Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2018/Failed

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment | 2018

Unsuccessful

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tegetthoff-class battleship

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

Tegetthoff-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Back at it with another class of battleships. This article was the first one I began working on after returning to Wikipedia from a 6-year hiatus. I've spent the entire summer writing this article and while I have no doubts there are still things that need fleshing out, I'm proud to finally nominate this article for an ACR.

Now, a bit about the ships themselves. These battleships are easily the most famous of all of Austria-Hungary's warships. They were the only dreadnought battleships to be constructed for the Austro-Hungarian Navy. Their construction made Austria-Hungary only the third nation in the world to possess dreadnoughts, and they were the first battleships to be commissioned into any navy in the world with triple turrets. They served as the pride and joy of the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the years before World War I, and Viribus Unitis even transported Franz Ferdinand to the Bosnian coastline shortly before his assassination, only to carry the bodies of him and his wife back to Trieste after their deaths in Sarajevo. They were a key asset in the Austro-Hungarian "fleet in being" strategy for most of the war as well, and three of the ships participated in the bombardment of Ancona after Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary in May 1915. They remained largely in port for the next three years until a failed mission to break the Otranto Barrage in June 1918 (just over 100 years ago) led to the sinking of the only Hungarian-built dreadnought of the class. Near the end of the war, Viribus Unitis was sunk by Italian frogmen while at port. After the war, the remaining two ships were divided between France and Italy. The French studied their battleship (particularly the turrets) before sinking her as a target ship in 1922, while the Italians used their ship as a war trophy before scrapping it in the 1920s. Artifacts from the Tegetthoff-class remain in Italy and Austria to this very day.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 23:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine

edit

I made some copyedits as I went along, but I did not find any major issues, apart from those mentioned below.

  • what is a "transversal resistance"? is it transverse or traversal?
  • Clarified this in a way that makes it a bit more simple to understand for the reader. Good catch.
  • File:Viribus Unitis-class battleship main weapon.svg appears to be missing
  • Apparently the file was renamed or deleted. I've restored the correct image.
  • The first paragraph of the "Secrecy" section repeats facts already mentioned in the article; it could be removed without detriment, IMO, to the article
  • Done.
  • I think it would be useful for the average reader (myself included) if at least one sum in Kronen was rendered to an equivalent sum in current USD
  • If I recall, standard practice is to not include conversions to modern USD or any other currency. @Parsecboy: can likely elaborate more on this than I can but I recall this being brought up in another article I was working on not too long ago.
  • Hmmm, I can't say I agree, but this is not a deal-breaker for me.
  • Should the "Ships" section not be after the naming debate in the "Assembly" section?
  • Traditionally, the section which includes a table covering all the ships in a class is included just above any paragraph that covers construction. There is no formal MOS rule for this, but it's a very common occurrence if you browse many other ship class articles on Wikipedia. I'm more comfortable keeping that section where it currently is, but if a consensus exists to move it, I have no issue doing so.
  • Reference 152, Schmalenbach, pp. 121–122 appears to be missing
  • Added reference, year to citation
  • Part of the reason this occurred is because I went through multiple (like a dozen) drafts writing and re-writing this article. Entire sections were moved around, re-worked, deleted, and re-added over the course of 3 months. In the process, many links where placed further down than they needed to be, and new ones popped up without the old ones being removed. This will take some time to clear away, but it will certainly be done.
  • This should now be taken care of. If you spot something that was missed, please let me know!
  • One thing I wonder is whether the whole effort of building these ships was actually worth it, given that they were used as a fleet in being; I sort of get that they were not meant to be used that way (or was this considered pre-war?), but these ships are textbook white elephants. Have historians or military men issued opinions on this?
  • Constantine, you are 100% right that the ships were effectively white elephants. The Szent Istvan for example was in service for such a short amount of time that she never even had her hull cleaned. With the exception of the Bombardment of Ancona and the failed raid on the Otranto Barrage, the ships almost never left port for combat during the entire war. They served as an excellent deterrent and as a fleet in being for the whole war, but they weren't intended to play that sort of role. Italy's neutrality and eventual declaration of war on A-H ended up wrecking Austro-Hungarian naval plans for a European war. These ships should have been used for combat operations in the Mediterranean Sea against France and Britain, but they were also intended to operate in conjunction with the Italians, not against them. Italy's hostility to A-H prevented them from ever doing much of anything save sitting in port for most of the war. In that regard, they were most certainly a waste of time and money to build, but I haven't found any sources that describe them as white elephants so I'd like to refrain from speculation in that regard, however likely it is that they would qualify as white elephants.
  • I did not mean whether they were explicitly described as "white elephants", but whether in the primary or secondary literature the fact was pointed out, if not in the exact same words. I get the story you just described from the article overall, but as my thesis supervisor never got tired of saying, always summarize your findings :). I would be interested to know if this has been remarked upon, if it became a point of criticism or polemics during or after the war, whether naval historians consider these ships a success, not as a technical design, but as a weapon of war, etc. If there is nothing, no problem, but a brief summary on the relative success or failure of the whole design as a strategic concept would be, IMO, valuable. Your reply above could even serve in this role, if you include it in the lede.

