which involved lots of parts. I would like to see some sort of confirmation that these code terms did indeed apply to specific organizations within the District, but I'm willing to take that on spec in the meantime.
I only have Rhodes at hand, but there an in every reference available on Google Books, X-10 always refers specifically to the reactor at ORNL, and nothing else. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Metallurgical Laboratory was part of the Metallurgical (X-10 or Pile) Project.

The elements concerned with overseeing project operations and services were divided among seven major staff components: the Y-12 (electromagnetic), K-25 (gaseous diffusion), X-10 (plutonium), and P-9 (heavy water) unit chiefs; and the Technical, Service and Control, and Administrative Divisions. The four unit chiefs were responsible for the overall supervision of the construction and operations phases of the production processes.

— Jones (1985), p. 91
In the list of abbreviations, Jones, p. 636 defines X-10 as "Plutonium project" Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished reading the appropriate sections of Jones. Followed with extensive searches on all the involved terms. No part of the document equates Met Project and X-10. On the contrary, all entries state X-10 is referring to the semiworks. Examples:

page 208 - "He asked physicist Martin D. Whitaker, who had taken part in the early planning for a laboratory at the site, to select Metallurgical Laboratory staff members to serve as the nucleus of the X-10 operating organization"
page 91 - "five major operating units—Madison Square Area, Hanford Engineer Works, Clinton Engineer Works, New York Area, and Special Products—had been established"..."The elements concerned with overseeing project operations and services were divided among seven major staff components: the Y-12 (electromagnetic), K-25 (gaseous diffusion), X-10 (plutonium), and P-9 (heavy water) unit chiefs" ... "The four unit chiefs were responsible for the overall supervision of the construction and operations" (this, more than any other statement, clearly states that X-10 was a construction and operation organization).
page 204 - "The semiworks site, consisting of 112 acres and officially named the X-10 area"
page 205 - "The X-10 pile and separation plant"
page 636 - X-10 entry makes no mention of Metallurgical Project.
page 654 - talks about the collaboration between X-10 and the Met Lab
page 652 - X-10. Met Lab and Met Project have entirely separate entries in the index
page 88 - org chart shows X-10 separate from the U of Chi organization
page 90 - chart shows unit chiefs separate from the technical divisions

I simply cannot find a single statement anywhere in Jones that says the Met Proj was ever referred to as X-10. The statements on page 91 seem to clearly suggest that the "X-10 organization" (for lack of a better term) was the overseeing body within the Manhattan District itself that was responsible for the semiworks. Open to more references, of course. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X-10 was the plutonium project. None of the above contradicts this. The Manhattan District histories are stamped Pile Project (X-10). The Pile Project, known as the X-10 Project (Book IV, Volume 1, p. 1.1) Note that Book IV, Volume 5 - Construction and Volume 6 Operation are all about Hanford! Whereas Compton only ever refers to the Metallurgical Project, and never mentions the X-10 codename. In Jones' index, the Clinton Labs, Hanford, Met Lab etc are all under filed under Pile (X-10) process. Pages 202-204 make it clear that the Metallurgical Project and the Pile (X-10) Project are the same. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"X-10 was the plutonium project" - but that's not what the article claims. The article claims "Compton's Metallurgical (also known as the "Pile" or "X-10") Project". I see nothing to support this.
"Metallurgical Project, and never mentions the X-10 codename" - exactly my point.
"Pages 202-204 make it clear" - they do nothing of the sort. Starting with the very first paragraph on 202 the language continually and universally separates several groups involved in the plutonium effort. Among these are several references to liaisons between DuPont and the MetProj, and references to the overarching organizational group that ended on Grove's desk. This culminates on the bottom of page 204 with the statement "Consistent with the plan to employ the Metallurgical Project essentially as a Du Pont research and development division, the plutonium project leaders incorporated into the Metallurgical Project-Du Pont work..." To me, this statement very clearly separates the plutonium project leadership, the MetProject, and DuPont, which is reinforced by the org charts I noted above.
"In Jones' index, the Clinton Labs, Hanford, Met Lab etc are all under filed under Pile (X-10) process" - the entry on page 654 refers to "DuPont-MetLab collaboration". It also lists "Army-DuPont administration". It does not list the Met Lab as the Pile (X-10) process", and the MetLab has its own entry for the MetLab on page 634. On that page we can also find the entry for the Metproj, again listing "DuPont collaboration" and their participation in the "plutonium program". None of this suggests the MetLab was referred to as X-10, quite to the contrary, the separate entries say they were not the same organization and the continual references to the collaboration between the groups seems clear enough to me.
This remains un-V. We're reading the same source, and I see it saying the opposite of what you're saying. What we still lack is any direct evidence one way or the other. Is it really too much to ask for that one parenthetical section to be removed while we await V? Will the article fall apart without it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Removed! I trust this will resolve the issue. But I never said that that MetLab was the same as X-10. The MetLab was part of the X-10 Project. I still think you are confusing the Metallurgical Laboratory (headed by Doan/Allison/Sterans/Daniels) with the Metallurgical Project (headed by Compton). Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over 5,000 people..." vs. "From a peak of 2,008 staff". This may illuminate the point above - is the "or" in the parens meaning "they worked on this project OR that project"? If so, this could easily be clarified... "Over 2,000 people worked at the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, while another 3,000 worked on projects run by the Lab at other locations like Oak Ridge and Argonne."
    But it says: "Over 5,000 people in 70 research groups participated in Compton's Metallurgical (also known as the "Pile" or "X-10") Project, of whom some 2,000 worked in the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago". The point being made is that the Metallurgical Laboratory was part of the larger Metallurgical Project. Your wording would imply the opposite. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, so. swap "Lab" for "Project" and we get... "Over 2,000 people worked at the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, while the Metallurgical Project as a whole also employed another 3,000 employees at other locations like Oak Ridge and Argonne." Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some nbsp's in various units.

That's it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Maury Markowitz (talk)[reply]

Just for the record

edit

Just to put a nail in the issue I raised above, I contacted the Department of Energy's history department for some clarity on the whole naming issue. This led to a surprisingly detailed answer from the DOE Chief Historian, Dr. Eric W. Boyle. He tracked down multiple sources and also talked to the other historians about this. His letter basically concluded that the various code names in Jones that seem to be referring to projects were referring to single sites. That is, X-10 was used to refer to the site and the reactor and nothing else, whereas Jones seems to suggest it was a larger organizational level. But more broadly, the only names that were really used at all were X, Y and W, and that the list of names in Jones appear in few or no other sources, none of which suggest they are anything but single projects. Most directly, he noted "The same chart lists units in Boston and California under the heading of the Y-12 Chief, but nobody would suggest that Y-12 was used to refer to sites in these locations outside of Oak Ridge." Not sure how to make this available other than to repeat the logic en-masse, but the great thing is that he also provided a nice set of refs. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:26, 3 July 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The third of four machine gun battalions raised as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force during World War II, the 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion arguably had a rather tortured existence. Of its three campaigns, two saw it being used mainly in the light infantry role, for which it was ill suited. The battalion fought as part of the "Silent Seventh" (the 7th Division) in Syria and Lebanon, before the majority of the battalion was diverted to Java, where a short and disastrous campaign against the Japanese resulted in the majority of the battalion's personnel being captured and spending the rest of the war as prisoners of the Japanese. A small portion of the battalion remained and subsequently the unit was re-raised; nevertheless, it would not see action again until the final year of the war, when it was deployed to a "mopping up" campaign in the Aitape-Wewak campaign. I found this one an interesting article to write, as my grandfather fought in both Syria and Aitape-Wewak (albeit with the 2/3rd Infantry Battalion), and would welcome any feedback regarding further improvements. Thank you to all who stop by. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support:
  • Bren machine gun is dup linked
  • "motor cycle": typo, I assume
  • I suggest adding alt text for rest of images. However, this isn't a requirement.
  • "He later became a major general.": may be confusing to some viewers which General you're talking about

Support Comments

  • Lead: The last sentence of the first paragraph is quite long; suggest breaking it after "the Middle East"
  • Into action against the Japanese: Java and captivity: I corrected a few of what I thought were obvious typos, pls check these. I also think that the sentence beginning "Under orders to hold up the Japanese around Leuwiliang for a day..." is quite long and could be broken. Also note the close proximity of "effort/efforts in that same sentence.
  • Aitape–Wewak: The final campaign: "re-roled" seems to be an unusual word to use (unless it is the particular military terminology to use). Maybe converted?
  • "Arohemi, Muguluwela, and But, while": I initially read the "But" as a typo. Unless the order in which they appear is important maybe move "But" to be the first town/village mentioned. Maybe even specify this, i.e. ...the towns of But, Arohemi etc...
  • Other the nitpicks above, as always with your work, this looks in excellent shape. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed at GA and following recent changes believe it also meets the A class criteria. Some minor points though:
    • This image caption probably needs a location for context - "2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion personnel set up a Vickers machine gun, October 1941". Where did it occur?
    • "The 6th Division was subsequently tasked with taking over from the US XI Corps around Aitape–Wewak." I wonder if something of the operational role / intended tasks of the Australian force should be mentioned? A short half-sentence summary would probably help some readers.
    • Otherwise nothing else leapt out at me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- all looks good, PD-Australia & PD-1996 except the emblem, which is a simple geometric shape. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 8 July 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.

Article promoted by Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Tsimba Ridge

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of Tsimba Ridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Part of a series of articles I have worked on relating to the battles fought as part of the Bougainville campaign of the Second World War. I have developed this article over the course of six years, and recently taken it to GAN. I would like to improve it further through the ACR process. Thank you to all who stop by to review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • I reviewed at GA in April and have read over the additions since then and believe it meets the A class criteria (no action req'd).
    • All tool checks look fine (no dabs, has alt text, no citation errors detected, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase / copy vio - only a wiki mirror [48] (no action req'd)
    • Image review: All images look PD to me and have the req'd information and templates (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine to me (no action req'd).
    • Some minor suggestions:
      • Add issns and place of publication for newspaper articles listed in the references
      • Add wikilinks to notable authors (e.g. Horner, Long etc).
    • Otherwise this looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Off to another fine start Rupert! Some very minor comments:

  • Lieutenant Colonel Shinzo Nakamura.[2] Nakamura, who according - suggest making this two paras at this point.
  • south of the river.[13] Described by war - maybe make a break here? Not so married to this one but it might work.
  • in the sector; this barrage - two sentences here.
  • captured intact, while another group - and here.
  • capture two 70 mm guns - link to Type 92.
  • headed north along the tracks around - I assume these are not railway tracks, so perhaps an adjective would be useful here - "jungle tracks" or similar?
  • while the approaches to the ridge were largely open to observation - I believe you mean "while most of the approaches to the ridge were open to observation"?
  • The Australians estimated that 66 Japanese had been killed defending the ridge and also captured a large amount of equipment - this suggests the Japanese captured the equipment, which I think is the opposite of what happened.

That's it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- pls let me know any concerns with my copyedit; assuming it's okay, no concerns with prose, structure, or sources (I note AC's checked images); not an expert on the Bougainville ground campaign but detail seems appropriate and tone neutral. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, Ian. Very happy with your edits, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 20 June 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Porton Plantation

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of Porton Plantation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

An article I took to GA five years ago, but which I've recently revisited. Focusing on a failed Australian amphibious landing in Bougainville in the final months of the Second World War, I am keen to improve the article further. Thanks to all those who stop by. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Support
    • Tool checks reveal no issues - no dabs, images all have alt text, external links check out, no repeat links, no citation errors (no action req'd).
    • "The Battle of Porton Plantation (8–10 June 1945) took place at Porton Plantation,[Note 1] near the village of Soraken on Bougainville Island, in the Solomon Islands archipelago during World War II." This seems a bit redundant to me. Perhaps reduce the first sentence to "The Battle of Porton Plantation (8–10 June 1945) took place near the village of Soraken on Bougainville Island, in the Solomon Islands archipelago during World War II." Then move the note to the next instance of Porton Plantation in the fol para. (suggestion only)
    • "The fighting occurred after a company-sized Australian force..." Would it pay to more explicitly identify the AS force involved in the landing in the lead? (suggestion only)
    • Should it be added to Category:Battles of World War II involving New Zealand (suggestion only)?
    • Otherwise, I only made a few minor tweaks [51][52] as this looks in good shape to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's great to see a high quality article on this important battle. I have the following comments:

  • The first two paras should note that this operation formed part of the Australian attempt to liberate northern Bougainville
  • "The Australian corps commander, Savige, consequently decided that he would pursue an aggressive offensive campaign to clear the Japanese from Bougainville" - I'd suggest noting that this is what he'd been directed to do by Blamey as well. I'm also not sure about "aggressive" - Karl James demonstrates convincingly in his book that Savige planned and executed a very careful offensive, and repeatedly reined in his most aggressive commanders to minimise casualties.
  • "with requests for preliminary air strikes being denied by II Corps" - do we know why?
  • "as well as a failure to heed the concerns of a number of officers involved in the planning stage of the operation" - what were these concerns? (and can they be noted earlier in the article)
  • "albeit at significant cost" - not sure about this given that Japanese losses weren't much higher than the Australian losses, and seem to have been much lower as a proportion of the forces involved. It was also unusual by this stage of the war for the cut off Japanese garrisons to inflict anything like the number of casualties they sustained.
  • Have any historians explicitly contrasted the limited resources available for this operation with the much more considerable resources available for the Borneo landings which occurred at around the same time? Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Thanks for these comments, I think I've got them now. These are my edits: [54]. Please let me know if you think anything else needs to be adjusted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've reviewed the article and the other comments. I think the only comments I would raise are verb tenses in the discussion of the historiography, but I suspect that is an Aussie v US thing, so no biggie. Tidy article. Question: I guess these weren't the wing-dam type jetties, but simply beaches with a channel between then? auntieruth (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ruth, thanks for taking a look. I've added a different image in to focus on the jetties a bit more: File:Porton jetty (AWM image P02729 008).jpg. It's a bit hard to tell, but I'd say you are right. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- just did a quick spotcheck/tweak/trim of a few phrases and other stuff; I won't register a support because I haven't gone through the whole article but given the calibre of the reviewers above I don't think it's needed, no concerns about promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 20 June 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of the Hongorai River

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of the Hongorai River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another battle of the final stages of the Second World War on Bougainville. This one was part of the Australian drive south towards the Japanese strong hold around Buin. I took this one through GAN nearly six years ago and recently revisited it after getting Karl James' 2012 book out of the library. I would like to improve the article further so I have put it up for A-class review. Thanks to all who stop by. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

CommentsSupport: Okay, so I am coming at this article as a complete layman to the theatre. Overall, the article is good and meets most of the A-Class criteria. However, a few tweaks are needed:EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranks need wiki-linking
  • Strategic situation: Where is Bougainville? Why did the Americans hand over the area to the Australians (I am of the understanding that the area was a bit of a 'backwater', and the Americans handed over such areas to the Aussies in order to concentrate their own troops for the more important sectors, is that part of the story here)? Why is this island important? Why was it not just bypassed and cut off?
  • "the number of Japanese alive": a nitpick I know, but this "alive" really necessary here?
  • "as well as affording them protection against further counter-attacks": what counterattacks had taken place before the planned assault?
  • "Following the Battle of Slater's Knoll ... shorten their supply lines.": So the Australians are already on the island, when did this happen? Was this part of the American handover mentioned in the previous section?
  • Note 1 and Note 2 seem to contradict one another
  • 7th brigade's 9th Battalion patrolling the Huio River: What does this have to do with the 57th/60th Infantry Battalion not being able to join the 15th Brigade Group?
  • I am not familiar with Japanese nomenclature, so is "4th Field Heavy Artillery Regiments" a typo?
  • Advance to the Hongorai section: the opening seems confusing, especially in regards to the 57th/60th. Was the battalion on Commando road on 17 April per the initial disposition information, or only after 3 May? The article states the Australians employed a different set of tactics by attacking with two battalions, yet the second forward battalion (the 57th/60th) did not arrive until about two weeks later, so the same tactics of a one battalion frontage was used?
    • G'day, I've checked the source and that is how James describes it, but I think you are right. There seems to be a lack of clarity in the way James describes the situation. I've tried to make it a bit clearer that the 24th and 58th/59th moved together in mid-April, while the 57th/60th began moving in early May. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an artillery which fired over 700 shells": missing word?
  • You may want to fix the wiktionary redirect for 'tactical assembly area'
  • "Heavy bombardment of Egan's Ridge ... Mivo Rivers.": Run on sentence, can this be broken up and reworded slightly?
  • "Australians had lost 13 killed and 64 wounded.": drop 'had'?
  • " relieved by the Brigadier Noel Simpson's 29th Brigade in early July": drop 'the'
  • I do not think that this is necessarily needed in this article, however it does have me curious. My own reading on Matilda tanks (from the fighting in the desert) was that the standard armament was a machine gun and a 2 pounder gun only issued with AP rounds, and close support tanks equipped with howitzers only capable of firing (or only equipped with) smoke shells. With the article detailing these tanks tearing up the jungle and knocking out guns and pillboxes, were the ones employed by the Australians equipped or armed differently?
  • CommentsSupport
    • All tool checks ok - no dabs, ext links check out, citation check tool reveals no errors, no repeat links, Earwig tool is down at the moment.
    • One image is missing alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency with the rest (File:Australian 57-60th Inf Bn Crossing the Hongorai River 1945 (AWM image 092280).jpg) - suggestion only, not an ACR req.
    • Missing word here I think: "The initial phase saw the Australians towards the Hongorai River" (after "Australians").
    • Repetitive prose here: "...The initial phase saw the Australians towards the Hongorai River. Following the end of the initial..." (initial x 2).
    • "With hostilities coming to a close the Japanese began harassing..." The belligerents at the time would not have know that the war would end when it did so I wonder if this wording is a little loose and wise after the fact?
    • Perhaps mention that much of the Australian force was made up of Militia / CMF?
    • Some readers might not know what "proving operations" are. Is there anything we could link it to?
    • "two and a half hours" - should this be hyphenated?
    • "...which they found to be heavily mined and booby trapped, which had to be cleared by engineers and assault pioneers..." perhaps consider tweaking, for instance "...which they found to be heavily mined and booby trapped, and had to be cleared by engineers and assault pioneers..."
    • Otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

  • base around Rabaul.[5] US Marines conducted - split at "US", these are two paras.
  • leaving behind a 70 mm gun - I assume this is the Type 92?
  • "Heavy bombardment of Egan's Ridge, the last Japanese defensive location before the Hongorai,[44] had finally allowed it to be occupied by a company of Australian infantry after the Japanese, who had been sheltering in tunnels on the devastated position, had been forced to abandon it." - suggest "The last remaining defensive location before the Hongorai was Egan's Ridge, where the Japanese were sheltering in tunnels. A heavy bombardment [I assume arty?] devastated the position [or is "devastated" referring to something else?] the position and forced them to abandon the Ridge."
That's it, this is really in very good shape already. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: G'day, Maury, thank you for these comments. I've implemented all of them. These are my changes: [57] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great Rupert, this really is a great article. I really like the way you start with the overall situation and explain "how we got here", which is often too short in these sorts of articles, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:41, 9 June 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

J. R. Kealoha

edit
Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

J. R. Kealoha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this article can be considered an A-class article but may need extra peer review to get it there. The ultimate goal is to get this to feature article status as a very short featured articles. Full disclaimer little historical fact is known about this figure beyond what is already stated and this article contains most of the known sources about the subject. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day again, welcome back to ACR. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - are any images of the subject available? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: No there are none. The 2014 tombstone exist, but it won't be allow because of no Freedom of panorama in the United States rule.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this image. Would this be acceptable under US copyright law as a building or is considered a sculpture? If it is not needed, I rather not include it though.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion on my talk, a different memorial image was added and images are good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 
Kealoha was buried at Oʻahu Cemetery

Sourcing

The good news, is that I ran each online source, including the Bibliography, through Duplication Detector. No indications of copyvio or close paraphrasing. However, since you are looking to take this up through FAC, you should have consistency on the citation formatting. Above is what I noticed. You might want to also re-check the article yourself for any inconsistencies in that area. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Even without these changes, I think it would be excessive to go into more detail with the citation formats. I already list things like issue numbers, volumes and publishers and locations which I never find in most featured articles. I don't think it gives anybody any better idea to know the publisher of a newspaper like Honolulu Star-Advertiser (I had to go on their official website to find that one) or even one from the 19th century ones (good luck, the Friend source came from an issue when Damon was alive because it seems like the web does not state who was the publisher of the Friend newspaper after Damon's retirement). But I think most it is consistent now. Let me know if there is any other problems or changes to make this an A-Class article at least for now. We can discuss FAC criteria in later reviews. Thank you for pointing that out though. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:39, 10 June 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Eastern Area Command (RAAF) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Bringing articles on the two most important RAAF area commands to ACR simultaneously. Eastern Area became a key command after World War II, because it controlled most of the RAAF's operational units and was therefore well-placed to evolve into Home Command (later Operational Command and now Air Command) when the Air Force switched from a geographically based command-and-control system to one based on function. North-Western Area, OTOH, gained its greatest prominence during the war and for one very good reason – it was there, right in the path of Japan's major air offensives against northern Australia and, ipso facto, the best placed to deliver offensives of its own against Japanese forces in the Dutch East Indies; it is after all the only RAAF area command to have a campaign named after it! Like the other area command articles I've put together, these are both GA but I felt that the depth of coverage for these two could qualify them as A-Class. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this one for GA and I'm happy with the changes since then. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on A3 Illogical organization. If there's only one content-oriented section it seems superfluous to sub-section it. Shouldn't the sub-sections, in fact, be sections? LavaBaron (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles on historical units are generally given a History section with subsections, there are many examples at A-Class. OTOH I wouldn't have an argument with changing the Aftermath subsection to a section, since technically it's not part of the history of this unit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, gentlemen, I think there is a potential compromise solution here if an Order of battle section was added, like in the North-Western Area Command (RAAF) article. Would that work? Also, what about perhaps a section listing the Commanding officers? (That could also potentially be applied to the NWAC article also). Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tks Rupert. I did make the Aftermath subsection into a section a couple of days ago, per my earlier comment, which is in fact how I'd generally made it in related articles. Re. OOB, I'd love to but the only list of squadrons (not arranged as an OOB per se) that I've seen already appears in the body of the article and I think is best left there; Ashworth in How Not to Run an Air Force gave OOBs for several area commands as at April 1942 but unfortunately Eastern Area just missed out because it was raised the following month. I don't know of an exhaustive list of AOCs either as this level of formation isn't accorded the same systematic treatment as squadrons and other units in secondary sources, and the only digitised operations book for Eastern Area stops well before it was re-formed as Home Command, so although it might look like we could piece a list together from my research (as appears in the text) there are gaps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with some minor comments:
    • No dabs, has alt text, external links check out, no duplicate links, earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [58]
    • There is a minor error with ref consolidation, "Solo68" seems to be used twice.
    • The layout of the article seemed quite logical to me so I didn't see any issues with A3 (which is hardly prescriptive at any rate, so I guess it comes down to perception). The use of a "History" section as a second level heading and several third level or sub-headings is quite common as a structure among MILHIST articles as Ian says. Also the current sub-headings break the text into distinct time periods (i.e. World War II and Post War), both of which saw marked changes in the organization and tasks of the subject so they seem logical to my mind at any rate.
    • Beauforts could be wikilinked.
    • I made a minor change [59], otherwise the prose looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Article appears to meet all criteria for A-Class. I just have the following comments to go along with my support.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By April, the command was operating seven combat units: No. 5 Squadron, flying army cooperation missions with CAC Wirraways out of Kingaroy, Queensland; No. 23 Squadron, flying dive-bombing missions with Wirraways from Lowood, Queensland; No. 24 Squadron, flying dive-bombing missions with Wirraways from Bankstown, New South Wales; No. 32 Squadron": I think 'army cooperation' needs to be clarified for the layman, and whom this squadron was supporting. I take it from the context that the dive bombers were on anti-submarine duties, is this correct? If not, I would suggest that be slightly clarified.
    • Fair enough, but the source makes no mention in that context of who 5SQN supported, and although it notes one instance where 23/24SQN were tasked with dive-bombing a sub, they were by then operating different aircraft and I'd prefer not to assume anything re. their previous aircraft. I did link army cooperation though.
  • The following quote needs to be attributed: "complete protection from Atom Bomb attack"

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Just checking, is anything holding this one up? Image review, perhaps? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The images look ok to me Ian, but happy for Nikki to take a look, if she is keen, to confirm or disagree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the images. All are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 28 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

40th Infantry Division Slavonska

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

40th Infantry Division Slavonska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 40th Infantry Division Slavonska was a largely Croat-manned formation that was responsible for a sector of the northern border of Yugoslavia when the Axis invaded that country in April 1941. It is particularly notable for the fact that one of its infantry regiments revolted and took over the town of Bjelovar, greatly weakening the overall defence plan. It quickly folded in the face of preliminary attacks, and provided no significant resistance to the German armoured thrusts that followed. All comments will be promptly responded to. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks very good to me, and it has clearly had the benefit of the reviews of the other formations you've taken through ACR and FAC etc. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead "Serbs" is overlinked;
  • link " Ratko Raketić" in the body of the article (currently only linked in the infobox);
  • "42nd, 43rd and 108th Infantry Regiments": should these be wikilinked?
  • same as above for "89th Infantry Regiment", "393rd Reserve Regiment", "40th Artillery Regiment" and "27th Infantry Regiment"?
  • "entire divisional sector was defended by the divisional cavalry battalion..." --> "entire divisional sector was defended by a single unit, the divisional cavalry battalion..."
  • " rebels approach" --> " rebels' approach"
  • " revolt, The commander": typo
  • "89th Infantry Regiment slightly more..." --> "89th Infantry Regiment only slightly more"
  • "8th Panzer Division and 16th Motorised Infantry Division" --> "8th Panzer and 16th Motorised Infantry Divisions"
  • " on the narrow Vrbas valley..." --> "in the narrow Vrbas valley"
  • I wonder if we could add a sentence to the fate section that says that the division was "disbanded" or "broken up" etc after the surrender?

Support: Having read very little on the Yugoslav campaign in the past, this was a very interesting article. I hope I did not get the wrong impression, but from what I read: due to prewar politics and mismanagement of the army, the division practically disintegrated in face of the German advance without much, if any, resistance? The article appears well sourced, neutral, and the images are all sourced, and the article appears to meet all criteria. I do have the following suggestions:EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel like the map of the German invasion should be moved down the article, and placed in the opening section on the German invasion rather than floating between the lede and main article.
  • "In 1929, King Alexander changed the name of the country to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, at which time the army became the VKJ.": Since the name change was brought up, what was the name of the army between 1918 and 1929?
  • Planned deployment along Hungarian border: As the lede foreshadows the German led invasion, was the deployment along the Hungarian border part of the army's normal peacetime positions, or was Hungary seen as a threat (quite accurately, it would seem, from later in the article)?
  • Division was partially mobilized: Was Yugoslavia taken by surprise?
  • I personally do not think that the rank comparison is required in the notes. The Yugoslav ranks could, instead, be linked to the generic rank articles, i.e. Brigadier general, and the German rank has it's own article that does all the explaining.
  • Should the article include the WWII portal?

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good article, just a few suggestions

  • suggest adding the timeframe the unit was active to the infobox
  • In context of the rebellion, I find it difficult to capture how many men rebelled, were killed, wounded or taken POW?

Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 19 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ragnar Garrett

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Ragnar Garrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Following on from John Wilton and Reg Pollard, I present another chief of the Australian Army. Like Wagner conceived his Ring Cycle, I seem to be doing it in reverse chronological order. Unlike Wagner, I can afford to stop at three episodes, because Garrett's predecessor has already been through ACR. While we're talking Wagner, one leitmotif unifying the stories of these three chiefs is the Army's short-lived experiment with the pentropic divisional structure -- Garrett enthusiastically initiating it, Pollard reluctantly implementing it, and Wilton mercifully killing it... ;-) The article passed a rather perfunctory GAN last year, so please don't spare the critical commentary. I have no plans to take it to FAC at this stage, but hoping it will have the legs for ACR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks, but overall it seems like it meets the criteria to me. I also adjusted the licence on one of the images. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for your edits and support, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on A3 Neutral Lead section eclipses length recommendations for an article of this size as per WP:LEADLENGTH. While this length is a general guideline and not a rule, there's nothing here to suggest it's a guideline we should ignore in this case. LavaBaron (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support
  • "undertaking a staff course in England" This was not a staff course, this was the staff college course. Change lead to say that it was the Staff College, Camberley. Add him to Category:Graduates of the Staff College, Camberley!
    • For brevity in the lead I altered "a staff course" to "staff training" but could still spell it out if you think appropriate. Will add category in any case.
      You haven't done it yet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I did what I said I'd do, i.e. reword the lead slightly and add the cat. I figured the average reader of an Australian general article would be more familiar with Duntroon than Camberley, so mentioned the first in the lead but not the second but, as I said, if you really feel the lead is lacking without mentioning Camberley then I'll put it in.
  • Aside: If you're wondering why he had two AIF serial numbers, regular officers who were appointed to the AIF but subsequently returned to the regular army lost their AIF serial numbers.
    • Tks.
  • In Greece he was GSO2 on Blamey's I Corps, not with 17 or 19 Brigades
  • Link "Honorary Colonel"
    • Done. Should that be all lower case though?
  • On returning to Australia, he became BM of the 2nd Cavalry Brigade
    • Do you mean in early 1942? I don't have a source for that -- I'd want to know the month he took that post and exactly when he then became senior operations officer in the 1st Armoured, which Grey doesn't spell out.
      (Reaches for the Army List) He was GSO1 of the 1st Armoured Division from 6 April 1942 to 27 October 1942. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, so what I have right now as in "Garrett was promoted to temporary colonel in April 1942 and became senior operations officer in the 1st Armoured Division, which served as a garrison force in case of Japanese invasion. He was posted to Army Headquarters, Melbourne, in October as Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicles" is still correct, you're saying he was BM of the 2nd Cavalry Brigade before April 1942? Do you in that case have the date he got back to Australia and took that position? Sorry, I can access the Army List at the Mitchell but probably won't get back there any time soon.
  • Second World War: link "Brigadier" on first use; unlink on second use
    • Yeah, I didn't link first up because it was used with a linked person ("Brigadier Leslie Morshead") and I prefer not to have separate but adjacent blue links, but then one can run afoul of the link on first use rule...
  • After Greece he served with the British Army's Armoured Formations Middle East and Armoured Formations UK. (This was part of the plan to raise an armoured division in Australia)
    • You mean before he returned to Australia in early 1942? Again I don't have a source for that handy -- do you?
      (Reaches for the Army List) He was with the British Army's Armoured Formations Middle East from 17 June 1941 to 31 July 1941 and Armoured Formations UK 1 August 1941 to 5 April 1942 Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Some of this time will have been on boats. Need to pull his personnel file, which is down in Melbourne. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, tks, but you've confused me -- if he did this up till April 1942, and then he was in 1st Armoured from April 1942, when did he have time for the 2nd Cavalry Brigade you mentioned earlier?
  • "became senior operations officer in the 1st Armoured Division" I'm not sure that the readers will understand that this was the same as GSO1, which you call " General Staff Officer Grade 1 (Operations)" in the next paragraph.
    • I'm just going by Grey's terminology in the ADB.
      Which is not wrong. Just saying that readers might misunderstand. (If you do find an error in the ADB, don't forget that you can ask them to change it. I've raise change requests on three ADB articles, most recently George William Symes.)
      Oh sure, I haven't had occasion to correct the ADB so far but have let AWM and Air Power Development Centre know a few things, and they've been pretty quick with their fixes. Does the Army List call it GSO1 1st Armoured?
Yes, it does. Years of trying to paraphrase the ADB have given me great sympathy for kids trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lieutenant General Savige -> "Savige"?
    • I though it was worth noting his then-rank.
  • "a final mention in despatches" What does "final" mean here?
    • Removed.
  • "most from the 67th Battalion, remained by the end of 1948" But wasn't the 67th Battalion renamed 3 RAR by then?
    • The online sources (WP, AWM, Army) don't seem precise on that and I don't have my article sources for the statement (Grey and Pallazo) handy but unless I misread the latter, that's what they said.
      But the Wikipedia does. "On 23 November 1948 the 65th, 66th and 67th Battalions became the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the Australian Regiment." (See Horner & Bou, p. 44) I think the problem is your wording, not your sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure about that -- 23 Nov 1948 to "end of 1948" is a very short time so I didn't really see the point of adding the name change when the link to the 67th goes to 3RAR anyway. Double-checking Grey in Google I think I can safely change "end" to "late", and the statement is quite accurate, isn't it?
  • "GOC Southern Command, which covered Victoria" Southern Command encompassed the 3rd, 4th and 6th Military Districts (ie Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and some bits of New South Wales)
    • Interesting, it sounds just like the RAAF's Southern Area Command... I'd gathered the Army's commands simply replaced the old state-based military districts but if you can point me to a source for what you've said... Or did I misread Palazzo -- I don't have him at hand to check...
      See Long, To Benghazi, p. 28. Which has a map and an explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Tks, done.
  • "and to ensure compatibility with the US Army's formations" I would say: "and to ensure compatibility with the US Army's pentomic formations"
    • Okay.
  • "would acquire the FN 7.62mm rifle in bulk" Delete "in bulk"
    • Done.
  • "Principal of the Australian Administrative Staff College" Should principal be capitalised here?
    • Probably not, the cited sources don't.
  • "the Federal government brought in a new selective service scheme in 1965" Link National Service Act 1964
    • Okay.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for looking this over, Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye, did you see my responses to your responses? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, this article reads well, and I think it meets the A-class criteria, although I see Hawkeye has made some comments above regarding the possible accuracy of a couple of things. The only thing I could pick up on as an issue is the doublelinking of Brigadier (the second usage being "Brigadier General Staff"). Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair enough -- removed the duplink. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All the tool checks seem fine - no dabs, external links ok, no duplicate links, citation check tool reports no errors, etc
    • "That August, he announced to his senior officers a reorganisation of the Army that would strengthen the regular forces and reduce reliance on the CMF." In the context of Australian defence policy this was a fundamental change. I wonder if this should be emphasised? (suggestion only)
      • Yes, fair enough; my main source, Horner, in fact used the term "fundamental" himself so I've added a bit to this effect -- happy to discuss if you feel the wording can be further improve.
    • "He died on 4 November 1977 at Mornington, Victoria..." - do the sources say what he died from? (suggestion only)
      • Unfortunately neither his ADB entry nor Trove was any help here.
    • Otherwise this article looks very good to me and easily meets the A class criteria in my book. I found it very easy to read and quite interesting. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:08, 8 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The third article about an Australian machine gun battalion that I have worked on and brought to ACR (after the 2/1st and 2/2nd). I originally wrote the article three and a half years ago, but only recently took it to GA. The fourth such unit raised as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force, the 2/4th was assigned to the 8th Division and was formed from volunteers from Western Australia and completed its training in Perth and Adelaide, before undertaking garrison duties in Darwin throughout 1941. In January 1942, the majority of the battalion was hastily deployed to Singapore following the Japanese advance down the Malay Peninsula. There, they were involved in the ultimately doomed defence of the island and subsequently taken as prisoners of war. A smaller detachment of the battalion – having been left behind at Fremantle when they "missed the boat" – fought in the brief, and also fruitless, defence of Java, before also being taken prisoner and enduring over three years of captivity. I look forward to working with reviewers to further improve this article. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- so far just copyedited lead and Further Reading but it's early days and I should have time to go over the entire article before too long; points to follow:

  • Is Michael Anketell likely to get a WP article? If so I'd redlink him in the infobox, if not then I'd remove from the infobox as a "notable commander" since he wouldn't be notable by WP standards.
  • This may be a perennial question but grammatically I'd expect the general term "machine-gun battalion" ("machine-gun" hyphenated as a compound adjective); OTOH if the correct rendering of the unit name is "Machine Gun Battalion" (without hyphen) then I understand the attempt to make the former, general, instance consistent with the unit terminology (and it does appear consistent on a quick glance). Not something I'm too fussed about for ACR but it's the sort of style point that may come up at FAC if this is heading there...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • G'day, Ian, thanks for taking a look. I've removed Anketell from the infobox as you are probably right, he doesn't seem to be WP notable. Regarding the hyphen, yes I've agonized over this but went with consistency as this is how the main sources seem to present it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this at GA and believe it also meets the A class criteria. I made one minor tweak after another read through [60]. Anotherclown (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an excellent article. I've often wondered about the accounts of untrained Australian troops arriving in Singapore just before it fell, and was interested to see an explanation for this tragedy. I have the following comments:

  • "was one of four machine gun battalions raised as part of the all volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF) for service overseas during the Second World War." - while this is correct, didn't some of the CMF machine gun battalions also become AIF units late in the war?
  • "allocated at a rate of one per division" were the MG battalions a core element of the divisions, or technically corps (or higher)-level units which were more or less permanently assigned to them?
  • Do we know why elements of the battalion didn't initially go to Malaya or Rabaul with the brigades of the 8th Division?
  • "a small detachment of 106 men" - was this given a designation?
  • "Despite several fierce naval battles, they managed to succeed in getting ashore" - this makes it sound like the Japanese struggled ashore. They actually landed after soundly defeating the Allied naval forces. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: This is really a good article on the tragic story of this unit. I believe it meets all A-Class criteria, although I do have a few nitpicks:EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:35, 7 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.

Article promoted by Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

North-Western Area Command (RAAF)

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

North-Western Area Command (RAAF) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Bringing articles on the two most important RAAF area commands to ACR simultaneously. Eastern Area became a key command after World War II, because it controlled most of the RAAF's operational units and was therefore well-placed to evolve into Home Command (later Operational Command and now Air Command) when the Air Force switched from a geographically based command-and-control system to one based on function. North-Western Area, OTOH, gained its greatest prominence during the war and for one very good reason – it was there, right in the path of Japan's major air offensives against northern Australia and, ipso facto, the best placed to deliver offensives of its own against Japanese forces in the Dutch East Indies; it is after all the only RAAF area command to have a campaign named after it! Like the other area command articles I've put together, these are both GA but I felt that the depth of coverage for these two could qualify them as A-Class. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: couldn't really find much that I could pick fault with. Good work as usual, Ian: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • images seem appropriately licenced;
  • I cropped (very slightly): File:13 Squadron RAAF Hudson aircrew Hughes NT Feb 1943 AWM NWA0074.jpg
  • the article seems well referenced and broad in its coverage;
  • citations seem consistent (in style);
  • prose seemed quite good (I fixed a minor typo);
  • "resulted in eight Spitfires crashing..." were they shot down, or were these from equipment failure or pilot error?
    • Expanded/clarified.
  • "on the assumption that this was where the Japanese raiders were based": was it accurate (i.e. the assumption?)
    • Yes/added.
  • " Adrian "King" Cole..." is the nickname necessary?
    • Well I like the nicknames but since the cited source didn't use it I won't either... ;-)
  • I suggest moving the link for MacArthur to the first mention and including the full name on first mention
    • Definitely, that was an oversight.
  • should No. 1 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit RAAF be linked?
    • Could, but it would just redirect to 87SQN, which is linked immediately after, and I'm not sure 1PRU would justify a separate article (of course if there's a guideline I don't know about that we should link both then fair enough)... Tks very much for review/support, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "ral geographically based commands raised by" - does this mean "created"? Is there a need for jargon here?
    • Hmm, I think I've used it in all the other area command leads so would prefer not to go changing in all of them unless the consensus here is that it shouldn't be employed. "Raised" as a synonym for "formed" or "created" is pretty common in articles I've taken to A/FA-level and it doesn't seem to have been considered jargon by reviewers in the past, even non-MilHist ones...
  • "In February 1954" - consider making this its own para, but I'm not married to it.
    • Well I think it belongs with the previous sentence ("Commencing in October 1953, the RAAF was reorganised...") so I'd like them to remain together, but I'd have no prob with pushing all from and including "Commencing in October 1953" to a new para if you think best.
  • I am curious about the notch in the map just above the Q in Queensland. I believe it may be described in the body, but I think only someone that is already familiar with the local geography would see it. Much of the description it "in situ", referring to other locally understood terms. Perhaps a more general description of the layout could be developed?
    • I fully agree, it is a bit esoteric. The trouble is that this is the only explanation for the "bump" that I've found and unfortunately it doesn't explicitly make reference to that oddity in the boundaries (though it can't really be anything else), nor is the source text accompanied by a map, so I wasn't really comfortable departing too much from the description given. Of course I'm open to suggestions...
  • "having claimed seventy-nine Japanese aircraft destroyed for the loss of twenty-one Kittyhawks" - while I don't doubt their claims, this number strikes me as unlikely given the relative quality of the two combatants. Are there any other sources that might contain a more detailed account? I'm especially troubled due to the exchange ratio with the Spitfires mentioned in the next section, an aircraft that should be generally similar in performance terms at least.
    • That's why I was happy to use the word "claim" as it invites a certain degree of caution. In any case the 2 May ratio was a bit of an aberration for the Spitfires -- the June combat mentioned later showed how it could alter in their favour. If I recall the sources, the US tactic was to target the enemy bombers and avoid dogfights with Zeros, whereas the Spitfires (at least early on) found it harder to resist dogfighting and hence they put themselves at greater risk. I might be able to find something that puts that succinctly -- bit wary of going into too much detail for a command-level article...