Otherwise I found the article fairly complete and easy to follow, and very interesting. I will be happy to support once the above issues are addressed. Constantine ✍ 20:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't found much that I could add in that regard. Much of what I wrote here is already hashed out quite extensively in the article however. If I find anything that makes the connection to white elephants, even if that particular phrase isn't used, I'll be sure to try and add it in.

Image review

edit
  • File:Rudolf_Montecuccoli.png: when/where was this first published?
  • The Austrian National Library only depicts the date the photo was taken, not the date it was published. As a result, I don't have an answer to that though I could speculate that it was published the same year it was taken.
  • This has a pre-1923 tag - can we confirm a pre-1923 publication?
  • As I said, I can only confirm when the photo was taken. I can't confirm when it was published.
  • I’ll be honest, things may be lost in translation and the photo may have been published in 1901. I have s hard time believing the photo would NOT be published shortly after it was taken.
  • File:Arbeiter-Zeitung.png should also include a pre-1923 tag
  • Done
  • File:Viribus_Unitis_class_battleship_main_weapon.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this image?
  • I was an own-work from Sas1975kr (talk · contribs) so I don't know...and unfortunately the user hasn't edited Wikipedia since 2016 and Commons since December 2017. If you look at photos of the ships, this diagram seems to be spot-on accurate (even to the shape of the conning tower, depicted in grey in the diagram). However, if there's questions about the accuracy of the diagram I can remove it.
  • File:Tegetthoff_turbines.png: since this is hosted on Commons, it will also need a tag for UK status
  • Done
  • The_construction_of_SMS_Szent_Istvan.webm: source link? Any further details on provenance? Same with Artillery_exercises_of_SMS_Szent_Istvan_1915_(720p).webm
  • Sieche's 1991 article goes on to say that the Hungarian government commissioned these films to serve as propaganda for the Hungarian public that their tax dollars were being used wisely to construct a powerful battleship (that was Hungarian in origin). I don't know how to specify a source link however.
  • Here, and here. Do you want me to edit the files to provide these links?
  • Will do. That will be added in today.
  • Done

Comments by PM

edit

This article is in great shape, although it is too long at over 11,000 words. A few comments from me:

  • in the lead, suggest "Renamed Yugoslavia, the ship was destroyed by an Italian mine in the Raid on Pola a day later"
  • suggest "and provided the Austro-Hungarian Navy with an attemptopportunity to evenaddress the disparity"
  • suggest "that the prospectdifficulty"
  • link Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino at first mention in the body
  • link Diet of Hungary at first mention in the body
  • suggest breaking the sentence beginning "István Tisza..." as it is too long
  • suggest "Šusteršič, the leader of the Slovene bloc," as he has already been introduced
  • when you say "German politicians", do you mean Austrian ones?
  • Yes. Politicians from the German-speaking part of Austria were regularly just referred to as "Germans". Phrases like "the German block" or "the German delegates" are commonly used in works covering this topic.
  • I don't think you need "ammunition and shells", ammunition covers it
  • suggest "the layout of the Tegetthoff-class" as it isn't clear which one you are referring to
  • I suggest moving the first two paras of the Design section to an Assessment section at the end
  • Popper's idea with the reinforced bottom was to protect against mines, but then you refer to a torpedo. I don't follow. A reinforced bottom wouldn't help against torpedoes would it?

The general idea was to protect against explosions, which the hull failed to do. I can clarify that by adding the word "explosions" or saying "mines and torpedoes" if you'd like.

  • "the latter by a mine"
  • "which turned 90° compared to the other three ships in the class" this begs the question about how far the other rangefinders turned
  • I couldn't find the crew info in the body
  • drop the hyphen from "more-compact" and "most-important"
  • there is a bit of ENGVAR action going on, centimetre and armor, for example
  • "The sinking of Szent István revealed..." bit could go in the Assessment section
  • the sentence beginning "When in the spring of 1909..." doesn't have an object. Suggest deleting "When"

down to Construction, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rangefinder issue has been reworded.
  • German Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz should just be Tirpitz
  • Done
  • given this has already been mentioned, suggest "when Montecuccoli sent the officer to obtain recommendations..."
  • Done
  • suggest "already contentious naval arms race. however"
  • Done
  • "in theat Pola"
  • Done
  • suggest "growing Austrian Navy League"
  • Done
  • should it be "The title ship of the class" or "The lead ship/namesake of the class"?
  • Viribus Unitis was the lead ship of the class. Tegetthoff would be classified as the title ship of the class.
  • link Wilhelm von Tegetthoff, I know he's already linked in the table, but it is useful for the reader, who may just skim over the table
  • Done
  • my understanding is that it is field marshal, not field marshall. Unless that a US spelling?
  • Typo. Fixed!
  • suggest "choosing to name the first ship using his own personal motto..."
  • Done
  • the Footnotes all need citations
  • I always have trouble attaching citations to footnotes. Whenever I try to do so, it bugs out the footnote. Do you know why that happens?
  • This is going to take me a very long time to rework the footnotes in that format, and then find the appropriate citations for each of them...as I added the footnotes at random intervals during my research and writing. I don't have the exact page numbers of even the exact source for any of them. I'll have to go through all of my works to locate them.
  • suggest moving the sentence beginning "Prinz Eugen was commissioned... be moved to the end of the para, as it is currently out of sequence, and we are first told of the assassination, then learn that FF refused to attend a launch
  • If I move it to the end of the paragraph, the section will be broken up awkwardly because the end of that paragraph as well as the following paragraph deals with Szent István. Moving the bit about Prinz Eugen in-between would break that all up awkwardly.
  • suggest "tountil 17 January 1914"
  • Done
  • "Hungarian Prime Minister István Tisza", as he has already been introduced (although not as PM)
  • I think the man you mean is János Teleszky
  • Done

down to History. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think they were "missions", more "voyages" or "cruises"
  • Fixed
  • you can drop pre-dreadnought battleship from Zrínyi, as you'ver already introduced her
  • Done
  • Malta is not in the eastern Med or Levant
  • Good catch. Fixed.
  • link smallpox and meningitis
  • Done
  • "Archduke Franz Ferdinand" could just be "the Archduke" at this stage, I suggest going through and using "the Archduke" for him at every mention after he is introduced, as I can't see any other archduke's being mentioned
  • Do you think it would be acceptable to refer to him as just "Franz Ferdinand" rather than "the Archduke"?
  • "exactly one month before Archduke Franz Ferdinand..." is presaging future events, I'd just remove it and let events unfold as they do, chronologically
  • state Admiral Spaun was a scout cruiser here
  • Done
  • link mobilization
  • Done
  • "light cruiser SMS Breslau" as she has been introduced already
  • Done
  • delete "scout cruiser" from Admiral Spaun
  • Done

down to 1914–1915. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • link Foreign Ministry of Austria-Hungary
  • Done
  • drop the hyphen from "Tegetthoff-class" as it is not being used as an adjective here, there is a later example of Radetzky-class and Tegetthoff-class as well
  • So the hyphen needs to be removed everywhere?
  • If you are referring to the "Tegetthoff-class ships" or similar, where it is followed by a noun (ie ships), it should be hyphenated as a compound adjective, but if you are just referring to the "Tegetthoff class" without a noun following, class is the noun and Tegetthoff is the adjective and they shouldn't be hyphenated. English grammar, it screws with your sanity... Maybe Parsecboy can explain it better than me? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly right. When "Tegetthoff" is the adjective that describes the noun "class", you don't need a hyphen. The hyphen is only needed when "Tegetthoff class" is the adjective that describes "ships". Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • move link to Emperor Karl I to first mention
  • Done
  • Maximilian Njegovan should just be Njegovan at this stage
  • Done
  • prose difficulties
  • Fixed
  • consistency between Allied Powers and Allied powers and U-Boats and U-boats
  • drop the hyphen from per-hour
  • Done
  • "Furthermore, the newly formed state had also not yet publicly dethroned" dethroned is not the word here, that would require them to remove him from power. This is more of a lack of public rejection
  • Looks like someone beat me to fixing this.
  • "the transfer being still unknown to Italy" as it was obviously known within the A-H Empire
  • Done
  • "until 1920 whenthat"
  • Done
  • "off of Toulon"
  • Done
  • Aus meiner Dienstzeit needs an OCLC, which can be found here
  • Done. Thanks!
  • United States Naval Institute Proceedings needs an ISSN, which can also be found at Worldcat
  • Done
  • Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand von Österreich-Este needs an OCLC, see Worldcat
  • Done
  • Warship International needs an ISSN
  • Done
  • Marine—Gestern, Heute also needs an OCLC
  • Done
  • I assume that Aichelburg would be consulted before a FAC nom?
  • If I can possibly get a hold of it, I will include it for sure. I have a virtual library of books on this subject now...I personally own over a dozen books, journals, articles, magazines, and other sources that cover the Tegetthoff class, but I have never been able to get a copy of this despite months of searching.
  • My comment about the size of the article will especially apply at FAC. Basically it is too long, and parts need to be branched off it to bring it down to a readable size. I won't oppose here on that basis, but I might at FAC, as might others.
  • I know it's very long...I'm not sure how to branch off the article however, and it kills me to cut information out. If you've got any suggestions (even very broad ones) to throw around I'd love to hear them because I don't want the length of all things to potentially kill an FAC.
  • FWIW, I'd spin off Austro-Italian naval arms race including the table for starters, leaving just a basic one para summary. The Funding section could be seriously reduced in size to just summarise the various machinations, the level of detail is just too granular. But in general, a more summary style should be taken across the whole article, rather than including every little detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do plan on creating a separate article for the Austro-Italian naval arms race similar to what I did over at Austro-Italian ironclad arms race...it's just such a large topic that I haven't been able to get around to it, and my editing has fallen off a cliff this month due to work and other real life commitments. That said, I do intend to create the article and I'll definitely take your advice of moving large parts of this over to said article when it's created. That will have to take place before I take this to FAC.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. I'll respond to the queries as we go. Great job with this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