That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to review, Maury! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a great article Ian, and model for its type. While I think that the A-class criteria are met, I'd like to offer the following suggestions for any further improvements:

  • The half para starting with " No. 79 Wing was subsequently earmarked" could be split out into a separate para with an introductory sentence noting that the command was run down somewhat in this period as the Allied offensive operations sped up.
  • You could note the dull conditions endured by No. 1 Wing from 1944, and the risky operations it undertook solely to break the tedium (see the No. 1 Wing article for details)
  • The decline of the Japanese units facing NWA could also be noted (from memory, Darwin Spitfires covers this and I imagine that the official history does as well)
  • Was NWA responsible for constructing the network of airfields in the Darwin area? If so, this could be expanded on. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appreciate that Nick, tks -- being a bit pushed for time I can't guarantee I'll get to these suggestions (which will require a bit of further research) before this review completes, whenever that may be, but I certainly won't look at taking the article to FAC without addressing them, if that works for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 1 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of Partisan detachments in Bosnia and Herzegovina

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

List of Partisan detachments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is a list of all the Yugoslav Partisan detachments established in Bosnia and Herzegovina during WWII, units that ranged in strength from just 16 guerillas to over 3,000. The list was developed from scratch last year and is currently assessed as BL. The content is largely based on the definitive 1982 history of the Partisans written by Anić, Joksimović and Gutić (in Serbo-Croat). All constructive comments are welcome. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: sorry, lists aren't my strong suite. I couldn't find much that stood out to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "dubious political loyalty and military value": probably best to attribute this quote in text. For instance, "7,000–8,000 fighters who were, according to Hoare, of "dubious political loyalty and military value"
  • the list might be a bit more visually appealing if the lead had a more iconic image...is there an image that is readily/widely associated with the Partisans? If so, you might consider putting it in the lead, and then maybe moving the map?
  • there is one dab link - "Prnjavor" - which should be corrected if possible
  • some of the Notes/footnotes start with capitals, but others don't. E.g. compare "also known..." with "One of the..."

Image review

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be possible to make July uprising, Establishment of a uniform system of organisation and The "Volunteer Army" all one section with three subsections? Since these are all very short for stand-alone sections, it would probably be better if they were merged somehow. 23 editor (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Also, make sure that all four-digit numbers have commas (1000→1,000). 23 editor (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 23, all fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support There are too many sentence fragments that begin with a capital letter; they should either be turned into full sentences with final punctuation or the first letter should be made lower-case (preferably the former). LavaBaron (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, in the table LavaBaron (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron: I think I've addressed all of these. Let me know if I've missed any? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'k, great, support LavaBaron (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All the usual tool checks revealed nothing (i.e. no dabs, images have alt text, external links work, no repeated links, Earwig is broken so couldn't check but I've no reason to believe there would be any issue here). (no action req'd).
    • Is there a typo here: "...began to organise militarily for resistance..." (to my ear it sounds like it is missing a word - perhaps "...organise military forces for resistance..." or something like that?). (action req'd)
    • I actually found the change to full sentences in the "Notes" column of the table to be distracting. I appreciate that this was made due to the cmts of another review above; however, to me use of sentence fragments here seemed logical and supported the objective of brevity (by its nature a feature of most tables). Indeed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists doesn't seem to mandate the use of either full sentences or sentence fragments, only requiring consistency b/n style chosen. Anyway this is just my opinion, no need to change anything of cse. (no action req'd) Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 5 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Charles Heaphy

edit
Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Charles Heaphy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the necessary criteria. Charles Heaphy may be a slightly unusual subject for Milhist; in addition to his military exploits (he was the first non-regular soldier to be awarded the VC), he was also a painter, explorer, surveyor, amateur geologist, politician and civil servant. In fact, he is probably more known for his exploration endeavours in New Zealand, with the Heaphy Track named for him. The article went through a GA review back in October 2014 and I have tidied it up a little since then. I hope reviewers find the article interesting; I certainly did as I expanded it from the starter it first was when I found it. Zawed (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:HeaphyCharles.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • Not sure entirely; I have been able to find what I believe are cropped versions of the image in newspapers published in 1940. I have amended the source information for the image. Not sure what else I can do. Zawed (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, thanks.

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Service with the New Zealand Company and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: overall, this looks up to snuff (interestingly enough, I'm sure I have walked past this man's grave as a child): AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • he was 'Chief Surveyor to the General Government of New Zealand' --> I think the MOS prefers double quotation marks;
  • appointment as 'Trust Commissioner for the Wellington District', dealing --> same as above;
  • appointed 'Commissioner of Gold Fields' --> same as above
  • "1867–1870" --> 1867–70
  • "1859–1867" --> 1859–67
  • one of the weblinks now seems to redirect to a different site: [65] I wonder if this can be corrected?

Support -- what an interesting and eventful life, tks for bringing this to ACR, Zawed!

  • Copyedited as usual; some might be down to personal preference so don't hesitate to let me know if you disagree with anything -- overall I found it very well written and easy to follow.
  • Seems comprehensive and logically structured.
  • Sources look reliable and I couldn't spot any obvious formatting errors.
  • Images I of course leave to Nikki's good judgement.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Thanks Ian, your changes look good. It is always a source of amazement that certain typos/grammar errors slip my notice...Cheers and thanks for the support. Zawed (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick ce, he comes across as a bit of a Flashman with the good bits left out. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: Thanks Keith. Does that mean you will adding your support? ;) Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks excellent to me. My only suggestion is that the fact that he was the first non-regular soldier to be awarded the Victoria Cross should be added top the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 1 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Mato Dukovac

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Mato Dukovac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Dukovac was the highest scoring Croatian fighter pilot of WWII, scoring 44 victories while flying for the Croatian Air Force Legion of the Luftwaffe. He also flew for the Royal Yugoslav Air Force, Independent State of Croatia Air Force and Tito's Partisan Air Force. After the war he flew for the Syrian Air Force during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to First victory and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, Dan. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Overall, it looks quite good. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Dukovac served with the 2nd Squadron of the Royal Yugoslav Air Force..." do we know if Dukovac saw any combat before Yugoslavia capitulated?
  • "Dukovac became a member of the armed forces of the newly created Independent State of Croatia": do we know what his motivation was for joining the armed forces of a nation that was essentially the ally of his former "enemy"?
  • "the pilots were advised that the HZL had been disbanded. In August they were moved to an airfield in East Prussia, where they took delivery of ten Bf 109G-14s...": if the HZL was disbanded, were the pilots transferred to some other organization to keep flying as the second sentence implies?
  • "On 20 September 1944, Dukovac and another pilot defected to the Soviets": do we know why? Did he ever say why?
    • @Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, not sure if you've seen these comments or not. Can you please let me know how you're getting on with them? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, sorry mate, got distracted... Will get onto these in the next day or so. Cheers for the reminder. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • AustralianRupert the answers to your questions are a. the sources don't say, but I've checked the source that would say and he doesn't rate a mention, so probably not, b. no (but it's complicated, he was a Croat, and the Croats didn't like the set-up of Yugoslavia, as it favoured the Serbs. The Croats quickly welcomed the Axis invaders and a fascist mob set-up a puppet state with genocidal anti-Serb policies), c. That was a major error, didn't reflect the situation properly, I've edited it, hopefully it makes sense now, and d. no, none of the sources say why, although I guess he wanted to be on the side of the winners, and was probably aware that he'd be welcomed and sent back to Yugoslavia to serve with the Partisans... Thanks for the review, sorry it has taken so long to get back to you, but I needed to get a hold of one of the sources again to check it, plus I got distracted having a go at some admin stuff (boys and new toys...;-). Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hi Nikki, I have changed the first one over to {{non-free biog-pic}} and added a note to the NFR regarding the search for a free image, and have replaced the second image, as its US PD status was highly questionable. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I reviewed, copyedited and passed at GAN and, having reviewed changes since then, I think it meets the A-Class criteria as well. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - some minor cmts:
    • No dabs, images have alt text, external links work, no duplicate links, no issues with ref consolidation acc to the citation tool, earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [66]
    • "He graduated on 1 April 1940 with the rank of potporučnik..." is it possible to get a translation / US or British Commonwealth equivalent for this rank (and his subsequent other ranks)?
    • "On 20 September 1944, Dukovac and another pilot defected to the Soviets after taking off from Labjau airfield..." Do any of the sources cover his motivation for doing this? It might be relevant to include if there is something available.
    • "...defected again, this time to Italy." As above re motivation.
    • Prose looks good to me and I couldn't see any issues after a read through. Anotherclown (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day Ac, thanks for the review. Per my comments to Rupert, there isn't anything specific about his defections, although the last one to Italy may have been caused by the barbs about having served with the ZNDH and Luftwaffe. I assume he wanted to be on the winning side and/or keep flying, but there isn't anything definitive in the sources I have. I've added notes about the rank equivalents. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 26 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ahmad ibn Tulun

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Ahmad ibn Tulun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

In many ways this is a complementary article to an earlier nomination, Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid; Ahmad ibn Tulun was the first of the famous Turkish slave-soldiers to found his own dynasty, encompassing Egypt and the Levant, thereby beginning the process of fragmentation of the Abbasid Caliphate, even though he consciously imitated Abbasid models in statecraft and architecture, and never quite brought himself to breaking entirely loose from it. His example found many imitators (including al-Ikhshid), and as the first (virtually) independent ruler of Egypt since the Ptolemies, he also set a pattern for future Egypt-based regimes with his wars in Syria. The article was built by cobbling together a number of sources, as I don't have access to the still definitive account of the Tulunid dynasty, Zaky's Les Tulunides. Nevertheless, to my knowledge the article is the most complete English-language account of Ibn Tulun's life and times whether online or in print. Constantine ✍ 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Biography and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: looks quite good to me. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • "In his absence in Syria..." --> "During his absence in Syria..."?
  • "leading to his imprisonment..." do you mean the father or the son here?
  • "Primary sources" --> I suggest moving this section below the Biography section as it seems to interrupt the narrative flow (IMO)
    • The problem is that the primary sources are referenced by name in the text, and it seems better to me if they are presented beforehand.
  • "Biography" --> not sure about the need for this heading, TBH, as the whole article is arguably a biography...Perhaps just delete that second level heading, and make them all second level headings...Thoughts?
    • I agree it is a bit redundant, but I prefer to separate the biographical narrative from any additional sections like Legacy. Perhaps "Biography" is not the best name, and "Life" would be more apt?
  • watch out for overlink. The duplicate link checker tool reveals a few possibilities: al-Mu'tasim; al-Mu'tazz; Bilad al-Sham; Mecca;
  • in the Sources, is there an ISSN or OCLC number for the "The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland"?
  • in the Sources, capitalisation: "Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam" --> "Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam"
  • in the Further reading section, is there an ISSN or OCLC for the "Journal of the American Oriental Society"?
Hi AustralianRupert and thanks for taking the time to review this. I've fixed most of the issues you raised. Other than that, how does the article read? Did you find it accessible and comprehensible? Constantine ✍ 22:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, yes, I enjoyed reading it. Congratulations on another fine article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • "Originally a Turkic slave-soldier, in 868 Ibn Tulun was sent by the Abbasid caliph as governor to Egypt" perhaps consider rewording it to be more simply expressed as "Originally a Turkic slave-soldier, in 868 Ibn Tulun was sent to Egypt as governor by the Abbasid caliph."
    • Is there a typo here: "...Ibn Tulun also got rid of the dismissal of Shukayr..."? (specifically "got rid of the dismissal" doesn't seem right)
    • Possibly redundant wording here: "...remodelled the Egyptian administration after the model of the Abbasid central government" (particularly "remodeled" and "model"). Consider instead "...remodelled the Egyptian administration after that of the Abbasid central government..." (minor nitpick, suggestion only)
    • "...which denounced al-Muwaffaq a usurper..." Is there a missing word here? Should it be: "...which denounced al-Muwaffaq as a usurper..."
    • Otherwise I couldn't find any issues with the article (although I am unfamiliar with the topic). It looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: sorry to trouble you all, but this has been open for nearly three months now. If anyone is keen, it would be great to see if we could get a third review for this one. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 23 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Günther Lützow

edit
Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Günther Lützow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it should be close to the criteria. Günther Lützow served in the Spanish Civil War and was the second pilot to claim 100 victories. He was killed in the final days of the war in Europe, his exact fate remains unknown. I hope you enjoy the read. Thanks for any feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • he really looks angry in the infobox image; I guess I don't like having my photo taken either! (no action required)
  • in the lead, "including two victories flying the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter, one of which was a four-engined bomber" --> "including two victories—one of which was a four-engined bomber—flying the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter"
  • "an older sister, Liselotte (Elisabeth Charlotte), a younger brother, Hildegard, and the youngest brother, Joachim..." --> "an older sister, Liselotte (Elisabeth Charlotte), and two younger brothers, Hildegard and Joachim..."
  • "He and 29 other trainees attended what was called Kameradschaft 31..." --> "He and 29 other trainees were part of Kameradschaft 31..."
  • "flew in the navigator position..." --> " flew in the navigator's position"
  • "Lützow volunteered for service with the Condor Legion, a unit composed of volunteers from the Luftwaffe and from the Heer which served with the Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War." --> "During the Spanish Civil War, Lützow volunteered for service with the Condor Legion, a unit composed of volunteers from the Luftwaffe and from the Heer which served with the Nationalists."
  • "aircraft, and shot down on 22 August 1937..." --> "...aircraft, which he shot down on 22 August 1937"
  • "World War II in Europe began on Friday 1 September 1939, when German forces invaded Poland." This seems a little ineligant. Did Lutzow participate in the invasion of Poland? If not, I suggest making this a bit clearer.
  • "This act ensured Lützow got in trouble with the SS and the NSDAP". I wonder if this could be explained a little more. In what way did he get into trouble? Was he investigated?
  • " The behavior of Lützow and the other leading pilots was regarded as mutiny by Göring". Perhaps this could be clarified. What did they do? Did they refuse to fly?
  • " An examination of U.S. records indicates that Lützow's..." who examined these records? e.g. "According to Smith, an examination..."
  • "Unable to recover from this dive, the American pilots observed the Me 262 crashing into a small hill. This Me 262 may have been piloted by Lützow" v. "and Second Lieutenant William H. Myers then jointly went after another Me 262 which went into an even steeper dive. The Me 262 was seen crashing into the ground and exploding. The Me 262 chased by Mast and Myers was Lützow's and had been flying furthest to the south". One sentence seems to speculate, and the other seems to state the conclusion categorically.

Image review

  • File:Legion-Condor-Badge-2nd-Squadron-Fighter-Group-88.jpg: for completeness, should include a copyright tag for the original design as well
  • File:Operation_Barbarossa_corrected_border.png: don't think this is sufficiently changed to warrant a new copyright from the original

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Spanish Civil War and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article for GA, and with the above mentioned improvements I consider it meets all the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Having closely looked at this, I have only picked up a few minor nitpicks:

  • Lead- "Apart from 5...": that numeral should be text as per MOS regarding numbers. I see text is used elsewhere for 5.
  • Spanish Civil War- "...Lützow, now an Oberleutnant...": shouldn't the Oberleutnant be linked?
  • Luftwaffe commander- "...for day and night fighter...": inconsistent presentation here, in the lead you present this as day- and night-fighter (use of dashes).
  • Dismissal and death- "under attack by 4 Me 262s": the numeral should be presented as text.
  • Aerial Victory Credits: "He claimed 5 victories...": as above.

I also fixed a couple of minor typos. Otherwise, this looks in good shape for A-class. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966: you are welcome, have added my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Commenting on the lead:

  • Overall, suggest condensing lead into shorter paragraphs and reducing links there per WP:OVERLINKING, to improve readability. For example, this linking appears to be unnecessary: exiled | [[exile]]d.
  • Please allow me to make some generic feedback to your comments. The style and layout of this article includes the feedback I received during the course of over 9 years of editing on Wikipedia. In particular I was advised that German military units, awards and ranks generally are not loanwords and as such need to be put in italics. In addition to that, I was advised to keep style within the article consistent although alternatives may be available. The consequence of this guidance is that I chose this particular style and layout, I think a level of freedom that the main editor of an article should have. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • General der Infanterie (General of the Infantry) | ''[[General of the Infantry (Germany)|General der Infanterie]]'' (General of the Infantry) : this appears to be an unneeded translation, since the article being linked to has an English-language name.
  • Same is the case here: Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM—Ministry of Aviation) | ''[[Ministry of Aviation (Nazi Germany)|Reichsluftfahrtministerium]]'' (RLM—Ministry of Aviation) and General der Jagdflieger (General of Fighters) | ''[[General der Jagdflieger]]'' (General of Fighters). The linked article in the latter case is Inspector of Fighters.

I suggest the article should be looked at with this in mind, as using the English article's titles would reduce the length of copy and minimize the use of foreign-language terms and italics, improving readability. Plus some condensing would make the lead easier to take in.