edit

G'day, I took a quick look. I have a couple of really minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • please check the English variation. I see US "armor" but also British "millimetre";
  • This should be fixed.
  • suggest cropping "File:Ramberg - Bombarding of Ancona, 1915, HGM, 2017-03-08.jpg" to remove the frame. That will focus the eye more on the image
  • I've wanted to do that for a while now, but I wasn't sure I was allowed to edit the photo as such.
  • in the References, check the punctuation in Morton (specifically the space before the colon and the hyphen, which should be an endash)
  • I'm not following here.
  • same as above for Stevenson
  • is there a page range for Sieche's chapter in Gardiner?
  • Yes there is. Let me haul the book out of my closet and check what those page ranges are.
  • suggest adding a translation for Kiszling's title
  • How would that go about for the book template? Is there a section that can be added for translating a title?
  • same as above for the Conrad and Koudelka works
  • same as above for the work in the Further reading section
  • check the titles for hyphen/endash errors
  • "New York, NY" --> I think by convention we have in past just used "New York" here
  • Would this entail removing the state abbreviations from other cities as well? I kept "NY" in there for consistency's sake
  • some of the ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated, for example compare Greger with Halpern 1971
  • inconsistent style, compare "Hore, Battleships, p. 180." and " with "Sondhaus 1994, pp. 274–275",
  • This was done because Hore had two works published the same year. "Battleships" refers to the work on that subject, while he also had something published related to Ironclads. Since this article doesn't use the second citation, I'll change that back to "2006".
  • On 29 October the: probably needs an introductory comma (there are a few other examples where this might be required)
  • I haven't read the article top to bottom yet, sorry

Follow on comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • are the citations in the lead necessary? Usually, unless something is a quote, or particularly controversial, citations aren't really needed in the lead as everything should be referenced in the body
  • is the table of comparative naval strength necessary for this article? I can see why it would be important in an article on the Austro-Italian naval arms race, but it is probably a bit much for this article, IMO
  • there are still some vestiges of British English variation, for instance "draught", "calibre" and "harbour"
  • In order to guarantee funding for the ships: this sentence is quite long, suggest splitting. Perhaps this might work: "The Rothschild family in Austria owned the Witkowitz Ironworks and the Creditanstalt Bank, and had significant assets in both the Škoda Works and the Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino. To guarantee funding from the family, Archduke Franz Ferdinand personally courted Albert Salomon Anselm von Rothschild in order to obtain his family's monetary support until the government could buy the ships"?
  • 30 Italian soldiers and 38 civilians were killed, while an additional 150 were wounded in the attack: per MOS:NUMNOTES it is best to avoid starting a sentence with a numeral
  • same as above for 89 sailors and officers died in the sinking, 41 of them from Hungary
  • same as above for 66 Allied planes dropped over 200 bombs...
  • was done with little: seems a little awkward in terms of wording
  • While this was going on the... --> "Meanwhile,"?
  • ...was in the process of tearing itself apart along ethnic and nationalist lines --> "...was on the verge of splitting along ethnic and nationalist lines"?
  • The Italians did not know that the Austrian government had handed over Viribus Unitis, along with most of the Austro-Hungarian fleet, to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs: this is probably unnecessary as the first part of the paragraph already says "the transfer being still unknown to Italy"
  • Faced with the prospect of being given an ultimatum to hand over the former Austro-Hungarian warships, the National Council agreed to hand over the ships beginning on 10 November 1918 --> "Faced with the prospect of being given an ultimatum, the National Council agreed to hand over the form Austro-Hungarian warships beginning on 10 November 1918}}?
  • in the lead there are a lot of overlinked terms, for instance; Fiume, Pola, Bombardment of Ancona, Austro-Hungarian Navy, Otrango Barrage, and many of the ship names (these should all probably only be linked once)
  • in the body, Reichsrat and World War II are overlinked
  • "Sieche, Zeittafel, p. 137" --> "Sieche 1985, p. 137"
  • same as above for "Sieche, Zeittafel, pp. 138–140"
  • in the References, the entry for Prasky: No. 2 (1 6) -- is this "16", or is ther something missing between the 1 and the 6?
  • the sources on face value look reliable to me, although I wasn't able to check the non English language ones and wasn't sure about a few the website. With your knowledge of the sources, could you please explain how the websites and foreign language sources cited meet the RS requirements?