For example, this sentence in the lead
"In 1937, he volunteered for service with the Condor Legion during the Spanish Civil War where he was appointed Staffelkapitän (squadron leader) of 2. Staffel (2nd squadron) of Jagdgruppe 88 (J/88—88th Fighter Group)."
could be possibly simplified as follows:
In 1937, he volunteered for service with the Condor Legion during the Spanish Civil War, where he was appointed a squadron leader in the Jagdgruppe 88 (J/88—88th Fighter Group).
The details of his position can be appropriately discussed in the body of the article.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All comments addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:55, 17 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

M3 Gun Motor Carriage

edit
Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk)

M3 Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems good enough for the rating. It has gone through a GA review , a major rewrite and is currently pending at DYK. It is a a (relatively) well-known US half-track that was designed in the summer of 1941 as an interim design for a tank destroyer. It was used in the defense of the Philippines and North Africa. Production was halted in 1943 due to release of better TDs, like the M10 GMC. I hope this passes. Thanks for you comments before hand,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions. Regards: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name in the infobox is different from the article title;
    • why the scare quotes here (in the lead): in "tank destroyer battalions" - these probably aren't necessary;
    • inconsistent caps: "M3 Half-track" v. "M3A1 half-tracks";
    • "pilot vehicles" --> "prototypes";
    • I suggest moving Production out of the "American use" section;
    • I suggest creating an "Operational service" section, with "US" and "Allied" subsections;
    • per the MOS, do not start sentences with numerals;
    • caption: "A picture of the M3 Gun Motor Carriage" --> this sounds more like alt text, than a caption. I suggest tweaking.
  • CommentSupport
    • Tool checks all ok (alt text, external links, dabs, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reports no issues with close paraphrase [68])
    • Does File:The British Army in Italy 1945 NA22387.jpg need a PD-US tag?
    • The first two sentences of the lead seem a bit repetitive. For instance is there a need to repeat "M1897A4 gun on the M3 chassis"? Perhaps reword the first sentence?  Done
    • These two sentences in the lead should probably be merged: "The T12/M3 first served in the Philippines Campaign in 1942. It served with the Provisional Field Artillery Regiment in the anti-tank and the fire-support role." For instance it might work better like this: "The T12/M3 first served in the Philippines Campaign in 1942 with the Provisional Field Artillery Regiment in the anti-tank and the fire-support role."  Done
    • In the lead "It was used ineffectively in the Battle of Kasserine Pass and a few others..." suggest instead "It was used ineffectively in the Battle of Kasserine Pass and a several other engagements..."  Done
    • Also in the lead "The M3 GMC also served in the Pacific theater, starting with the Battle of Saipan..." perhaps mention it served with the US Marines in this theatre (otherwise the implication might seem to be US Army by omission).  Done
    • Wikilink self propelled artillery  Done
    • "The Japanese captured a few vehicles and used them in the defense of the Philippines." Perhaps add a year(s) for context?  Done
    • "By 1942, M3 GMCs became part of tank destroyer battalions, which...." This paragraph is (initially) referring to the North African campaign; however, it doesn't state this and I think this would not be clear to some readers. Perhaps mention this?  Done
    • Is there an article for the M10 GMC? If so it should be wikilinked, if not probably should redlink it as I imagine it would be notable. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

This article is another one that has been around for too long, so I've taken a look even though its a little outside of my comfort zone. I tend to do 20th century bios/units. Some thoughts/issues as follows:

  • IMHO, the article doesn't flow well in its present form. Is it typical for equipment articles to start with a specifications section? I feel that this more logically should follow the development section and this would provide better context overall for the subject of the article. It would mean shifting some of the wikilinks so they are on the first usage of the linked terms. Also suggest moving the production section to precede the service history. The sentence in the service history relating to how many were converted to M3A1s half-tracks probably is better placed in the production section as well.
  • For all I've seen, I think it's OK to start with the specs, as a few other articles with the same layout have passed MILHIST A-class. The second part I will do shortly.
  • Lead: "A total of 1,361 were converted back into M3A1 half-tracks." Maybe add in the total number built here? "Of the XXXX that were built, a total of 1,361 were blah blah..."
  • "The 36 T12s were improved.": This short sentence is really jarring, it needs to be integrated into the following sentence somehow. Maybe "The 36 T12s were improved by adding a mount that raised the gun shield..." Try and avoid repeating the word "addition" in the same sentence.
  • "The new design was designated as the M3A1 Gun Motor Carriage": shouldn't GMC be used here since you have already used it an abbreviated form elsewhere?
  • "...while another 50 were quickly transported and used in the Philippines.": suggest rephrasing to "...while another 50 were built and transported to the Philippines." Dont think there is the need for the used as from the following sentences, it is clear that it was.
  • "The T12/M3 GMC first served": suggest rephrasing to "The T12/M3 GMC first saw action with the U.S. Army in the Philippines..."
  • "Three battalions of the Provisional Field Artillery Brigade operated T12s.": suggest expanding this sentence by tacking on: "...against the Japanese when they invaded the Philippines."
  • "which consisted of 36 M3s and four 37 mm M6 GMCs." Not clear to me that this is per tank destroyer battalion or the total operating in North Africa.
  • "ineffective": suggest replacing with "inadequate for this task" since you use the similar word "effective" earlier in the same sentence.
  • "The M3 remained in service with the U.S. Marines": suggest rephrasing to "The M3 also served with the U.S. Marines in the Pacific Theatre of Operations and was first blah blah..."
  • wikilink U.S. Marines
  • "The M3 GMC was not supplied to many countries through the Lend-Lease program.": doesn't read well. Suggest rephrasing to something like "The M3 GMC saw limited service with other countries as it was not widely supplied through the Lend-Lease program."

That's my initial comments, I'll check back in a couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomandjerry211, still waiting for your response here. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: In the interests of trying to finalise this review which is close to four months old, I have edited the article to try to rectify these issues. These are my edits: [69]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Good call, Tomandjerry seems to have slowed up on his editing as of late. Your changes look good so have added my support. It will be good to have this one wrapped up after so long. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:28, 10 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.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

John Hines (Australian soldier)

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

John Hines (Australian soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is one of the articles I've most enjoyed working on, but it's a combination of comedy and tragedy. John "Barney" Hines was a British-born member of the Australian Army in World War I. A drifter before the war, he proved an incredibly aggressive soldier. However, his enthusiasm for "collecting" items from the battlefield and German POWs won him the greatest fame, and he was immortalised by a photo showing him surrounded by his loot in 1917. Away from the front line Hines was undisciplined, and frequently punished. After returning to Australia in 1919 he lived in poverty for the rest of his life, though - somewhat incredibly - he was frequently interviewed and profiled in newspapers as late as the 1950s. The photo of Hines has been on display at the Australian War Memorial since the 1930s, and was included in the recent, and very slick, redevelopment of its World War I galleries.

I've been working on this article on and off since 2011. It was a DYK shortly after being created, and passed a GA nomination the same year. I'm hopeful that my expansions since then have brought it up to A-class. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Hello, thanks for this article, it is one of the most interesting articles I've read on Australian participation in the first world war. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I jotted down a few things that I found while going off and researching the man for myself. Feel free to add anything you think is pertinent and disregard the rest, I also included the reference so that you could look at it for yourself (although I think you already have it?:

Just Soldiers by Darryl Kelly (2004): [1]

  • Soon after 'Barney's' arrival, the 45th Battlion moved into the Bapaume area to prepare for its attack on the heavily fortified Hindenburg line. - I suppose this would be his first action in the war.
  • 'Barney' refused to leave a man behind, he would often go searching for dead or missing soldiers from his unit and bury them whenever possible. - strikes me as being worth mentioning.
  • The story about his capturing sixty German soldiers; one day he (Barney) and Second Lieutenant Hopgood were separated from their platoon in Octagon Trench. A sudden burst of machine gun fire hit the Lieutenant injuring him, 'Barney' realizing the gravity of the situation leapt onto the German pillbox and threw a few 'Mills' grenades into the pillbox, 63 surviving Germans, including a general, surrendered to him. - May be a bit over the top?
  • 'Barney' preferred to carry bags of mills grenades with him into battle having some apparent disdain for the .303 rifle.
  • In 1918, 'Barney' fought with the 45th Battalion at the battle of Dernancourt, and was soon after the victim of a German gas attack in which he was temporarily blinded. Reluctant to leave the combat area he was forced to the rear to seek medical attention, en-route the hospital train was bombed with 'Barney' on board. - I don't think he saw any service after this.

Other:

  • From the lead: "and worked in several different occupations" - would it be pertinent to mention which ones?
  • 'On 29 January 1958, Hines died at Concord Repatriation Hospital aged 85.' - perhaps maintain consistency and change to 84-85 as his exact birth date is unknown, this is also reflected in the infobox where his age at death is "84-85".
    • Thanks for these comments. I should have noted in the nomination statement that I've needed to be careful with some of the references, such as the Kelly article, as they contain what are obviously tall tales (which, from looking at old newspaper stories in the National Library of Australia's Trove service, seem to have mainly been made up by Hines) alongside reliable information. I've only used these references to augment material verified by higher quality sources or where the claim is clearly uncontroversial, and left out a lot of other sources which seem totally unreliable. For instance, Peter Stanley repeats the story about Hines capturing 60 Germans, but doesn't state that they included a general (which seems most unlikely). Similarly, Stanley says that Hines' official Army file shows that he was invalided out of the Army due to hemorrhoids rather than wounds, which contradicts some of the details in the Kelly article. Different news stories also claim that Hines' preferred using bombs or that he preferred using a light machine gun. I've made some changes though. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kelly, Daryll (2004). Just Soldiers: Stories of Ordinary Australians Doing Extraordinary Things in Time of War (PDF). ANZAC Day Commemoration (Queensland) Committee. pp. 115–122. ISBN 0-95816-254-9. Retrieved 27 March 2016.

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • I couldn't see any issues with it following a read through, actually it is very a good read (Stanley's "but he had few gifts that a peaceful society valued" in particular).
    • You might consider adding publisher and place of publication for the journals used in the references (i.e. Wartime and Mt Druitt Standard) - not an ACR req, suggestion / pedantic hardly if at all helpful nitpick only. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review -- Infobox image fine, clearly PD by age, but I don't think we can use PD-1996 on File:John Hines in 1950.JPG, because a 1950 Australian image didn't become PD until 2000 (50 years after creation), and since it's not an AWM image we don't have the explicit "no restrictions" clause we usually get from their 1946-55 items. That could make using the image problematic although I expect you'd have grounds for a FUR if there's no free post-war photos of him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Ian. That's a good point, and I've removed the photo: from my reading of WP:FREER and previous precedents, there need to be pretty strong grounds to sustain a non-free portrait photo, and I don't think they're met here given that the only purpose of the image is to portray Hines in his later life. I've been meaning to trek out to Mount Druitt to snap a photo of the monument, but it's pretty remote from the parts of Sydney I usually visit. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 9 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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

X-10 Graphite Reactor

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

X-10 Graphite Reactor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The world's second nuclear reactor, after Chicago Pile-1/Chicago Pile-2. The X-10 Graphite Reactor was part of a plutonium semiworks, a pilot plant for for the larger production facility at the Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks excellent to me. Not a lot leapt out. I made a couple of incredibly minor tweaks, and have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • coverage and referencing look ok to me (no action required);
  • "construct the first atomic bombs" (move the link for atomic bomb from here to the first mention in the previous section);
  • "clad in aluminium" --> In US English, should it be "clad in aluminum"?
  • caps: "creating an Implosion-type nuclear weapon" --> "creating an implosion-type nuclear weapon"?
  • in the Notes: "National Historic Landmark summary listing" --> "National Historic Landmark Summary Listing"?
  • in the References: is there a place of publication for the Holl, Hewlett & Harris work?
      Done All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Site selection and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - some minor points:
    • "Both Compton and the director of the Manhattan Project, Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., proposed..." Groves is actually first mentioned by last name only in the paragraph above this so should probably be introduced with rank, surname etc there (per WP:SURNAME).
        Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By March 1944, there were some 1,500 people working at X-10." Is March correct here, or should it be May? Its just in the previous sentence mentions the permanent staff beginning to arrive in April.
       Y March 1944 is correct; the previous sentence should have said April 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible typo here: "One of the most significant discovery...", consider instead "One of the most significant discoveries..."
       Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherclown (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose:
First some minor non-blocking stuff:
    • I am still concerned that the naming of the reactor vs. the site is not sufficiently clear in the lede, in spite of it having been edited slightly. The key issue here is that the entire site is known as X-10, a fact that is hidden in non-bold text in the third paragraph. A single sentence at the end of the first para would clear all of this up: "The reactor was part of, and takes its name from, a prototype of a complete plutonium production line (or semiworks) given the code-name X-10." I contrast this with CP-1, where no such confusion exists between the reactor and, say, Stagg Field.
       Y The plutonium project was X-10. This included the work done at Sites A, B and W as well as X. Added some words to the leads and the article to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no mention of why the U slugs were canned.
       Y Didn't think it was germane, but added the following to the article: The fuel slugs were canned primarily to protect the uranium metal from corrosion that would occur if it came into contact with water, but also to prevent the venting of gaseous radioactive fission products that might be formed when they were irradiated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On February 2, 1943, DuPont began construction of the plutonium semi works"..."Construction work on the reactor had to wait until DuPont had completed the design. Excavation commenced on April 27, 1943". This is confusing at first glance, and could be clarified by placing the second right after it. Then the second para could start with "Excavation for the reactor commenced..." Additionally, it might be worth stating that in the first sentance, "Although the design of the reactor itself was not yet complete, on February 2, 1943..."
       Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The facility was known as the Clinton Laboratories" Does this refer to X-10, some smaller part of X-10, or as the Clinton Engineering Works article suggests, the entire site? Did the naming change over time? If so, that should be mentioned there.
       Y The plutonium semiworks became the Clinton Laboratories in April 1943. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the reactor went critical on 4 November 1943 with about 30 short tons (27 t) of uranium. A week later the load was increased to 36 short tons (33 t), raising its power generation to 500 kW, and by the end of the month the first 500 mg of plutonium was created" but then two paras later... "The first batch of fuel slugs was received on December 20, 1943", which is contradictory.
       Y Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Modifications over time raised the power to 4,000 kW in July 1944." This statement is out of order, and should go further down the section, considering the next paras cover events taking place before this date.
       Y Moved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Similar reactors" section fails to mention Windscale, which was similar in both design and purpose. Nor does the article contrast X-10 with the B Reactor, which followed it, and among other changes was water cooled.
      The Windscale reactors were intended at production reactors, not prototypes. They were similar to the X-10 Graphite reactor in that they used natural uranium, a graphite moderator and air cooling. I am not going to catalog all the reactors ever built. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The same is true of Brookhaven, yet there it is. If one limits the list to air-cooled, graphite-moderated, plutonium producing reactors, unless I'm greatly mistaken, you have X-10 and Windscale, and that the later was deliberately based on the former after specifically rejecting the B design seems rater cogent in this article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now the actual problem:
The article completely fails to mention how X-10 came about due to data flowing out of CP-1, and this, as I see it, is a serious FA-killing oversight.
Basically when the plans for chemical separation were first being drawn up, the calculated values for the breeding ratio suggested that acceptable rates of production could only be achieved with coolants with very low cross sections. This led to consideration of helium, supported primarily by Greenewalt, and heavy water, favored by Fermi's group. However, while early planning was still ongoing, data from CP-1 allowed Fermi to calculate k directly and found it to be a much higher value than expected. This meant that normal water (otherwise a reasonable moderator) as well as air became possible coolants. As an air-cooled design was conceptually very similar to helium, DuPont supported building both in parallel, suggesting that the much simpler air cooled version could provide valuable data while the more difficult to build helium version was still being constructed. It was assumed throughout that the Hanford production plants would be helium cooled.
However, as the value of k was so large that water cooling was a possibility, the Chicago team began work on such designs with an eye to building the Hanford site using them. DuPont still favoured helium and continued to press for the parallel construction of both. As the advantages of the new design became overwhelmingly apparent, Greenewalt was eventually convinced to abandon helium, which left the fate of air cooled design in the air. At this point the reactor design would offer nothing to the future designs, but instead of cancelling it the idea was modified to place far more importance on the semiworks. It was this part that eventually made the design too large to build at Argonne - had the original plans to build just a sample reactor and small production line been followed, especially the much higher density helium design, it would have easily fit at Argonne.
So it was not until very late in the process that the narrative in this article, and one assumes Rhodes, comes into play. The air cooled design was, by this time, considered relatively unimportant and with its larger size the arguments against Argonne were both more relevant, and in a way, less interesting. I think Met basically gave up on Argonne largely because they felt the water cooled design was the only important one moving forward, although that did not end well for them. The DoE's page on X-10 covers this in some depth, but another source with more detail would be useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have plenty of sources. What you are saying is incorrect; the water-cooled design was adopted before CP-1 went critical. I will write something up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try this first. I too have plenty of sources, and they all say exactly what I state above. Specifically, page 30 of the official history states the move to a water cooled production design was taken in early 1943, as a direct result of the new k measurements. Rhodes says water cooling was rejected in July on page 411, and then on page 498 agrees that the decision to move back to water cooling was made after CP-1 ran on, noting Wigner's observation that "a production pile of pure uranium metal and high-quality graphite would find k higher yet - hiegh enough, Wigner calculated, to make water cooling practical." Later on the same page you see that Greenewalt "studied helium and water side by side until the middle of February" and that Wigner was angered that it "had taken Du Pont three months to see the value of a system he and his group judged superior in the summer of 1942." If you have any evidence to the contrary, by all means present it, but the evidence, and the physics, appears rather clear. As to the rest of the changes I have made, these are attempts to clarify much of the missing background story that covers the ultimate design of the semiplant, notably the changes in the physical separation process and the ultimate reactor design. Additionally I found the entire section on site selection rather confusing, and re-wrote this entirely. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the design section to meet your objections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hawkeye7: I notice that you are not using alt text, which is not a major issue here, I just want to confirm that this article's images are not suppose to have alt text because you haven't added them. The other issue (and this one is a potential deal breaker) is that the reflink checker reports one link to be iffy - likely a connection issue. Can you check and advise on the status of that link, and fix it if needed? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have a go at the sports articles. The links have a half-life of about six months. I've restored the link from Wayback, although it might only be a transient problem. Added ALT text too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 31 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.
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 promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

4th Armoured Brigade (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

4th Armoured Brigade (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 4th Armoured Brigade was probably the most important Australian armoured unit of World War II. Formed in early 1943 as part of the process of reorganising the Army for jungle warfare, it provided well trained units to support most major Australian Army options from September 1943 until the end of the war. As the Army's frontline armoured brigade, and only armoured brigade from 1944, it was also responsible for trialling and developing new tank variants. The brigade was disbanded in 1946, but two units with connections to it continue to form part of the Army.

As there's no single cohesive history of this brigade, I've developed the article from several sources and think that it provides comprehensive coverage of the unit (with a focus on its history as an organisation as its fighting elements were attached to other units when deployed to combat zones). It passed a GA nomination in January this year, and has been further expanded and copy-edited. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this for GA, and I have reviewed the changes since then and believe it meets the A-class criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Combat operations (but there wasn't much to do) and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - only a few minor suggestions / cmts:
    • You might consider adding the campaigns its subordinate units were involved in to the infobox.
    • "The 4th Armoured Brigade's commanding officer from its establishment until its disbandment was Brigadier Denzil Macarthur-Onslow." I question the terminology used here IRT "commanding officer". In my experience in the Australian Army this is a term used at unit level (i.e. battalion or regiment), while "commander" is used at brigade level. It is of course possible that the terminology was different during this period though (as I only feel that old), however, from checking the reference (Hopkins, p. 316) he uses "Commander" as well so I'd suggest amending this.
    • I wonder if a link to our article on Tanks in the Australian Army should be included in the "See also" section?
    • There is a very minor inconsistency in the presentation of isbns (some use hyphens others do not). Anotherclown (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- nice work as usual, Nick, just some brief points:

  • Prose/style looked pretty good to me, copyedited a bit as usual so pls let me know any concerns. Just a formatting point: I think we should lose the flag icon in the infobox and its associated country link.
  • Not an expert on armoured units but structure and level of detail in the article seemed appropriate.
  • Sources: reliable and I didn't spot any formatting errors.
  • Images: all photos licensed appropriately (pre-1946 Australian therefore PD-1996) but the infobox image looks a bit suss as it carries PD-1996 but also the legend "still under US copyright", and for an image produced after 1946 the second point would be true. I'd have thought we should lose PD-1996 and just go with PD-Australia and the note that the AWM asserts it's free of restrictions -- maybe Nikkimaria could check and advise.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that whoever added the claim that it's under US copyright is correct: the graphic is an Australian Govt image created in 1943, so is clearly PD in Australia and the US. I think that the PD-1996 tag is necessary to noted that this is copyright free in the US as well, with the PD-Australia tag not being enough in isolation. I've tweaked the record on Commons which should clarify things. Thanks for your review and edits Ian. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I agree as far as that goes. The actual design is 1943 so I assume that satisfies PD-1996 but the image of it seems to be 1946, which generally means you'd have to rely on the "free of known restrictions" assertion from the AWM, as any image from 1946 and after doesn't satisfy PD-1996 -- hence my interest in Nikki's take... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 30 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.
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 promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/14th Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/14th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A primarily Victorian infantry battalion of the Second Australian Imperial Force, this unit formed part of the 21st Infantry Brigade, which was assigned to the 7th Division. After fighting in Syria against the Vichy French, the battalion returned to Australia and was later committed to the fighting on the Kokoda Track. There they were thrust into action at a critical point, and after the Japanese attack was exhausted, they took part in the fighting around the beachheads around Gona after the Allies pursued the withdrawing Japanese northwards. One of the 2/14th's members, Private Bruce Kingsbury, received the Victoria Cross for his actions around Isurava in late August 1942. Throughout 1943–45 the battalion saw further action against the Japanese during the advance through the Markham and Ramu Valleys and on Borneo. It was disbanded after the war. Thank you to everyone who stops by to review the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Middle East and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dan. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:Support
    • Tool checks ok: no dabs, external links check out, no issues with ref consolidation, no repeat links, Earwig tool reports no issues with close paraphrasing etc [70] (no action req'd).
    • Image review: all images appear to be PD / or free.
      • Do the AWM images need a PD US tag of some sort?
    • Captions look fine to me (no action req'd)
    • Minor repetitive wording here: "Soon after battalion headquarters was established, the battalion's first commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel William Cannon,[8] began choosing his officers, who then set about the task of forming their own companies and platoons, as the battalion structure..." (specifically over use of "battalion"). Perhaps consider something like: "Soon after battalion headquarters was established, the battalion's first commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel William Cannon,[8] began choosing his officers, who then set about the task of forming their own companies and platoons, as the unit structure..."
    • Perhaps add something on the make up of the specialist platoons?
    • Perhaps add unit casualty figures for each campaign per Johnston The Silent 7th.
      • Syria and Lebanon: 17 KIA, 4 DOW, 0 DOAS, 94 WIA, 11 POW - p. 248
      • Kokoda: 110 KIA, 2 DOW, 4 DOAS, 132 WIA, n/a POW - p. 249
      • Buna, Gona and Sanananda: 32 KIA, 11 DOW, 7 DOAS, 88 WIA, 0 POW - p. 249
      • New Guinea 1943-44: 7 KIA, 3 DOW, 4 DOAS, 25 WIA, 0 POW - p. 249
      • Borneo: 16 KIA, 5 DOW, 0 DOAS, 41 WIA, 0 POW - p. 250
    • Wikilink: Isurava, Alola, Koitaki, Popondetta, Manggar
    • The start of the Gona section seems a bit abrupt as there doesn't seem to be an explanation of how the situation had gone from that at the end of the last section (the 25th Brigades arrival on the Kokoda Track to relieve the 21st Brigade just as they were preparing to make a final stand) to the Australians moving on the Japanese beachheads. What happened to allow this? You seem to explain it in the lead but not in the text (i.e. the Japanese being force to begin to withdraw back up the track after having reached the end of their supply line etc)
    • Repetitive phrasing here: "...battalion began the 32-kilometre (20 mi) march towards Gona and on 29 November the battalion..." ("the battalion x 2), perhaps reword one?
    • "Before being withdrawn back to Australia in March 1944..." this phrase seems a little out of place in this paragraph. It seems like it is also mentioned in the following section.
    • Johnston 2005 p. 248 gives slightly different overall casualty figures from those cited from the AWM and Russell. Specifically he give 182 KIA, 25 DOW, 15 DOAS, 378 WIA and 11 POW. Perhaps also include this in the note to acknowledge the differences b/n sources? Anotherclown (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Up to your usual standard AustralianRupert, the only comments I would have to make are:

  • The makeup of D Company personnel; you mention A through to C. I suspect it is not available otherwise I'm sure you would have included it but thought I would check anyway.
  • Wikilink Mildura, Bombay?
  • Rhoden is wikilinked in an image caption rather than on his first mention in the article body itself (the Lae and the Finisterres section). Not sure of the appropriate practice here.

Minor quibbles only, it looks in great shape regardless. Zawed (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, have added my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:33, 20 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.
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 promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC) §« Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Theodore Komnenos Doukas

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Theodore Komnenos Doukas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of the most energetic, ambitious, and indefatigable of the post-Fourth Crusade Greek rulers, Theodore captured Thessalonica from the Latins and almost succeeded in recovering Constantinople too and restoring the Byzantine Empire 30 years before it actually happened. He was then captured by the Tsar of Bulgaria, released when the latter became his son-in-law, deposed his brother to regain Thessalonica, and ruled it via his sons for several years before it was captured by the Empire of Nicaea. In a final act of defiance against Nicaea he urged his nephew the ruler of Epirus (whom he had deposed at the beginning of his reign) to launch a joint attack, which failed. All in all, he could have been an exemplary character from Game of Thrones... The article was thoroughly rewritten using several high-quality sources (Varzos' biographical work in particular), and is quite complete and comprehensive. It passed GA yesterday, and I'd like to take it to FA eventually. Constantine ✍ 15:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good work with this one, it looks like it meets the A-class criteria to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • tool check: there are no dabs, the ext links all work, and alt text is present (no action required);
  • the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following links as duplicates: Despotate of Epirus, Macedonia (region), Thessaly, Baldwin II of Constantinople, Battle of Klokotnitsa, Alexios I Komnenos, and Maria Petraliphaina;
  • the article appears to be well referenced to reliable sources and uses a citation style that appears to be consistent (no action required);
  • in the Sources section, could the foreign language titles be translated (you do this for Varzos, but not the others)?
  • "File:Theodor I. Despot von Epirus.jpg": needs a US licence also on the image description page;
  • "File:Stefan the First-Crowned, fresco from Mileševa.jpg": seems to be missing quite a few details on the image description page and the description probably should be translated into English; additionally, I think that the PD-Art licence needs adjustment to include a licence parameter;
  • "File:Peter 2 of Courtenay.jpg": needs a US licence;
  • "File:John III Doukas Vatatzes.jpg": the PD-Art licence needs adjustment to include a licence parameter;
  • "File:Tsar Ivan Asen II cropped.png": needs a US licence as well. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot AustralianRupert for taking the time to review this. The issues you have raised have been addressed. Per the usual question, aside from the narrow ACR criteria, is there anything you'd like to see improved? Were you able to follow the article or should more background info be provided somewhere? Constantine ✍ 21:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Yes, it seemed fine to me in those regards. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • " In the event": Avoid this phrase; it will confuse most English speakers.
  • "In ca. 1210": Around 1210
  • Recently, I've started doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Ruler of Epirus and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, thanks for your improvements. I've replaced "in ca." and "in the event", although regarding the latter (and similar cases in the past) I must confess it always puzzles me why a perfectly fine English phrase, which I learned from English books, should be changed for being "confusing" to English-speakers... Anyhow, looking forward to the rest of your copyedits :) Constantine ✍ 11:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, from my perspective I think the term has gone out of favour in professional writing recently. I'm in my early 30s now (on the cusp of Gen X and Gen Y), and I certainly grew up reading books that included the term, and was comfortable with what it meant. However, of late I've not seen it used much. I don't really know why, but I suspect that younger readers wouldn't understand what it means, having probably never come across it. Dan will no doubt be able to explain the reasons better than me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's one great reason, AR, thanks for that. The other reason is that, for most English speakers, "in the event" means "in case", and they've never made the connection to the other meaning. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, I realize the reason behind your recommendation, and my comment above was not meant as criticism in any way. It was just an attempt to voice my unease with the line of argument "let's abandon something because nobody else recognizes it", at least in language use (and in utter antithesis to my RL job as an engineer). I've always considered it fun to encounter new/weird/archaic words or phrases, and IMO, language shouldn't be simplified; quite the reverse, one should struggle to keep it as rich as possible. Consequently, pruning it to remove phrases that are now beginning to fall out of use strikes me as unconstructive. "In the event" is IMO a very handy phrase, and replacing it with "Finally", or "In the end" is not quite the same. However, perhaps this is just the opinion (and frustration) of someone who actually enjoyed learning Ancient Greek at school, and I realize many people probably don't share my enthusiasm... (Rant over). Constantine ✍ 13:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have uploaded another file of Theodore Komnenos Doukas from CNG without licence limitations. If it's more appropriate than File:Theodor I. Despot von Epirus.jpg, you may use it. --Odysses (○) 16:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theodore Comnenus-Ducas cropped.jpg

Support Comments

This article has been sitting around for too long, so I have moved out of my comfort zone (Milhist 20th century bios/units being more my thing) to have a look. I have the following comments:

  • First sentence of the lead, shouldn't "Latinized" be "latinized"?
    • I've seen both forms, but AFAIK the capitalized form is the correct one, e.g. "Germanized" or "Hellenized".
  • Still on the lead, I suggest wikilinking "Byzantine imperial throne" to "Byzantine Empire" or a suitable variant.
  • Early life section: For consistency with how you have appeared to dealt with scholars/academics, wikilink for Raymond-Joseph Loenertz? (I assume it will be a redlink like Antoine Bon; alternatively, remove the redlink for Bon). This may apply elsewhere as noted below.
  • Ruler of Epirus section: Wikilink Byzantine Empire, the chronicler Ephraim, and possibly I. D. Romanos, John V. A. Fine, Philip Van Tricht
  • "three Western chronicles": it may be worth adding what these were in a separate note (suggestion only)
    • Fine unfortunately does not mention them by name; I have rewritten the section to include some of the main Western sources of these events, however.
  • "With the first contingents for the crusade began assembling ...": doesn't read right, maybe "With" should be "When" or the "began" deleted?
  • Emperor of Thessalonica section: possibly wikilink Lucien Stiernon, Apostolos D. Karpozilos, Eleni Bees-Seferli, Alkmini Stavridou-Zafraka
  • "...to his eleven-year-old brother, Baldwin II (r. 1228–73)...": should the (r. 1228-73) be used on Baldwin's first mention or does that disrupt that narrative?
  • "...resisted with valour...": peacock terminology.
  • "...emperor kept these news..." : "these" should be "this"?
  • Sources section: some books appear to lack place of publication.

Otherwise, this looks to be an excellent article. I will check back in a couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Zawed for your review! I've started going through your remarks. I'll strike through the issues dealt with, and leave answers underneath otherwise. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I have added my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 16 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.
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 promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion was one of four similar units raised as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force for overseas service during the Second World War. Recruited mainly from Queenslanders and New South Welshmen, the 2/2nd were attached to the 9th Division and fought in the Battles of El Alamein, and undertook garrison duties in Syria and Lebanon, in the early part of the war. Later, they took part in the fighting against the Japanese in New Guinea, participating in campaigns to capture Lae, the Huon Peninsula and Borneo. This is the second machine gun battalion article I have brought to ACR and I hope to eventually do the same with the other two, although I will continue to hint to Peacemaker that he might like to work on the 2/3rd MG...; - ) Thank you to all who stop by to help review and improve the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in very good shape, and I only have some minor comments:

  • How did the move to the tropical/jungle organisation affect the battalion? (in particular, how did it move the heavy machine guns around after losing much of its transport?)
  • The lengthy sentence starting with "After a month of garrison duties and work parties" should be split into two or more sentences
  • It seems that the 9th Division didn't really know what to do with the 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion during its campaigns in 1943, with it's personnel frequently being mis-used as labourers or ad-hoc infantry reserves. Do any sources state this explicitly and/or explain why? (from memory, Palazzo has written that the 1943 tropical organisation didn't have enough transport, which might have been the problem, especially in the very rugged terrain)
  • "which was drawn to a close quicker than expected by the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai in early August 1945" - not sure about this: the 9th Division had reached all its goals around Brunei Bay and Tarakan by July, and didn't intend to pursue the Japanese into the interior of Borneo. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: Thanks, Nick, I've made a few adjustments based on your comments. Please let me know if anything else needs work. I wasn't able to load Palazzo's Organising for Jungle Warfare, unfortunately, as my computer seems to be on its way out... I used to have a saved copy, but I lost that when the other computer died and now this one looks like it will go the same way. D'oh. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. The machine gun battalions certainly look like good units to have avoided being part of in the Pacific! Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:Support
    • The Battalion history (Oakes) has a bit IRT to transport, from p. 229: The Tropical War Establish was approved in October 1944 which officially confirmed that the battalion would no longer be motorized, however, was an improvement on New Guinea, providing 19 jeeps and trailers for the battalion (as opposed to just six during the previous campaign in New Guinea). "Now the only difference between the machine gunners and the infantry was that the mug gunners had to walk just as far, but carry heavier loads!". The narrative bounces around a little but on page 230 he elaborates on the previous situation in New Guinea, writing: "At Red Beach the vehicle strength had shrunk to two 6x6 GMC five-tonners and six jeeps. Each machine gun company got a jeep, with the other two retained at Battalion HQ and HQ Company. With no roads, and water transport being used to move stores, the five-tonners were left behind on Red Beach, where they were used largely as tractors... The New Guinea campaign demonstrated that the rate of advance in tropical warfare was governed by the speed with which the Engineers could make the jeep tracks. With sufficient jeeps, an adequate supply of ammunition for the Vickers could be maintained at the jeephead, always close up behind the leading infantry." Continuing on p. 231: "But with only one jeep per company available, it proved difficult to keep up supplies to all platoons... The new establishment announced that October [1944] provided for a jeep and trailer at Battalion HQ, two with HQ Company, and four jeeps and trailers with each machine gun company, one to be at Company HQ. The 8-cwt water trailers were discarded, the water supply being provided by two-gallon containers on an ordinary trainer." AR - hopefully this is useful, pls let me know if you need more. Anotherclown (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • IRT to misuse a quick skim of Oakes didn't reveal the issue being mentioned in such terms; however, it certainly mentions the battalion being used in secondary roles such as unloading ships, carrying supplies, local defence, also as infantry etc. The best ref for this is probably page 191-92 which is already used in the article. The information now added in the last paragraph from Fraser and Hocking though now looks like it probably covers this though. Anotherclown (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Anotherclown: Thanks for that, AC, I've added a bit more on the vehicles. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having reviewed at GA and checked over the changes now made as part of the A class review I'm of the opinion this meets the criteria for promotion so I've added my support now. A couple of very minor suggestions / nitpicks though:
          • No dabs, external links check out, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [73]
          • Image review: all images seem to be PD and have the required templates / information.
          • File:Members of B Company of the 2-2 Machine Gun Battalion moving along a road towards Brunei AWM 109273.jpg - lacks Alt text, given all the others have it you might consider adding it to this image too for consistency.
          • The really short paragraph that mentions Eric Lambert is wedged b/n two larger paragraphs which to me at least is visually grating (yes I probably have OCD). Perhaps you might tack it on to the end of the para above?
          • There is one instance of "machine-gunners", which seems inconsistent with your usage of "machine gun" with no hyphen throughout.
          • Slightly repetitive prose here: "...largely being carried across the battlefield by soldiers moving on foot; however, it was largely..." (largely x 2).
          • Otherwise it looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Service in the Middle East and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Reviewing this, I identified very few quibbles. The article is in excellent shape, as per your normal work AR, so the only comments I would have to make are:

  • Militia is linked but not on first mention (I initially thought it wasn't linked at all and was going to suggest this be done until I found the link).
  • "...the battalion was assigned to the 2nd AIF's second division – the 7th – and...": maybe add a note regarding the numbering of the Aussie divisions? The 1st to 5th were the militia divisions right?
  • "This came to an end in late June 1942 when until the 9th was rushed...": delete until?
  • "...individual Australian brigades during First Battle of El Alamein as the Allied forces – who had, since the beginning of the year...": during the First..., and shouldn't the "who" be "which"?
  • Publisher for Hocking?

That is it for me. Zawed (talk) 21:25, 12 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.
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 promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gordon Gollob

edit
Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Gordon Gollob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Gollob was the first fighter pilot to claim 150 aerial victories, was appointed wing commander, and succeeded Adolf Galland as the last General der Jagdflieger. I hope to have captured his biography sufficiently to qualify the article for A-Class. Thanks for the review MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Due to a fear that he would be killed in action, Gollob..." --> "Due to concerns that he would be killed in action, Gollob..."?
    • "In preparation of Operation Barbarossa..." --> "In preparation for Operation Barbarossa..."?
    • "At the time, II. Gruppe primary objective was..." --> "At the time, II. Gruppe's primary objective was.."
    • "claimed two I-61 and..." --> "claimed two I-61s and..."
    • "claimed three I-16, one Pe-2 and one I-61..." --> "claimed three I-16s, one Pe-2 and one I-61..."
    • "credited with three R-5 and..." --> "credited with three R-5s and..."
    • "wingman" is potentially overlinked
    • in the Bibliography, "Mechanicsburg" --> which state/country is this?
    • "File:Theresianische Militaerakademie DSC 6487w.jpg": probably needs a freedom of panorama licence also, per [75]
    • "File:Geschwaderwappen Jagdgeschwader 77.png": not sure about this one, but I think it should probably have a PD-Shape licence

Comments: Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • Substitute "he" for "Gollob" when "he" wouldn't be ambiguous, except after breaks and mini-breaks.
  • I've copyedited down to World War II and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This article looks in excellent shape, I just have the following comments:

Norwegian Campaign and Battle of Britain

  • "The flight was intercepted by the Luftwaffe, in the resulting aerial encounter, eight Skuas were shot down, the first by Gollob." Three commas in this short sentence; suggest the first be replaced with "and".
  • This paragraph doesn't make sense to me: "On 7 September 1940 during the Battle of Britain, Gollob was transferred to the Gruppenstab (headquarters unit) of II. Gruppe Jagdgeschwader 3 (JG 3—3rd Fighter Wing) based at Arques in northern France. Four days later, Staffelkapitän—Oberleutnant Werner Voigt of 4. Staffel was shot down over England and taken prisoner of war—on 8 October 1940, and Gollob took command of 4. Staffel." In particular, what happened on 8 October? Was this when Voigt was made prisoner of war (in which case he evaded capture for several days after being shot down on 11 Sept or is it when Gollob took command (which is what I suspect should be the case). Maybe the dash should be a full stop. I.e. should read: "...of war. On 8 October, Gollob took command..."
  • "...his sixth overall.": sixth fighter, sixth Spitfire, or sixth victory?

War against the Soviet Union

  • "On 7 August, II. Gruppe moved again, from Bila Tserkva the Gruppe moved to Signajewka,..": already established that the Gruppe is at Bila Tserkva; maybe rephrase to "On 7 August, II. Gruppe moved to Signajewka,..." Gets rid of the double usage of Gruppe in the same sentence as well.

Battle of Moscow and Crimean Campaign

  • "On 30 September 1941, the Gruppe was temporary transferred away...": should be "temporarily"
  • Duplicate link: Geschwaderstab
  • "he filed claim for nine...": should be "filed a claim" or "filed claims for.
  • "further 21 aircraft received heavy damaged and another 27 were lightly damaged": "a further 21 aircraft received heavy damage...

Prisoner of war and later life

  • "Pass Strub"; is this a place or should the Strub be italics?

Bibliography

  • Some of the books from the UK/USA lack country of publication. Eg, Weal includes this information but Holmes and Isby don't. Spick lacks a state of publication while Toliver has a state but abbreviated (in contrast to Bergström et al and Fiest).

That is it for me. Zawed (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think I addressed it all. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I made one small fix but am now adding my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:08, 9 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.
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 promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25th Battalion (New Zealand)

edit
Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

25th Battalion (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the appropriate criteria. The 25th Battalion was part of 6th Infantry Brigade, 2nd New Zealand Division, and served in the campaigns in Greece, North Africa, and Italy. It has just undergone a GA review and hope that as a result of the A-Class review it will be further improved. Besides, I think it is about time we had an A-Class article for a New Zealand battalion given all the ones we have for Australian battalions... Zawed (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article for GA status and I think it is in pretty good shape. Whole heartedly agree that we need more A-class articles on NZ infantry battalions! I have a couple of further suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if it would be possible to add a note, or an explanation as to how the 2 NZEF infantry battalions were designated. E.g. why did they start numbering them at 18? [76]
  • Have added a note to this effect.
  • also I wonder if links could be added to the battle honours to the various battles themselves?
  • Hmmm, this may create dupelinks as some are already linked in the main text of the article. Plus I suspect a few may not have articles yet.