Withdrawal

edit

Nom withdrawn, will close accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Kalākaua

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is almost there. Just need a few reviews to get it there. This is within scope because although Kalākaua never fought in a war to say. He was trained and part of the volunteer military companies of the Hawaiian monarchy from an early age. He was loosely involved in the Household guard mutiny of 1873. And especially his reign was characterized by an effort to expand the military system of Hawaii and territorial influence of Hawaii through the appropriation of military funds and governmental support. This is in line with another one of my past A-Class articles Curtis P. Iaukea who also never fought in a war. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment KAVEBEAR, could you kindly explain how this article qualifies for a MILHIST review or is in project scope, because he seems more of a political leader than a military leader. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Kingdavidkalakaua_dust.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • Not sure. I’m sure at least by 1891.
  • File:Kalakaua_R_1875_signature.svg should use PD-signature
  • Done.
  • File:Kalakaua,_ca._1850.jpg has a tag saying it was never published before 2003, and yet has a source published before 2003
  • Removed image for now.
  • File:Kalakaua_journey_around_the_world.svg: what is the source of the data presented?
Nikkimaria, Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop September 2017 — Maile (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hawai_1883_dime_129426.jpg needs a tag for the original coin
Nikkimaria, Wehwalt Perhaps one of you could advise what kind of tag would be appropriate here? Looking at Commons:Category:Currency license tags, there is nothing that covers the original being issued by a kingdom that no longer exists. Hawaii was its own independent nation at that time, and it doesn't seem accurate to say, "This image depicts a unit of currency issued by the United States of America." — Maile (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but as it was designed by a US federal government employee, Charles E. Barber and coined by the SF Mint, a PD-US or US Treasury would probably do the trick.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your advice. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kalakaua_dust_%26_scratches.jpg: why the NPCO tag? The Bain tag is sufficient.
  • Removed NPCO tag.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Indy beetle

edit
  • There's some inconsistency over using the apostrophe in Hawaiʻi that should be resolved.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

edit

Nice article. A few comments from me:

  • in the lead, "Its renewal continued" in what year was it renewed?
  • I reinforce the issue that Indy beetle raised
  • I've done a light prose, grammar and punctuation c/e as I went, feel free to revert if I've changed meaning
  • (informally adopted) toby?
  • was entrusted into his
  • is it Lyda or Lydia Kamakaʻeha? Both are in the article.
  • is it usual to refer to Hawaiian people by the second name? Normally we would say "elder brother KaliokalaniJames"
  • Cooke's
  • "Lāhainā to live with his mother" is this Analea Keohokālole or Pai, his hānai mother?
  • aides-de-camp
  • suggest "were honorably received as guests of honor"
  • the "3rd Chief Clerk of the Department of the Interior" bit seems to be a repetition of the info from the tour, suggest putting it in chronological order
  • "Hawaii for the Hawaiians" has come up before, I suggest integrating this movement/motto in the article at either location
  • state when the Bayonet Constitution came into effect
  • "Liliuokalani to act as Rregent" and link regent, this capitalisation occurs later as well
  • link luau
  • link hula at first mention in the body
  • Claus Spreckels should just be Spreckels at this point, as he has been introduced
  • "Prime Minister of Hawaii"
  • suggest "On September 20, Gibson and Minister of the Interior Luther Aholo put forth a motion for the legislature to form a committee to oversee the birthday jubilee."
  • were the "Household Guards" the same as the "Royal Guards of Hawaii"?
  • there are a number of duplicate links in the body, suggest installing the script at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to your commons.css page to identify these yourself
  • "including his brother-in-law" whose brother-in-law? Kalākaua's?
  • suggest "The king and the governor of Oahu also had as a military staff, consisting of a colonel and major." If that is what is intended?
  • say that Kaimiloa was a gunboat, as it begs the question
  • suggest "the military commissions appointing Dominis and his staff officers"
  • "Walter M. Gibson" should just be Gibson, as he has been introduced
  • "Samoan King Malietoa Laupepa" should just be Malietoa or Laupepa (as appropriate), as he has been introduced
  • were the "committee of thirteen" all US citizens?
  • "Previous suffrage" had this included females?
  • suggest "unpaid back taxes"
  • "surrender of the Wilcox's"
  • Against the advice of Dr. Woods
  • suggest "had not been active since the reign of Kamehameha I"
  • "Kalakaua and Kuhio aAvenues"
  • what is the source for the "Ancestors of Kalākaua" family tree?
  • fn 2 seems to have a typo
  • There is a lot of Further reading, has any of it been used in the article? You would definitely need to look at it to take this to FAC.