Thanks for the review, cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to North Africa and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article provides comprehensive coverage of its topic. I have the following comments:

  • Additional photos and maps would be helpful
  • Have added a few photos. Unfortunately, compared to some other 2NZEF battalions, there are relatively few images relating to 25th Battalion that I can be confident on regarding their copyright status. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can it be said what the battalion's casualties in Greece were?
  • "Here, along with the rest of the 6th Brigade, the battalion manned defences against a possible attack" - from whom? (irregulars?) Any Axis forces would have had to pass through the Alexandria-Cairo area first.
  • "The battalion shifted to the Baggush Box" - where was this?
  • "Burton, promoted to lieutenant colonel, commanded the battalion until 12 September at which time he went on leave and was replaced by Lieutenant Colonel Ian Bonifant" - is "went on leave" a euphemism in the source, or was he due for leave in NZ? This seems a bit unusual.
  • Source does state leave, I suspect to Cairo because it is too early for furlough back to NZ (which only started in late 1943). I have added a note on his later commands. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as far as I'm aware.

Nick-D, thanks for the review, much appreciated. I have made a start on some of the issues you have raised, I will be working on the others over the next couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, I have finished off the remaining work, I believe I have addressed all your points. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, though I've made a suggestion above. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • No dabs, external links check out, no duplicate links, no issues with repeated refs/ref consolidation (no action req'd)
    • Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc, only seems to be picking up on proper nouns and common words which can not be avoided [77] (no action req'd).
    • Images mostly lack alt text so you might consider adding it, although it is not a req for A (suggestion only)
    • Image review: all images appear to be PD and have the req'd information and templates.
    • Captions look ok.
    • "The 6th Brigade moved on quickly to take Point 175, which was held by German forces, as soon as possible..." The "as soon as possible" part might be redundant here so I suggest removing it (suggestion only).
    • "It reentered the frontlines, near the town of Faenza, in late November, under V Corps..." Could V Corps be wikilinked so as to confirm its identity.
    • In places there seems to be an overuse of ranks (per WP:SURNAME they are really only req'd at first instance as part of formal introduction). Of cse in some places you use this quite correctly when key officers are promoted, and to avoid confusion, so this is wiggle room etc but you might want to review your usage here and remove ranks when not req'd (suggestion only).
    • I made a few edits, pls see here to check them [78]
    • Otherwise this looks very good. Anotherclown (talk) 00:24, 10 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.
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 promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I've been working on this article on and off for the last five years. It covers the little-known, but fairly significant, series of bombardments on Japanese cities conducted by US, British and New Zealand warships during the last weeks of World War II. While the attacks didn't achieve the goal of provoking a Japanese response (which the Allies were confident of being able to defeat), they did damage some significant industrial facilities. The urban areas of several of the targeted cities were also damaged, resulting in hundreds of deaths. The ability of the Allied forces to sail within sight of the Japanese coastline and bombard targets at will also convinced many Japanese that the war was lost.

The article was a DYK back in 2011 and passed a GA review last February. It's since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it meets the A-class criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment: G'day, Nick, fascinating topic. Just a quick one from me at this stage, but I will try to come back this weekend. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Turner 1997, p. 224" appears as a short citation, but not a long citation. Also, it appears to use a different format to the others. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent caps: "the home islands..." v. "Japanese Home Islands"; AustralianRupert (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...command of Gene Fluckey..." --> do we know Fluckey's rank?
  • word order: "On 20 June USS Barb commenced a patrol off Japan's northern islands under the command of Gene Fluckey fitted with an experimental 5-inch rocket launcher intended for shore bombardments. Shortly after midnight on 22 June..." Perhaps might be smoother as: " On 20 June USS Barb, under the command of Gene Fluckey, commenced a patrol off Japan's northern islands. Fitted with an experimental 5-inch rocket launcher intended for shore bombardments, shortly after midnight on 22 June..."
  • "...Allied naval aircraft, however..." --> "however" is probably unnecessary here, or potentially might be better placed elsewhere rather than at the end of the sentence;
  • " were bombarded was reported to have increased.[50] The appearance of Allied warships just off the coast also convinced many Japanese that the war had been lost..." --> This might be smoother as: "...were bombarded was reported to have increased.[50] Nevertheless, the appearance of Allied warships just off the coast convinced many Japanese that the war had been lost..." ?

Images are appropriately licensed, but I'd suggest scaling up the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki, done Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert.

  • "802 16 in": probably a MOS violation, though it's not a MOS rule I'm a fan of.
  • Consistency: first "ironworks" is treated as singular, then: "Allied aircraft photographed the ironworks following the attack, but photo interpreters underestimated the extent to which they had been damaged", then: "the ironwork's".
  • Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited the first two sections and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - some minor points / suggestions / nitpicks:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Pećanac Chetniks

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Pećanac Chetniks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This organisation was a collaborationist irregular force in the German-occupied territory of Serbia during 1941–1943. Its leader, Kosta Pećanac, was a famous Chetnik leader during the Balkan Wars and World War I. The article on Pećanac himself was one of the first articles I developed to FA back in 2013. This article passed GAN in late 2014 and I have recently made some tweaks to bring it up to the A-Class criteria. All suggestions for its improvement will be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, good work as usual. I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox: "1941–1943" --> "1941–43" per WP:DATERANGE
  • irregular caps: " Association against Bulgarian Bandits" --> " Association Against Bulgarian Bandits";
  • "Pećanac was requested by the Yugoslav Ministry of the Army and Navy to prepare for guerrilla operations" --> "...the Yugoslav Ministry of the Army and Navy requested that Pećanac prepare for guerrilla operations..."?
  • "...reputation he had developed in the Balkan Wars and World War I." I wonder if a little bit more of Pećanac's previous service could be briefly mentioned in the Background?
  • "Nothing is known of Pećanac's activities..." --> "Nothing is recorded of Pećanac's activities"?
  • in the References is there a page range that can be provided for the Newman chapter within the Gerwarth and Horne book?
  • in the References: "Cornell UP" --> "Cornell University Press"

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I've copyedited down to Formation and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, Dan! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support:
    • No dabs, external links check out, no duplicate links, all images have alt text, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [80] (no action req'd).
    • Slightly repetitive prose here: "...disbanding them in September 1942, and all but one had been dissolved by the end of 1942..." (specifically 2 x 1942). Consider something like: "...disbanding them in September 1942, and all but one had been dissolved by the end of the year." (minor nitpick, suggestion only)
    • Otherwise this article is in good shape and nothing really stood out as being an issue to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Background: Could we have a bracketed translation of "vojvoda"? More of a suggestion on my part than a requirement.
  • Formation section: "At this time and for a considerable time after,..."; the close repeated usage of "time". Suggest replacing the second usage with "period"
  • Collaboration with occupation and quisling forces section: aren't headings supposed to be title case?
  • Collaboration with occupation and quisling forces section: maybe link: Serbian Gendarmerie (or at least the Gendarmerie).
  • Collaboration with occupation and quisling forces: "He also recommended that Mihailović's detachments disband and join his detachments."; close repeated use of "detachments".
  • Collaboration with occupation and quisling forces: "...being paid and supplied by the Serbian Gendarmerie Command." I initially thought this was another organisation to the Serbian Gendarmerie previously mentioned but it is actually the same isn't it? If so, maybe delete "Command" to avoid confusion.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think all we are waiting on now is an image review. I had a quick look, but to be honest it was beyond my expertise. @Nikkimaria: would you mind taking a quick look and letting us know your thoughts? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two appear to be problematic - since they are hosted on Commons, they need to be PD in both the US and their country of origin. It's not clear to me on what basis the US Holocaust Museum believes they are PD and where. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, I've sorted out the document one, as the local copyright expired in 1994 it is also PD in the US. Looking for a better license for the other one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've resorted to a NFR for the infobox image. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 22 February 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nike-X

edit
Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Nike-X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is one of a series of articles on US Army anti-ballistic missile efforts spanning the 1950s to 1980s. Perhaps one of the least known among these efforts, Nike-X was by far the most technically advanced and capable. It was "defeated" largely by its cost-exchange ratio, not technical problems, and the logic behind this decision illustrates the underlying problems with the entire ABM concept. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like a quality article. I'm doing less at A-class these days, but I'll be happy to tackle it at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 06:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just take it there @Dank:?
At least two Milhist reviewers tend to review here rather than at FAC, and lots of people review at A-class off and on. A-class reviews tend to be helpful and on-target, but occasionally there's a long wait to get 3 reviews. Your call. It's all good. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll just let it roll! Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: starting today, I'm doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. So, here's your peer review: I've copyedited down to Zeus problems and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a stopper at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • use re-entry vehicle and ARPA in full at first mention, then abbreviate
Done, although I only found a single RV.
  • threat tube, cost-exchange ratio, ad hoc, atmospheric filtering, decluttering, He later added that, harden, clutter fence, types, pulse chain, Search Signal Processor, Video Pulse Converter, surveillance mode, threat verification, engagement mode, space array, shouldn't be in italics per MOS:ITALICS
"A technical term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted."
  • suggest using ABM in full the first time it is used in the body
Done.
  • would not eaffect the operation
Done.
  • jammers is mentioned, but nothing about what these were
Good point.
  • ability of the U. S. has an errant space
Fixed.
  • what the offence would do, suggest opposition
Agreed, reads more smoothly.
  • 6-to1 needs an extra dash
Fixed.
  • US Army needs some periods for consistency with U.S. Route 70, and ability of the U.S. as do others. I know the Chicago MOS deprecates the periods, but I think the curent reading for WP is that we aim for consistency within an article.
I went the "other way" instead, as I've had complains about U.S. in previous articles.
  • I don't think redlinking "see also:"'s is kosher ie HIBEX etc
I'm loath to remove this because I have an article on that in prep.
  • suggest argued against such a system using a model in which both the Soviets and the U.S. have 100 ICBMs. the current formulation is conversational
I could not find an easier way to explain this though, and similar formulations similar to this appear in Kaplan.
  • An even greater existential threat to whom? I assume the Soviets? Suggest The U.S. Navy's Polaris missile fleet posed a far greater existential threat to the U.S.S.R. than Soviet missiles posed to the U.S., because it was largely...
Fixed - and no, the threat was to the Air Force. Polaris could do everything Minuteman could, but was essentially invulnerable to attack.
  • allowing a small number of Sprints to defend
Fixed.
  • suggest force any counterforce jars a bit
Agreed.
  • suggest the tense is a bit patchy, Unfortunately, this also leads being current tense, preceded by the idea was simply
I have this problem in much of my writing, largely because I write it over long periods. If you see more examples, let me know.
  • fighting broke out seems a little colloquial in this context. Perhaps disagreements arose, while specifying between whom
Better?
  • suggest replacing would have to have with would require
Done.
  • worth pointing out that Rostow was NSA, and Rusk was SECSTATE
Indeed.
  • at the same Ccomplex
Changed, but is this the right case? It is both a description and a proper name.
  • re-entry is rendered as reentry at times, aim for consistency with hyphenation
Removed hyphens, following the RV article.
  • no alt text on images (this is an accessibility issue for screen readers, but is not required at ACR)
  • checklinks comes up with 403 (dead link) errors on Ritter 2010 and Reed 1991, and timed-out on Moeller 1995
All fixed.

Wow Maury, an incredibly detailed article on what I found to be quite a hard to grasp subject, but I was low-tech soldier, an AN/PRC-25 radio dazzled me... Jokes aside, there are lots of tech-jargon, initialisations and acronyms which all affect readability. The article also exceeds 9,500 words, making it a very long read. So, readability is definitely an issue, and I would seriously consider spinning off some sub-articles and leaving a summary in their place in order to make it more readable, especially if you want to take this to FAC. I also suggest alternating the images left and right to break up the text a bit more, rather than have them all on the right. I'd also add a few more images if you retain the article at this length. Make sure all the sources that have a numerical identifier like ISSN, OCLC etc have one. If my MOS/prose comments are addressed, I'd still be keen to support promotion on that score, but the readability issue is a real concern, and I think it might be an obstacle at FAC. Well done for a very comprehensive article on a technical and complex subject. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is bad. I spent a significant amount of time trying to ensure I explained every term and give clear examples of how the various tradeoffs worked out. My impetus for writing this article is that in spite of studying this issue since I was a kid, there is no single article on the topic that really explains how it is that the US figured they were better off with no defense. That is a mystery worth explaining, IMHO. Yes, it is complex, and it was even moreso for the people actually involved, but that, to me, argues for a long article that really explains it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't get too miz, Maury. I'm just one reviewer, and I wouldn't be opposing at FAC, I just wouldn't support at this length. I think there is plenty of scope for a 2–3 spinoffs that would trim the content of this article down a bit. Just a reminder about the ISSNs for the magazines, and alternating the images left and right per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only things holding up my support here are sources lacking numerical identifiers, some sort of response to my point about alternating images, and perhaps a few more images given the article length. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've added any numerical identifiers that I could find. Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/suggestions: this is an impressive article, Maury. Thank you for your efforts. I wasn't able to get through the full article, as I am out of my depth with something this technical, so I can't comment on those aspects. But I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • at five paragraphs, the lead is too long per WP:LEAD; it may be possible to merge a paragraph somewhere;
Fixed.
  • as an American topic, I believe the article should use US English variation; however, I spotted some British English, e.g. “kilometres” and “defence”. Mainly these are in the convert templates – you can force these to use US spelling by adding “|sp=us” to the template ;
Neat trick, added.
  • “would still die in an all-out exchange…” --> I suggest potentially rewording this slightly to make it clear that this didn’t happen, maybe: “would still have died in the event of an all-out exchange”?
Removed that section.
  • the page range presentation in the References/citations appears inconsistent;
Sorry, can you be more specific? Or is that leading to...
Sure, an example of the inconsistency is "p. 2-17" v "pp. 37–38". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, yes, this is actually correct. The Bell reference uses section-dash-page numbering style. It's confusing, I agree. Open to any suggestions here.
  • the citation style appears slightly inconsistent, with the majority being short citations but some using longer form, e.g. Holst, Clearwater, Cochrane etc.
I use a simple rule: if I'm using the reference in a single para or block I use an inline, if I refer to it all over I use a redirect. This makes both the edit-text and references block easier to read and understand, IMHO.
Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “File:East oblique of missile site control building - Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex, Missile Site Control Building, Northeast of Tactical Road; southeast of Tactical Road South, HAER ND-9-B-9.tif” – this would probably be more visually appealing if the border were cropped. I can do this for you, if you would like;
Feel free, by all means! And do you have move permissions? The file name is a bit ridiculous.
Had to upload a new version as my computer doesn't like .tif. New file is here: File:Stanley R Mickelsen Safeguard Complex Missile Site Control (cropped).jpg. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “and President Johnson didn't ask for it” --> probably best to avoid contractions;
Fixed.
  • “there simply isn't enough” --> as above;
Done.
  • “system simply wasn't worth deploying” --> as above;
Done.
  • in the Bibliography, the works should probably be in alphabetical order, e.g. Hayward before Kaplan, Read and Ritter before Technical etc.
Done.
  • are there citations that could be added for Notes A, B, C, F, G and H?
  • “around $5 billion ($36 billion today)” --> probably best to define what “today” means, e.g. “in 2015 terms”, or whatever is accurate;
This is actually "today", it's being calculated when the article is displayed.
No worries, then. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz, AustralianRupert: Maury, if you're headed to FAC, you should worry. See WP:INFLATION for the template description. You want {{Inflation|US|595|1982|fmt=eq}} (their example), with fmt=eq, not fmt=c. WP:DATED prohibits (prohibits at FAC, at least) "today", regardless of whether a template is responsible. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make a difference (at FAC) that the year is updated automatically, because the reader won't be expecting that ... they'll assume that "today" means the same thing it would on other Wikipedia pages, that is, on whatever day the edit was made. So the prohibition at WP:DATED applies. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I just noticed the figure you're inflating is $40B. See the disclaimer at the top of WP:INFLATION. I know there's a problem using the inflation template, but I don't know where to direct you for a better conversion table. Not really my area. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of this makes me laugh. If this is all we have left to argue about at the highest levels of the wiki MOS world, the project is doomed. DOOMED!
  • be careful of grocer’s apostrophes: “…and 54 Titan II's.” (should just be “Titan IIs”)
Ok, what is the rule here?
Apostrophes denote contractions or possession, in this case it is be used incorrectly for a plural. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, never heard the term "grocer’s apostrophes" before.
  • “held in a 4 bit register” --> probably should be “held in a 4-bit register” (I think…)
Fixed.
  • “where a 500 ton ball of…” --> probably should be “where a 500-ton ball of…”.
It's an nbsp there - and I've been told repeatedly never use a dash here.
G'day, it is a compound adjective, I believe. Per the Manual of Style (MOS:NUM): "To form a value and a unit name into a compound adjective use a hyphen or hyphens "... I'm not really a grammarian, though, so maybe I'm wrong. I'll ping Dan. @Dank: thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
500-ton. If you use a convert template with "adj=on", you'll see they insert the hyphen in front of a written-out unit of measure (ton), but not in front of an abbreviation (ml). - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support a truly impressive article. I found the technical aspects, but especially the strategic considerations behind its (non-)deployment very well explained. I made a few tweaks here and there, but I feel the prose is fine. Well done! Constantine ✍ 17:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, sorry for the tardiness in all this, but as of 320am last night I'm a new dad again! I'll be getting to any lingering points Wednesday. Peace! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great news, congratulations! Anotherclown (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Say hello to the little one for me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, poor guy was a little early on the draw, so after a week sleeping in a chair at the hospital we got the all clear on Sunday and finally came home. So far so good! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - This article looks in fairly good shape to me so I've only got a few comments:
    • Every paragraph of the lead starts using the same construction: "Nike-X was", "Nike-X addressed" and "Nike-X would be". This is a bit repetitive so perhaps reword a few?
    • Per Wikipedia:Hatnote linking to redlinks is generally not preferred, that said if you are intending on creating these articles shortly I wouldn't advise removing them just to have to add them again later.
      • Removed.
    • It might pay to briefly mention the Cold War and the Nuclear arms race and other related concepts in order to provide context as to why this system was developed.
      • Very true.
    • A few abbreviations used are not expanded at first use (I saw ICBM and TACMAR at least, not sure if there are others)
      • Fixed.
    • There seems to be a typo or some sort artifact from an accidental edit that is resulting in a url being displayed here in the text: "and the MAR would then perform triangulation.[73] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nike-X&action=edit#..."
    • The use of inconsistent citation formats (i.e. short cites such as "Bell Labs 1975, pp. 5–25" and longer cites "Clearwater, John (1996). Johnson, McNamara, and the Birth of SALT and the ABM Treaty 1963–1969. Universal-Publishers. p. 33. ISBN 9781581120622") probably needs to be rectified to meet the criteria.
      • As noted above, this was deliberate and I know it passes FAC (AI Mk. IV).
    • Page ranges in your short cites are not always consistently presented. For instance they should be "pp.1–2" using a double "p" and an en-rule. In some places you do this correctly and in others you use a single "p" and a hyphen, for instance "p.1-2"
      • And this is due to the Bell reference, which uses this format. I'm open to any/all suggestions on better ways to address this.
        • Take refs 67 (which you present as "Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-22") vs 68 (which you present as "Bell Labs 1975, pp. 2–22"). Its a subtle difference but do each of these citations refer to the same work and pages? If so it needs to follow the same format (i.e. "pp" and use an enrule) otherwise the sfn template will not automatically consolidate them because it assumes they are different). Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also ref 78 (which you present as "Bell Labs 1975, pp. 9–1"). Should this be "pp. 9–10"? Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bibliography is not quite alphabetically sorted, i.e. you have the author "Technical Editor" listed after "Pursglove" but before "Reed".
      • Fixed.
    • Some of the works in the bibliography are missing an isbn/oclc/issn etc. These can be found at Worldcat.org if you decide you want to add them to be consistent with the other works used. Anotherclown (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of these have been done now, although I note that ref 42 "Freedman, Lawrence (2014). U.S. Intelligence and the Soviet Strategic Threat. Princeton University Press. p. 123." still lacks an isbn. Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • A couple of other (very minor) points:
          • There are a few websites used as citations which seem to be missing some bibliographic info (specifically access dates, but also sometimes publisher and author etc (e.g. Orlov, Alexander. "A "Hot" Front in the Cold War". Central Intelligence Agency" and "Squirt Missile Ready to Fire". White Sands Missile Range Museum"). If this information is available it should probably be added.
          • All works used as references are missing place of publication. As far as I'm aware its not a requirement but you might consider adding it (suggestion only). Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • for everyone at the Holloman Air Force Base Delete the "the"
Fixed.
  • Suggest that these two sentences be combined: To hold the 5,800 staff and their dependents, the radar and its underground equipment areas had to be completely emptied. Starting in 1970, the radar began to be dismantled.
Nice, like that one.
  • Need links for some specialized electronic/computer terms like diode, strip line, and register
Added.
  • S band, etc., should be hyphenated when followed by a noun like radar.
Following the articles on these, there's no hyphen.