That's me done. Great job on this article! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maile

edit

Please see House of Kalākaua Bibliography as a possible remedy to lengthy "Further reading" sections. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like to withdraw the nomination until a later date. Thanks to everyone involved in the review.KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, KAVEBEAR. Withdrawn without prejudice to a re-nom at a later date. Suggest you action the outstanding points above before bringing this back to ACR though. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you'll need to move this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kalākaua/archive1 before re-nominating, otherwise the |A-Class=current syntax in the Milhist banner won't work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lumumba Government

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Lumumba Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After over a year and a half of work in userspace, I present an article on the Democratic Republic of the Congo's first independent government, led by the famous Patrice Lumumba. I call it my magnum opus. Though only in power for barely two-and-a-half months, a fair amount of history occurred under its watch. In terms of being relevant to military history, its tenure was dominated by a widespread army mutiny, a Belgian military intervention, and two secessions, making it more or less a civil war government. There's also plenty in the article about policy disputes, administrative problems, and financial issues, for those of you whose interests are piqued by political affairs. This is the culmination of months of exhaustive (*cough* exhausting *cough* but fascinating) research, and I've drawn on a mix of new and old materials written by historians, political scientists, and even ministers of the actual cabinet. I've done my best to copy edit as I went along, but feel free to correct any mistakes and make any improvements to the prose. I tried to be concise while retaining all relevant content, but I must warn you of the length; there's 525 unique citations. Hopefully this puts us one step closer to giving Africa the coverage it deserves. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Catrìona

I note that the readable prose size is over the general limit of 100k and the lede, five very long paragraphs, does not meet MOS:LEDE. I highly recommend that you split off some subtopics of the article and use summary style. However, the article appears well researched and very thorough. Catrìona (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: I'm in the process of slimming and trimming to rectify that, but I don't think I can make it too much smaller (definitely not below 100k) without cutting critical details or relevant context, lead included. If you have any specific suggestions, I'm all ears, but I'll defend what I think needs to be included. One of the reasons I brought this article to A-class review is that I could get some consensus on size before dragging it over to FAC. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have condensed the lead into four paragraphs per MOS:LEAD and slimmed the readable prose by several kilobytes. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also think that this article is much too long. The lead alone remains rather daunting - it takes up the full screen on my large monitor. Catrìona's suggestion that elements of the article be split out is a good one. I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn while the article is reworked. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I've already begun that process. A total of 11 kilobytes have been cut so far, and I'm making progress on the lead. I'm hesitant to withdraw because then I won't have a venue where people can suggest what should be moved/removed. It's an unusual case I think to have an A-class nom with too much information rather than not enough. My only other alternative would be a peer review, I suppose. I think it is better that everyone's suggestions are discussed where they can all be seen and built upon by others because this is a topic that few people are familiar with and a consensus needs to be built around what it is "important" enough to worthy inclusion and what is not. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With respect for your fine work here, I don't think that you should be asking editors to review an article which is undergoing major changes - the article is not stable, and editors can't be confident that the version of it they review is close to that at the end of the process. I'd suggest that you pull this review, and renominate when the changes are settled. The article certainly has very strong potential. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting this review be withdrawn pending further revision. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Avar–Byzantine wars

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Avar–Byzantine wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed a GA nomination, and I believe I may be able to take it to FAC, but I wanted input/suggestions beforehand. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, I'm afraid I am out of my depth with this era, so can't really comment on the content, sorry. Nevertheless, in the interests of getting this review started, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the Avar–Byzantine Wars campaignbox includes a link to 586 or 597 siege of Thessalonica (labelled as 1st Thessalonica), which does not seem to be mentioned in this article (unless I missed it). Should it? Also, this article mentions sieges in 604 and 615 of the same location, but these aren't included in the campaignbox. Should they be?
  • if possible, I suggest adding an image to the Avar invasion section to break up the text a little here
  • Kutrigurs is overlinked, as are Wallachia and Bulgars
  • the is some US English spellings mixed with British English spellings in the article. For instance, "kilometres" and "meagre" (British) but "labor" (US)
  • "File:Balkans 6th century.svg": suggest maybe upsizing this a bit, so that it is more useful
  • there is some text sandwiching in the Siege of Constantinople section with the mural and the map. The map may not be necessary given its size and given that "File:Balkans 6th century.svg" is already presented earlier
  • in the Bibliography, some ISBNs are hyphenated and some are not. Either is fine, IMO, but it should be consistent
  • in the Bibliography, is there a page range that could be added for Oman's chapter in Hassall's work?
  • in the Bibliography, The Avars: a Steppe People in Central Europe, 567-822 AD --> The Avars: A Steppe People in Central Europe, 567–822 AD (endash and title case caps)
  • in the Bibliography, AD 363-630: a Narrative Sourcebook --> AD 363–630: A Narrative Sourcebook (endash and title case caps)

Comments: I did the GA review and so am well disposed towards the article. I am not a subject expert, but do have a passing interest in it. Input/suggestions:

  • Mention the first formal contact between the Avars and the Byzantines. (The 558 embassy.)
  • Mention the 565 embassy.
  • Much of Byzantine-Avar interaction revolved around payment, or not, of Danegeld by the Byzantines. Offensives and outbreaks of peace were frequently directly related to these payments and their amounts. These seem to be down played in the article.
  • Similarly it could be argued that your use of “truce” is a little anachronistic. The truces you refer to were more like formal arrangements for protection money with a gang leader with only shaky control over all of his underlings.
  • It may be worth mentioning that in the wake of the Avar activity many of their subject, Slavic, people settled permanently in parts of the Balkans no longer under, even if temporarily, Byzantine control. Including central Greece and the Peleponese. This was to have repercussions when the Byzantines tried to reoccupy after the Avar’s defeat. They never did regain possession of the north west Balkans and in the eastern Balkans their attempt resulted in the Bulgar revolt. Who in turn eventually did for the Avars. Greece was under Slav control for 200 years. (Ostrogorsky) IMO some of this should be in the currently rather brief aftermath.
  • The 674 Avar embassy, in which they acknowledged Byzantine suzerainty, seems worth a mention.

I (still) think that this article is a good cover of a big and complex issue, but for A class feel that it needs more context: before; after; and around the edges of the main events. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image licenses/sources check out.
  • A couple of duplicate links in the article - there's a tool here you can use, if you don't already know about it.

All for now - I'll give it a closer read, but I wonder how invested you are in following up this review. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: - are you planning on addressing the above reviews? Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: I will when possible. I have been very busy IRL, so it may be in the interest of all to close the review, as I am unlikely to be able to focus my attention onto this anytime in the very near future. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I'll post a note at WT:MHCOORD. Hopefully you'll have more free time soon! Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Leo IV the Khazar

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Leo IV the Khazar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed GA, and I believe it meets the criteria. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article as it stands has several shortcomings and should IMO not be a GA in the first place.

  • In terms of scope, it is a brief narrative overview of Leo's reign, and omits entirely both the wider context that he, the empire, and his contemporaries acted in and the important issues of the day, most notably Byzantine Iconoclasm. The article requires considerable expansion from someone well versed in the period and the relevant literature to be a stand-alone topic. One only needs to look at Leo IV's article at DIR, written by the Byzantinist Lynda Garland, to see what such an article could and should look like.
  • In terms of sources, the article makes use of generalist or outdated sources, and contains very little in terms of more specialist works dedicated to the period, namely only one (Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831). Fundamental reference works like the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium or the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit are missing, as are essential works on the period such as Haldon's Byzantium in the Iconoclast era. c. 680–850, Rochow's Kaiser Konstantin V. (741–775) and Speck's Kaiser Konstantin VI, which one would expect to be included as main sources. It is also never a good sign when Finlay, who wrote in the mid-19th century, is cited as "Finlay, George (2017)", and Bury, who wrote at the turn of the 20th century, as "Bury, J. B. (2015).". It shows that the author has no real grasp of the scholarship.

I support and commend Iazyges's aim to bring Byzantine emperors' articles to GA, but the truth is that simply nominating them for reviews is not enough; the topic is so obscure that even the most well-intentioned GA reviewers simply won't know what they should be looking for, unless they have expertise on the subject. As I've noted elsewhere, most of these articles require considerable work before they can be labelled comprehensive or even complete, and the sources used in them are sub-par. Constantine ✍ 22:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Seems way too short for A-class status, especially given the topic. Totally agree with Constantine’s comments about this article after a bit of research. Some more issues here:

  • Link to the article on “theme” in order to make it easier for readers to understand.
  • No mention of his wife in the body until the last section.
  • Only one section, really need more information.
  • Link to the section of the Arab-Byzantine War for the Abbasid invasion section.

Randomness74 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord comment: @Iazyges: G'day, given the feedback above, I propose that this review be closed so that you can work on this outside the review process. Are you happy for me to close it now, or would you like to attempt to address the comments above first? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Sounds good, I've been quite busy IRL, so I doubt I'd be able to fix all of it quickly. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have released the bot. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of jet aircraft of World War II

edit
Nominator(s): The Bushranger (talk)