Support

OK I've made lots of little tweaks, and now I think we've covered most of the above. In summary:

  • a couple more refs, more to provide readable information than to cover gaps in the existing ones
  • reduced the radar sections to remove most of the tech and be largely a description of how and why it did what it did
  • Various GR tweaks and such

Which leaves:

  • I did not move the images. Reading over the MOS it seems this is used mostly when the images would otherwise be too clustered. If there's a problem here it's the opposite one, and when I did some experiments moving them I found they moved over the sub-headers which was very bad looking.
  • Page numbering. The problem here is the Bell references, which uses dashes in its page numbers. I'm open to any suggestions here.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: you are the only reviewer who may not have come to a resolution on this article. I'm thinking that this is pretty much ready for passing, unless you have any repechages? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 3 February 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

27th Infantry Division Savska

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

27th Infantry Division Savska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Elements of this largely Croat-manned Yugoslav division began to mutiny before German units crossed the Yugoslav border in force, and even took over a city before it completely disintegrated in the face of the German assault. Recently promoted to GA. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this for GA, and I believe that this meets the A-class criteria as well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I've copyedited down to Structure and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dabs, external links check out / no dead links, no duplicate links, all images have alt text, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [81] (no action req'd).
    • Images all seem to be PD and have the req'd information (no action req'd).
    • Captions look ok (no action req'd).
    • Perhaps add the article to a few more categories (e.g. Category:Military units and formations established in 1935 and Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1941 - assuming these dates are correct).
    • Are there some words missing here: "who refused to resist Germans they considered their liberators from Serbian oppression during the interwar period."? For instance this might be better: "who refused to resist the Germans which they considered their liberators from Serbian oppression during the interwar period."
    • Are casualty figures for the division provided by the sources available? I'm assuming from previous reviews of other Yugoslav formations that they are not but thought I'd ask just in case.
    • Likewise with the pre-war activities of the formation. Is there anything available on this? Anotherclown (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am supportive of an A-class rating. Moving forward (have I said this before?), the article would benefit from a template listing the various Yugoslav Army divisions. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/5th Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/5th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another Second Australian Imperial Force infantry battalion. This one formed part of the 17th Brigade, which formed part of the 6th Division; it was only of only two Australian infantry battalions to fight against all the major Axis powers during the war. The article has recently passed a GA nomination and I would like to improve it further through the ACR process. Unfortunately, I only have the battalion history book for another three or four weeks, so I'm hoping to try to conclude the review in that time. Thank you to all who stop by. Thank you for your time. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I copyedited down to North Africa, Greece and Syria 1941–42. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anotherclown, Ian Rose, Nick-D, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67, Parsecboy, and Zawed: G'day, all, sorry for the ping. I have to return my main source for this article in three weeks, so I'm hoping some of you might be able to review? @Anotherclown: I have expanded the post war details a bit, based on your comment at GAN. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks for your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- I've just had a go at the lead and infobox, will try and return later this w/e for further copyediting/review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Link Puckapunyal in the lead
  2. Put (2nd AIF) after Second Australian Imperial Force
  3. The four rifle companies are hardly a nucleus, as they make up most of the battalion
  4. Link Port Melbourne, Victoria
  5. "the majority of the prisoners... The majority of the battalion," Overused phrase
  6. We can also afford to lose a "subsequently" or two
  7. "totaling" should be "totalling"
  8. "Due to the entry of Japan into the war, the battalion was subsequently ordered to return to Australia following a request by the Australian government as they were needed for the fighting in New Guinea." This is not correct. The British government decided to send the 6th Division to defend Indonesia. See Long, Greece, Crete and Syria, pp. 549-550
  9. "In early July, the battalion finally received orders to return to Australia, as the threat passed," -> "had passed"
  10. "the 17th Brigade was despatched to relieve Kanga Force" No, the 17th Infantry Brigade was sent to reinforce Kanga Force.
  11. "where they embarked on two Liberty ships, the Charles Steinmetz and Barsfontein". While the former was a liberty ship, the latter was not. It was a Dutch ship chartered by USASOS. And you have the name wrong too; it was the Boschfontein Here's a picture of it.
    FWIW, the 2/5th Battalion War Diary called it the "Bos Fontein". Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "In 1948, the Citizens Military Force was re-constituted" Should be Citizen Military Forces

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsSupport
    • No dabs, external links check out / no dead links, no duplicate links, all images have alt text, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [83] (no action req'd).
    • Images all seem to be PD and have the req'd information (no action req'd).
    • Captions look ok (no action req'd).
    • Should the lead mention Crete? (I think I mentioned this in the GA review but don't think we ended up doing so - was there a reason for this? If so then disregard of cse).
    • Prose here is a little repetitive: "After the battalion's personnel had assembled, between November 1939 and April 1940 the battalion..." ("the battalion" twice seems a little redundant).
    • There are a couple of longish paragraphs you might consider splitting:
      • The second paragraph of the "New Guinea 1942–45" section (perhaps break at "The battalion did not take part in any fighting")
      • The last paragraph of the "New Guinea 1942–45" section (perhaps break it at "Finally, late in the war...")
    • "Consisting primarily of small unit actions which inflicted proportionately heavy casualties..." do you mean "Consisting primarily of small unit actions which inflicted proportionately heavy casualties on both sides..."? I was a little confused on the exact meaning of this sentence. Perhaps clarify?
    • "The battalion was subsequently disbanded in early February 1946 while at Puckapunyal in Victoria..." Although you mention Puckapunyal in a few places earlier in the text this is the first time you mention that it is in Victoria. You should probably do that at first use I'd suggest instead.
    • The Bn's total casualty figures as per the AWM of 216 killed and 390 wounded are a little different from those available in Johnston The Proud 6th, p. 242 which states "149 KIA, 39 DOW, 5 DOAS, 401 WIA, 115 POW" - perhaps include these in a footnote to acknowledge the different information available?
    • Also you might consider including the casualty figures available in Johnston The Proud 6th for each campaign the bn was involved in (where you don't already have overall campaign figures). These are as fols:
      • Libya: 26 KIA, 6 DOW, 60 WIA (p. 242)
      • Greece: 18 KIA, 2 DOW, 28 WIA, 55 POW (p. 243)
      • Crete: 2 KIA, 1 DOW, 3 WIA, 58 POW (p. 243)
      • Syria: 9 KIA, 5 DOW, 28 WIA, 2 POW (p. 243)
      • Wau-Salamaua: 77 KIA, 15 DOW, 2 DOAS, 165 WIA (p. 244)
      • Aitape-Wewak: 27 KIA, 10 DOW, 2 DOAS, 116 WIA (p. 244)
    • I fixed a typo and a duplicate link and added a wikilink, these were my edits [84]. Anotherclown (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I might swap "battle" and "combat" in the last line of the first paragraph in the formation section. Something about "battalion into battle" grates on my ears.
  • HMT Ettrick is probably worth a red link - seems to have been a liner, so the ship should be notable.
  • What happened to the remainder of the men who were sent to Crete? About 70 men were sent, and the casualty total only accounts for 64.
  • "ailing to Port Moresby from Milne Bay on the MV Duntroon, an advance party of two companies from the battalion was flown into Wau on 24 January to hastily reinforce the small force around Ballams, with the remainder – totalling about 450 men – arriving on 29 January, after which they secured the airfield, which was now under direct Japanese fire, as the two companies that had arrived earlier were pulled back from Ballams" - this is overly long and should be split. I'd probably put the break "..the small force around Ballams. The remainder &ndash totalling..."
  • Made a few tweaks - please check them for accuracy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 7 February 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/48th Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/48th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 2/48th Battalion was a 2nd AIF infantry battalion that was primarily recruited from South Australian volunteers. Fighting in the Middle East where it saw action at Tobruk and El Alamein, the 2/48th was part of the 9th Division and is considered to be Australia's most highly decorated unit of the war, with four members receiving the Victoria Cross for their actions during the war. I took this article to GA about five years ago, and having recently obtained a copy of the battalion history (temporarily through an inter library loan) I would like to improve it through the ACR process. Thank you to everyone who stops by. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work taking this key topic on and developing the article to a high standard. I have the following comments:

  • "the battalion was formed around a nucleus of four rifle companies—designated 'A' through to 'D'" - is it possible to say when the support company was added?
  • The sentence starting with "Upon arrival in the Middle East" is a bit lengthy
  • "Shortly after this, the Germans landed forces in Africa to reinforce the Italians and the British forces in Libya were forced " - the Commonwealth (not just British) forces needed to retreat because the Germans went on the offensive, not that they landed
  • The half para starting with "The 26th Brigade was moved south" is a little bit unclear - swapping the order of the two sentences might help
  • "The 2/48th commenced their attack" - following on from the above, a bit more context would be helpful: I presume this was a counter-attack on Rommel's forces?
  • Can anything be said about how (and when) the battalion was rebuilt after El Alamein?
  • "after which parades were held in every capital city" - did the 2/48th parade through Adelaide?
  • "after which he was commissioned and returned to the battalion as a lieutenant" perhaps note that this was highly unusual?
  • "the 2/48th was in the vanguard of the attack, leading the brigade in at 07:15 hours" - while I'm not sure of the exact timing, the 2/48th and 2/23rd Battalions landed alongside each other, so the 2/48th wasn't really the "vanguard"
  • "Throughout May and into June as the Australians pressed towards the island's airfield" - the airfield (and other low ground on the west coast) was captured within a few days of the landing: the main challenge was capturing the interior of the island
  • "mountain ranges" - while the terrain was very difficult, the island's interior is usually described as being hills
  • "the drive on Fukukaku" - perhaps tweak this to note that that Fukukaku was the main Japanese position Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed: nice work with this article 10:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I've copyedited down to Actions in North Africa and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComments - this article is looking very good, a few minor (mostly prose) points though:
    • All tool checks ok (all images have alt text, no dabs, external links check out, earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [88]) (no action req'd)
    • All images appear to be PD and have the req'd licences (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • "A unit of the all-volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force" - perhaps introduce the abbrev "2nd AIF" here (which you use in a note).
    • Repetitive prose here "The following month, the battalion marched through the city of Adelaide prior to its deployment overseas, and the following month..." ("following month" x s)
    • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of ranks using hyphens (for instance you use "Lieutenant-General" and " Lieutenant General" and "Lieutenant-Colonel" vs "Lieutenant Colonel")
    • Wikilink Oakbank, Dimra, Mersa Matruh, Fuka (see Fukah), Trinity Beach, Henry T. Allen (see USS Henry T. Allen (APA-15)), Jivevaneng (which you have misspelled I think as "Jivevenang", Kalinga (see Kalinga, Queensland or Wooloowin), HMS Empire Spearhead,
    • Wording here seems a bit awkward: "The defence system at Tobruk..." perhaps instead consider "The defencive system at Tobruk..."
    • "... pushed five miles south..." perhaps use the convert template here?
    • "In late June 1942, Axis forces commanded by Erwin Rommel..." perhaps add Rommel's rank.
    • "As the Allies went on the advance, the battalion was withdrawn from the front and moved back to Tel el Eisa...", perhaps simplify to "As the Allies went on the advance, the battalion was moved back to Tel el Eisa..." (you've already mentioned it was withdrawn so doing so again seems a little repetitive to me)
    • "...had finally agreed to provide the necessary shipping to make this a reality..." consider something like "...had finally agreed to provide the necessary shipping for this to occur."
    • "The convoy carrying the battalion put into Fremantle in mid-February..." - this has already been mentioned in the final sentence of the last para so seems redundant. Perhaps lose the first instance?
    • "...as the Japanese launched a counteroffensive on the Australian lodgement..." consider instead: "...as the Japanese launched a counteroffensive against the Australian lodgement..."
    • Is there a missing word here: "being withdrawn back to Finschhafen, campaign..."
    • Move the wikilink for Manoora to here: "the battalion embarked upon the HMAS Manoora..." (you link it later on)
    • Wording is a little repetitive here: "Their next major engagement came in late May when the 2/48th was engaged..." ("engagement" and "engaged"). Perhaps reword one? Anotherclown (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: another great bit of work AR, just minor quibbles:

  • linking of countries inconsistent, e.g. Greece is linked, Libya, Syria, New Guinea aren't.
  • Actions of North Africa: the final sentence of the 1st para uses the word "first" twice, perhaps use "initial action" to remove one of them?
  • For sake of consistency in treatment of major place names (countries aside as mentioned above), link Alexandria, Palestine, Queensland (note there is a link to Ravenshoe, Queensland later in the article, you may want to amend this)
  • "...while on the left they..."; they being the right forward company previously mentioned?
  • "...bridge over the Sibengkok and..." Missing word: River?

And that's me done. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good, have added my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:55, 8 February 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman

edit
Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the criteria. Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman was one of a small group of Civil War soldiers of Hawaiian descent who have been subject of renewed scholarly interest of Asian/Pacific Islander soldiers in the American Civil War in the recent decade. Thanks for any feedback. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, nice work with this one. I have a few minor nitpicks only: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Bibliography, "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War". In Shively, Carol A. Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Civil War", as this is a chapter in a book, can a page range be provided for the chapter (to make this consistent with the way the journals are presented)?
  • some of the works in the Bibliography might have OCLC numbers, which can usually be found at worldcat.org: [91]
  • the Kam work probably should be moved out of the External links section to either the Bibliography or a Further reading section
  • in the infobox: "1862–1863" should be "1862–63" per WP:DATERANGE;
  • the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following as overlinked: Honolulu (in the lead), Battle of Fredericksburg, Union (American Civil War);
  • "...of "a pair of thin, high-heeled and narrow soled boots" he had purchased..." --> the citation of the work where this quote comes from probably should be placed directly after the quote;
  • citation order: "...mixed race,[53][1]" --> "...mixed race,[1][53]" (there are a few examples of this)

@AustralianRupert: Let me know what else I can address. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor prose tweak, but other than that it looks good for A-class to me. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 16 January 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/17th Battalion (Australia)

edit
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/17th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another 2nd AIF infantry battalion, this one was raised in New South Wales in mid-1940 and served as part of the "Magnificent 9th Division" seeing action in Tobruk, at El Alamein, in New Guinea and Borneo. This one was taken through GAN over the Christmas break and I would like to improve it further through the A-class Review process. Thank you to everyone who stops by. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsSupport
    • I reviewed recently for GA so I think this is of a pretty high standard already. I've a few brief points for now but should get time to go through this more thoroughly tomorrow:
    • The image details for File:HMS LST-9 AWM.jpg are a bit lacking. It currently says its from Navsource however its clearly an AWM image (see original here [92]). I suggest treating per similar AWM images re sourcing tags etc - also it will need a PD US tag.
    • The name of the camp in Palestine the bn used in 1940 and the locations it garrisoned in Syria and Lebanon could probably be added from the Bn history (I'll have a look in a bit myself for this).
    • A bit more specific information on the bn's involvement in the fighting at El Alamein is probably req'd (again I'll check the bn history myself for this). Anotherclown (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for taking a look. Enjoy the cricket tonight, should be a good one, I think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. What you added re second Alamein now looks sufficient to me. I also added a bit covering the period b/n first and second Alamein and tweaked the Bn strength to be that on the eve of the second battle per the Bn history. Pls feel free to review my additions and change as req'd if I muffed anything. I need to do a bit of study now so I'll have to leave the rest until tomorrow. Anotherclown (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, mate, hope the study goes well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Back now, the rest of my review is as follows:
              • All tool checks seem fine (alt text, no dabs, no unnecessary duplicate links, no dead external links, earwig tool detects no issues with close paraphrase [93])
              • Perhaps include the battalion motto (i.e. “what we have we hold”) and colours (i.e. white on green) in the infobox (per similar articles).
              • Probably include H.D. Wells book B Company, Second Seventeenth Infantry in a "further reading" section (WorldCat details here [94])
              • Also there is a fairly good website for the bn here [95] which seems to be fairly well referenced – perhaps included in an "external links" section?
              • Perhaps add a hatnote to 2nd/17th Battalion, Royal New South Wales Regiment given the very similar name some readers my be confused?
              • "...these were supported by a battalion headquarters and a headquarters company with six specialist platoons." I wonder if adding the roles of the specialist platoons here would be instructive? (suggestion only)
              • Prose here probably could be tightened: "The 9th Division was then subsequently withdrawn back to Gaza", consider instead something like "The 9th Division was subsequently withdrawn back to Gaza..."
              • Wikilink David C. Shanks (see USNS David C. Shanks (T-AP-180))
              • Wikilink Brooketon, Townsville, Jivevaneng
              • There is a typo in the battle honours section – you write "Jivevaneng–Kumawa" which is of course the correct spelling of "Jivevaneng"; however, I believe the official battle honour was actually misspelt by the Australian Army in 1961 when it was awarded as "Jivenaneng" (a good ref for this is the Bn history p. iii, also Rodger Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces p. 361)
              • A memorial to the 2/17th Battalion was built at Jivevaneng in 1997, this could probably be included in the text (perhaps at the end of the "disbandment" section? (ref is Bn history pp. 273-274, 366)
              • Otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in very good shape, and I only have nit-picking comments:

  • "In March 1941 the battalions of the 9th Division were sent into the desert to relieve the 6th Division units" - maybe just say that this was part of the 9th reliving the 6th? (especially as all the elements of the 6th, including its HQ, went to Greece)
  • "the New Zealanders" perhaps "elements of the 2nd New Zealand Division" or similar?
  • "as the Australian Army's combat divisions were refocused on the Pacific theatre to fight the Japanese. " - you could say instead that this was the final stage in the withdrawal of the AIF from the Middle East Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Morotai, the 2/17th concentrated along with the 7th and 9th Divisions" - I might be wrong, but I think that the 7th arrived at Morotai after the 9th departed (or at least as it was leaving)
  • Did the battalion conduct any occupation duties after the war? (Long 1963 or Johnston 2002 might cover this?). From memory, October/November 1945 was when British/Indian units relieved the 9th from occupation duties in this area. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I've copyedited down to Middle East and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dan. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support- Unsurprisingly, the article is in excellent order. Just a few nitpicking comments:

  • In the lead, I think the text for the wikilink for the siege of Tobruk should be extended to include the preceding words "fighting at". I clicked on the link expecting to be taken to the link for the town.
  • Middle East section: link Western Desert, Alexandria.
  • Linking of countries is inconsistent, e.g. Egypt and Libya aren't linked, but Syria and Greece are.
  • Pacific section: Maybe link the Operation Postern to the appropriate section of the Salamaua–Lae campaign page. Or would that constitute a dupe link?
  • Suggest expanding the text to the Borneo campaign wikilink to include the "recapture"; I expected the link to go to the place, not the campaign, so including recapture would be (to my mind) more logical.
  • Fixed one punctuation mistake myself, so otherwise this looks to be in good shape - I really had to struggle to find the above points. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good AR, added my support now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I've checked the image licensing, all looks good to me. Passing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7, the bot doesn't seem to have run on this. Is it only running once a day at the moment? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:01, 31 January 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article has been developed from nothing in the last three weeks, and recently passed GAN. It covers the short operational life of one of the three horsed cavalry divisions of the Royal Yugoslav Army, which was designated as an army group reserve in the event of an Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. When that invasion materialised, the division was quickly shorn of its fighting regiments to strengthen other divisions of the army group, and barely had time to start deploying its meagre assets into a defensive line before it was scooped up by the Ustashas and Germans. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this one recently for GA and I believe that it meets the A-class criteria now. I have only one comment/suggestion:

  • currently there are two level two headings "Planned deployment" and "Deployment plan" with no content in between them. I suggest removing one of the headings, or adding content between them to differentiate the sections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One thoughts, not clear that the extensive 'Background' section is needed at the level of a single, even if large division. This section would be better placed at corps ("Army") or higher. But overall it gets the tick - good research. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I really like what you've done with this one; it's dense, but you make it easy to follow. Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Structure and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – only a few minor cmts:
    • Tools checks all ok (no dabs, no citation errors, external links ok, no issues with close paraphrase detected by Earwig [99]) – no action req'd
    • There are a few duplicate links to be resolved per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • Yugoslavia (see "which was located in southeastern Yugoslavia at Niš")
      • World War I (see "and the divisional artillery battalion was largely equipped with World War I-vintage pieces")
      • fifth column (see "Armed fifth column Ustase groups and German troops disarmed")
    • Image is PD and seems to have the appropriate information / tags - no action req'd.
    • Caption seems ok - no action req'd.
    • Are the dates of the existence of this formation known exactly? The article doesn't seem to be definitive about when it was formed (although the implication seems to be that it existed on paper in 1935 at least, and was obviously mobilised in 1941). If this information is available though it should perhaps included (and the dates also added to the infobox).
    • Is anything known of its peacetime activities, for instance did it conduct regular / annual exercises or call-outs etc?
    • Prose here is a little repetitive: "By the time the invasion commenced, the 1st Cavalry Division had only commenced mobilisation." (specifically "commenced" used twice in the same sentence)
    • You might consider adding the article to some more categories (for instance, if the dates are appropriate – Category:Military units and formations established in 1935 and Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1941)
    • Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not much is known about any specific mobilisations of this division or exactly when it was raised in this form. Terzic is pretty good but restricts himself to the mid-30s on. Have fixed the overlinking and categorisation, and minor grammar tweak. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:00, 18 January 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.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the second ACR for a series of articles about Yugoslav armies that tried to oppose the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the previous one being 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) which went through ACR in January this year. It will not be going to FA after this as it is apparently "non-standard" (a hybrid between a list and an article), but it will hopefully form part of a good-topic eventually, along with 1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia), 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (next cab off the rank). Very interested in constructive feedback on this article, which I recently developed from GA standard using the 1982 Serbo-Croat language semi-official history of the invasion written by the eminent Yugoslav historian Vladimir Terzić. Thanks in advance! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support: good work, just a few minor points from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • watch the emdash usage: from the MOS... "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between..." an endash should be used instead of an emdash (I fixed one for you);
  • in the notes, this seems inconsistent: "Equivalent to a United States major general" v. "Equivalent to a U.S. Army major general". Is there a reason for the difference?
  • "The Royal Yugoslav Army did not field corps..." probably best to link "corps" here
  • " Generaloberst Maximilian von Weichs" --> should the rank be in italics here for consistency with the others?
  • "Armiski General Leon Rupnik" v. "Armijski đeneral Milorad Petrović" (are these ranks different? If not should they be presented the same way?)
    • Thanks for the review, Rupert! All done, these are my edits

Comment. I read through everything but the Operations section (maybe later). It's a very good article. And it's a good thing somebody fluent in English is reading Terzić and giving us an English synopsis. Below are some suggestions:

  • I understand what you're getting at, but I believe the point about it being German-led is critical to a basic idea of the invasion. I've used both "Third Reich" and "Germany" over the years, but I am a bit of a pedant and believe there is nuance in using Third Reich to indicate the incorporated territories, ie Austria and the Sudentenland, Reichsgau Wartheland etc.
  • Remove "post-coup" from the lead (leave "the government of Dušan Simović") and mention the coup at the start of the Mobilisation section.
    • Done.
  • Is there a reason to prefer "Reich" over "German"? (In the context, the fact that it was Austria prior to 1938 seems irrelevant. It was Germany in 1941.)
  • See my earlier comment.
  • We have an article on the Rupnik Line, but it is not linked.
  • Good point, added.
  • It seems odd to use the term Divizijski General in the lead, but leave the explanatory note for it down in the 2nd section. The reader who needs it will probably want it when s/he first reads it in the lead.
  • Good point, fixed.
  • What is the difference between "consisted of" and "supported by" in the Composition section? (I presume "supported by" are army-level formations.)
  • Exactly that.
  • "Border guard units" appear suddenly under Deployment plan. Perhaps their status could be explained in the first section, where the fortifications are mentioned?
  • The first paragraph of the Mobilisation section seems redundant as it stands. The first two sentences restate what has already been said, and the third just restates the first two. Redundancy per se is fine, but the paragraph doesn't seem to expand on what has already been introduced. Maybe add the subsection "Overall condition of the 7th Army" to the opening paragraph?
  • Thanks for raising this, I have added some attribution because there is some nuance between the two sources. I'll think about this further.

I don't generally participate in these things, but since I was planning to read the article right through anyway, I'd though I'd give some feedback. I have no objection to promoting this article in any way, but I am entirely unfamiliar with the actual criteria. —Srnec (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and light c/e. A different perspective is always useful. I'll have a look at them all. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts on the Operations section:
  • Where it says "Hauptmann Palten led his Kampfgruppe Palten", it would be better "Hauptmann [First Name] Palten led his Kampfgruppe" with an explanatory note saying that Kampfgruppen were usually named after their commanders, so this was Kampfgruppe Palten. I presume that needs a source, but that should be easy to find. Finding Palten's first name might be harder.
    • Sadly, the source doesn't mention the young captain's name.
  • The Potez 25s are not mentioned in the Composition section. Were they part of the 6th Air Recon. Group?
    • Almost certainly part of a training unit, the only units equipped with them were the training units, which were dispersed across the country. No doubt there was one at Ljubljana, but none of the sources I have state that with certainty.
  • It would be nice if the map in the Deployment plan section could have the line dividing the 7th Army area from the 4th that is found on the gov't map under 10 April.
    • Beyond my map-making skills at this stage, but I am not happy with the maps for this series of articles, and have been trying to find an online training course in Inkscape or similar so I can learn how to create operational-level maps for just this kind of thing.
  • Personally, I'd like to see a list of the "22 generals" under 9 April, but I know that's asking a lot.
  • I'm not surprised by the number actually, when you include brigadni djenerals (which the Americans generally do), the army group and army headquarters each had six generals each just in the headquarters (commander, deputy commander, artillery, engineer and infantry commander, rear area commander), there was at least one general in each division and detachment headquarters (usually), plus the Zagreb-based rear area command headquarters and commandants of a couple of Zagreb-based training schools. Would be pretty close, even when you take out Nedeljković escaping to lead the fight in Bosnia for a few more days. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Simović quote, which is short, needs a box.
    • Agree, fixed.
  • Under 11 April: Whose radio broadcasts? Enemy? Fifth column?
    • Fifth column, fixed.
  • Under 11 April: Generalmajor and maggior generale need to be either linked or explained with a note, like their Yugoslav equivalents.
    • Done.
Overall, it reads quite well, although inevitably it is somewhat hard to follow without a detailed map at hand or good knowledge of the area. There's also a lot about the Germans, but I understand that the "Operations" section of this article functions largely as a sub-article of the invasion of Yugoslavia. —Srnec (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the comments, Srnec. I hope you do some more reviewing in the future. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • This looks very good to me - some minor points / suggestions:
      • Prose is a little repetitive here I think "...the German capture of Maribor on 8 April as the Germans..." (the German(s) x 2 in close proximity)
      • "Yugoslav war plans foresaw the headquarters of the 7th Army and its army-level..." Perhaps wikilink army (in "army-level") here to Field army
      • "... supported by one border artillery battalion fielding three batteries..." perhaps wikilink batteries
      • "... but the poor response to the mobilisation orders for the 44th Infantry Regiment meant..." I wonder if something like this would be more clear: "...but the poor response of personnel of the 44th Infantry Regiment to the mobilisation orders meant..."
      • "...but only 45 to 50 percent of vehicles and animals were available..." Is the reason for this unavailability known?
      • "However, Rupnik and the head of the operations staff of the headquarters of the 1st Army Group, Pukovnik Franjo Nikolić hid the orders from Petrović and did not carry them out." Should there be a paired comma here after Nikolic? Anotherclown (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the suggestions, re: grammar, have fixed all those. As far as the vehicles and animals were concerned, it was a combination of things I believe, fifth column activity, reluctance of people to hand over their oxen etc in an uncertain situation, and unrealistic planning/expectations by the Yugoslav high command. Thanks very much for the review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • and the 4th Army defending the western sector along the Hungarian border. Don't you mean the eastern sector?
  • In the composition section, you might remind the reader that the Lika Detachment is infantry; I had to go back to the lede to figure it out.
  • A map of all the fortifications would be nice, but not required. Beautiful area, though, at least in the western portion in modern Slovenia.
  • and around noon on 6 April arrived in their concentration area at Grosuplje, just south of Ljubljana This seems awkward. I'd suggest moving the arrival to the end of the sentence.
  • had to be assembled from Germany Perhaps "gathered" or "transported" rather than "assembled"? Also avoids the echo from assembly area.
  • Later that day, German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bombers of Sturzkampfgeschwader 77 escorted by Messerschmitt Bf 109E fighters caught commas after 77 and fighters
  • German soldiers crossing a river using a pneumatic boat Can't say that I've ever heard of a pneumatic boat before, but I've used rubber boats for river crossings. Is this some sort of Commonwealth term?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I like this one, and I'm guessing it will do well at FAC. I've copyedited down to Deployment plan and skimmed the rest. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 12 January 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Chicago Pile-1

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Chicago Pile-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Continuing the series on the Manhattan Project, we have CP-1, the first nuclear reactor. I find it fascinating that you can pile rocks in a certain way, and amazing things happen, things that can only be predicted by science, and by that of phenomena far too small to be observed directly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Another good article in the series ... it makes a technical topic very readable. From now on, I'll be doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. So, here's your peer review: I've copyedited down to Government support and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a stopper at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think everything below has been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Comments: I'm having some difficulty following the narrative. I think a few explanatory inserts would really help. @Hawkeye7: OK, only a few remaining comments. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pupin Physics Laboratories - its never mentioned where this is, and it took me out of the article to find this was at Columbia. That means all of this started outside Chicago, which seems like an important point.
    But it says: At Columbia University in New York... Szilard obtained permission from the head of the Physics Department at Columbia, George B. Pegram... They conducted a simple experiment on the seventh floor of Pupin Hall at Columbia, using a radium-beryllium source to bombard uranium with neutrons. That's three mentuions of Columbia!Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the context is not direct. The earlier mention of Columbia is about Dunning et al, Fermi's name is sort of buried in the middle. It is not obvious that he was driving the development of the pile there. I don't know, is it too much to simply place his name at the front of the list? Is the ordering deliberate or just the way you typed them in? Was this primarily Dunning? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Y THey were in alphabetical order. Moved Fermi to the front. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pile was built in September - this isn't CP-1, so then CP-1 wasn't the first pile. The term "successful" or "to reach criticality" is needed somewhere, likely the lede.
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harold Urey and John Dunning, and was hesitant to add a third. - but if the earlier pile was built there, then they already had a third?
     Y No, they were involved with the SAM Laboratory, working on uranium enrichment. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • engaged in two other Manhattan Project - but it seems the Manhattan Project didn't even exist at this point?
    No, the project existed, it just didn't have that name yet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before leaving for Chicago, Fermi's team made one last attempt - "...to build a working pile at Columbia"?
     Y Added "at Columbia". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the cans had absorbed neutron - missing the S at the end, and also an explanation of this entire issue. How did they determine this was happening?
    Rhodes doesn't say. I know how I would have done it: by measuring the induced radioactivity in the cans. Or by looking up the cross-sections of iron and tin on the wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • structure was then canned - I'm a bit confused by this. If the cans were absorbing the neutrons, why didn't this can do the same thing?
    It's on the outside of the reactor, so it doesn't matter what happens to the neutrons there. The purpose of the canning is to prevent the fission products getting everywhere. Remember that some, like radon and xenon, are gases at room temperature. They'll get everywhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, was it "on the outside of the reactor"? I read the description to imply that each block-of-graphite-and-fuel-pellet was in a separate can. That would definitely explain my confusion, but is that how it actually was? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perhaps "The rooms were so cold that the nearby North Stands hosted two ice skating rinks in them." Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Already added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fermi came to Compton with a proposal to build the experimental pile under the stands at Stagg Field - but didn't they already take over that space? if this is the first time they consider it, the entire section needs to be re-arranged to make it flow more smoothly. If it isn't, I'm confused as to what's going on.
     Y They already had the space. Added: While the subcritical piles posed little danger, Groves felt that it would be prudent to locate a critical pile—a fully functional nuclear reactor— at a more remote site. I can tell you don't share the general's concerns about the dangers nuclear reactors. You have to understand, though, that no one had built one before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a nuclear reactor, there are delayed neutrons - this whole section just comes right out of the blue, and really needs to be separated out and lengthened. For instance...
     Y Expanded it a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a k close to one, this delay allows the reactor to be controlled, and gives time to shut it down - this statement is totally unexplained.
    I thought the bit about prompt and delayed neutrons explained it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Would you like me to take a stab at it?
Sure. Go ahead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • and by the 36th it was only 149 - "only" is unexplained, it is only later that the number 1 is suggested. If that is the target, I'm mystified to what exactly it is counting?
     Y Slightly re-worded: a metric that counted down to one as the pile approached criticality Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • accommodate the rapidly increasing current - current of what? Neutrons? If so, flux is the right term here.
     Y No, the electrical current from the spiffy BeF3 detectors. Through them, you can read the neutron flux with a galvanometer. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had a read through (making a couple of tweaks as I went) and after I recovered from my headache, wrote the following suggestions:

  • "File:PupinHall11.16.08ByLuigiNovi3.jpg" --> probably needs a {{FoP-US}} licence added to the image description page
  • "File:HD.5A.025 (10692802156).jpg" --> the date on the image description page probably should be adjusted; licence possibly should be changed from "{{PD-USGov-POTUS}}" to "{{PD-USGov-DOE}}"
  • as per the above for "File:HD.5A.026 (10692858884).jpg" (date and licence);
  • "File:HD.5A.043 (10555587426).jpg" --> the description and date fields probably could be filled in/expand; licence seems ok to me, though
  • "File:HD.5A.027 (10542723446).jpg" --> licence seems fine, but the date on the Commons description page probably should be tweaked
  • as above for "File:HD.5A.028 (10542725116).jpg" (date)
      Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Henry Moore Nuclear Energy !.JPG" : not sure about this one...probably should be a non free file in my opinion as FoP doesn't apply to sculptures apparently...but anyway, the law is an ass as they say, so I will leave it up to you to decide what you want to do with it
     Y There's a long and fascinating story behind the tag on this, involving a giant apple core, but the moral is that (1) WMF doesn't care about copyright; (2) Americans believe US law applies everywhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the duplicate link checker tool identifies "uranium enrichment" as being overlinked
     Y unlinked
  • "While a 25 feet (7.6 m) cube-shaped..." --> "25-foot"? (probably just need to add |adj=on to the convert template)
      Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike later reactors, it has no radiation shielding or cooling system, as was only..." --> " Unlike later reactors, it had no radiation shielding or cooling system, as it was only..."
      Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manufacturers in 4.25 by 4.25 inches" --> "4.25-by-4.25-inch" (adj=on should fix this)
      Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about the language used here: "What could possibly go wrong, apart from a catastrophic nuclear meltdown blanketing one of the United States' major urban areas in radioactive fission products?". By framing this as a question, the writing style is leaning more to the dramatic than the encyclopedic. I'd suggest rewording;
     Y Sigh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • capitalisation: "release the Zip" (earlier you use "zip")
      Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was drank from paper cups..." --> "which was drunk from paper cups"? or "which they drank from paper cups"?
      Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • wording tweak: " investigate research related..." --> "undertake research related..."?
      Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dangerous drop in his white blood cell..." --> "cells"?
      Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria, although my brain was too small to comprehend the science involved. Anyway, great work as usual, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review Rupert. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here and at GAN simultaneously?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is "I screwed up" a good enough reason? Normally, I would send a completed article to GA so it could run on DYK. But it is not eligible for DYK, as it has been run in OTD. So I sent it straight to A class. Then I forgot that it was here, and based on an estimate that it might not be possible to send it to FAC after all, nominated it for GA. When I realised that it was on both review queues, my initial reaction was to withdraw the GA nomination. But I couldn't find a rule on A class or GA saying that it couldn't be on both queues. If you can point to one, I can withdraw it from that queue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I'll go through it at GAN and see what, if anything, really remains to be done. Then I'll probably give a support here once that's done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've finished the review at GAN and believe that it meets the A-class criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - technically this article is well over my head, but I've read it through for a gross error check nonetheless. Some minor (possibly ignorant) points:

    • All the tool checks seem ok (dabs, external links, no unnecessary dup links, no alt text but that's not an ACR req, Earwig tool detects no issues with close paraphrase [100])
    • Is the tense correct here: "Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1) is the world's first nuclear reactor to achieve criticality", I'd have thought "Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1) was the world's first nuclear reactor to achieve criticality" might be more correct.
       Y Part of a conflict with another editor over whether a reactor that has all the fuel removed and is then buried is still a reactor or not. I think not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Initially nothing registered on the oscilloscope, but then Zinn realized that it was not plugged in." Whilst a somewhat humorous anecdote I wonder if it is really relevant?
       Y Oh very well. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • there seems to be a typo here: "warning of German nuclear weapon project"
       Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a missing word here: "...that had originally built as a rackets court..."?
       Y Deleted "that had" Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Unlike later reactors, it has no radiation shielding..." → "Unlike later reactors, it had no radiation shielding..."
       Y See the answer to Q2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The next day, 2 December 1942, was bitterly cold." Was the weather relevant to the experiment? If not this might not be needed in the article.
       Y Deleted "was bitterly cold" Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same with the number of men and women at the experiment. I couldn't quite see its relevance (although the number of scientists present probably is).
       Y Historians have put a bit of effort into getting the list of names right. A couple of scientists were removed from accounts for political reasons in the 1950s, and Leona Woods was written out of the story in the early 1960s when it was not considered a proper activity for a woman. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...which they drank from paper cups." Was the material that the cups were made of relevant to the experiment also (e.g. safety precaution etc) or is it included because it might be seen as ironic to drink wine from a paper cup (to some people)? If it was relevant perhaps clarify what that significance was, if not then I'd question the point of it.
       Y It is to get around some grammatical issues. In some places apparently, you can't say that they drank the bottle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall this article looks in very good shape to me and I think it easily meets the A class criteria. The only possible issue I see is that some of the detail seems a little unimportant (the points I've listed above). You might consider whether they are necessary, or if removing them might result in a (slightly) more focused article. That said there are really only a few examples of this so I do not feel it is a significant issue at any rate (and others may disagree with me anyway).
    • Hopefully my cmts are in someway helpful. All the best taking this further. Anotherclown (talk)
      Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 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/Promoted&oldid=757546403"