List of jet aircraft of World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...having finally gotten in the mood to go and thrash at it after several years of having it prominently displayed as 'I'm gonna do this', I've completely revamped the article. As I've used several FL-ranked lists as a basis for its formatting, style, and referencing level, I believe there's enough here to take a stab at the slings and arrows of outrageous reviews with this one. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Iazyges

edit

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • I'm really only familiar with ship lists, but the format there is to have one or two short paragraphs on each class of ships with an emphasis on decription and background rather than operational service. I'd recommend that you look over the current FLC candidates to see if they're following that format, which I find much more informative than a simple list like you've got here.
    • I looked at those, but apparently the majority of aircraft-themed lists use a much simpler format, for better or for worse - List of Indian naval air squadrons was a primary influence there. I may see about adding to the "Notes" field a little for each, though.
      • I knew that there weren't many aviation lists at FLC to use as a model, but I will note that the Indian naval air squadron list has a lot more detail in the lede than does your list. It works for that list, but I'm not sure how well it would work for yours. Again, I strongly recommend that rework the list to add short paras discussing each aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow MOS:APPENDIX by changing all of your various headings to level 2 headers.
  • Ensure that all of your bibliography follows the same exact format. Some have states in the same places of publication (Annapolis vs Annapolis, MD) and some lack the year entirely. Be sure that each book does not have a page number; those should be used for the cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Bushranger: G'day, Bushranger, hope you have recovered after your illness. Just wondering where we are at with this review? As it has been over a month since the last post here, and longer since the article was edited, I think it might be best for this review to be closed. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of active duty United States four-star officers

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Neovu79 (talk)

List of active duty United States four-star officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am re-submitting this list article for AL-Class status. Neovu79 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - I feel like we should probably do something so that we don't have this ACR and the old one on the same page, but I'm too tired and busy to figure that out right now. Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the precedent for articles with multiple ACRs? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: See step 2 of the instructions above. I have archived the old review and created the new one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA

edit

Hi Neovu79, I don't think this list is ready for an ARC. There are still a lot of sentences that don't have citations. At the current rate, this would be a C-class and would be definitely opposed by other reviewers. Maybe add these citations and then we can have a better look into the list. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5, this article is already listed as a BL-Class from the previous nomination several years ago. Many of the concerns from the previous assessment have been addressed. I'm confused on why every sentence would need a citation. That would seem to be more WP:OVERCITE at this point. Thanks for your input. Neovu79 (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Harrias

edit

I concur with CPA-5; this is a fair way off A-class. Some of my main issues:

  • The lead is far too short for the length of the article.
  • The A-class criteria requires that "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources", but there are lots of uncited claims throughout the article.
  • A lot of the information given about the bottom seems to be beyond the scope of the article, and borders on trivia.

Two more 'nice to haves' that would be a requirement for Featured list status, but aren't part of the A-class criteria:

  • The tables need coding to meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS, more detail is given in MOS:DTT.
  • Consider adding alt text for the images.

I'm not going to do a detailed review, and I feel there is too much, and the issues go too deep for it to be necessary. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per CPA and Harrias's comments above, I've archived this one. Hog Farm Talk 17:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Trident (1971)

edit
Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

Operation Trident (1971) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Operation Trident and the follow-up Operation Python were offensive operations launched by the Indian Navy on Pakistan's port city of Karachi during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Operation Trident saw the first use of anti-ship missiles in combat in the region. The article passed GAN back in January 2017. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indy beetle

edit

Just a few things up front that are missing:

  • The India Express article discusses the transmission of the word "Angaar" to Vice Admiral SN Kohli to signify the operations' success, tells of his briefing to the press of what happened, and discusses some misreporting of the attack on Kemari oil tanks.
  • This source discusses the practicing that the missile boats undertook, and mentions that special air surveillance photographs were used to plan the attack.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "The port's airspace was secured by the strike aircraft based at airfields in the area" - strike aircraft are essentially light bombers, and I don't think they would be used in this role. I think the wrong word is being used here.
  • As Indy beetle notes above, the oil tanks were not attacked by the boats. This would have been impossible, the Styx is not capable of picking out targets on land.
  • I have problems with the sourcing of this article. Quite a bit comes from a scoopwhoop.com article that appears to be rather poor quality, not even good for a blog post. It does, however, refer to other sources, and I strongly suggest finding these. As it is I have grumbly feelings about using this for an A-class article.

I made a few GR related changes. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As this appears to be a famous event in India and is fairly well known among naval historians worldwide, I'm surprised that the article's sourcing comprises mainly news stories and low quality internet sources - I agree with the comment above that scoopwhoop.com does not appear to be a reliable source. A quick search on Google Books for 'raid on karachi 1971' returns lots of useful-looking references. As such, I don't think that A-class criterion A1 is met. The sourcing also likely means that criterion A2 is not met, as the article is not as comprehensive or accurate as it could be. As the article would require substantial work to meet this criterion I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D, Maury Markowitz, and Indy beetle: Thanks for the comments. I'm withdrawing the nomination for now. I'll update the status on talk page, let bot to the rest. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:20, 22 January 2018 (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/2018/Failed&oldid=871609052"