Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2019/Failed

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment | 2019

Failed

edit

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Basil II

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): 20DKB03 (talk)

Basil II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I have been sent here to have this article reviewed for A-Class before I nominate to FAC in a peer review. I had this article pass on to GA, but it was not ready for FA yet. After my large contributions back in August of 2018, other people also had their share of improving the article to be more coherent, and I feel like it is ready now. I'm open to further ideas on improvements too. 20DKB03 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine

edit

I hate to do be the one to do this every time, but really the most fundamental concern from the FAs has not been addressed: the article still is a jumble of loosely cobbled sections, worked on by various editors over various years, and now coated with layers of copyedits by Векочел, which for the most part only served to make cosmetic changes to the text and bring the references out of sync. Just as an example, I invite you to examine the original state of the "Campaigns against the Fatimid Caliphate" section, as written by me, with the current one. The textual differences are minor, almost the only change is the removal of some sources and their replacement by others, without apparent rationale. It says a lot that in one+ year and 1000 intervening edits (i.e., 50% of all edits in the article's existence), the article is still mostly the same size and with virtually the same content and structure as when you left it, 20DKB03. It is fine for GA, but needs a lot of dedicated work, not just window-dressing, to get anywhere near comprehensive enough to qualify for A-class status. I've tried to get myself to do it, but my other interests and RL do not allow me to dedicate myself to this sufficiently. Constantine ✍ 11:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild

edit

I have had an eye on this article since taking five of his six immediate successors to GA last year. I have been put off working on it by the high rate of editing, IMO largely either trivial or deleterious. I probably have a slightly lower bar than Constantine re "comprehensive", but even so this isn't there. The use of language is also not good. Not so much "incorrect use", as a wall of facts in recondite phraseology with little flow or connection. Frankly, if this were up for GAN I would be sucking my teeth, and I agree with Constantine that it needs a lot of work before it will be ready for ACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (oppose)

edit

I have not looked at the prose at all, just a cursory look through the referencing.

  • Lots of short references aren't linking properly: refs #3, #13, #14, #16, #23, #24, #25, #26, #28, #30, #36, #67, #106, #130, #146, #149 and #151.
  • Similarly, a lot of the sources listed in the Bibliography are not linked to: Ash, John (1995), Blöndal, Sigfús; Benedikz, Benedikt (16 April 2007), Cartwright, Mark (19 January 2018), Gibbon, Edward (1788), Gregory, Timothy E. (2005), Lopez, Robert Sabatino (20 July 1998), Nicol, Donald MacGillivray (1992), Reuter, Timothy; McKitterick, Rosamond, eds. (1999), Runciman, Steven (1988) [1929], Talbot, Alice-Mary; Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald (14 May 2012) and The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (20 July 1998).
  • There is inconsistency of whether sources include the publisher location or not.
  • Older sources such as "Vogt, Albert (1923)" should include an OCLC number.
  • Ref #1 uses "p." where it should be "pp." for a range, as do some others.

I have not carried out any checks for close para-phrasing or copyvio. Harrias talk 16:06, 11 October 2019 (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) 11:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Monmouth

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

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

Toolbox

This article has undergone significant expansion recently, using a relatively recent, scholarly source that focuses on the subject. I hope to put this up for FAC if the article passes ACR. I have done my best to review the images and add appropriate copyright tags supported by sources where necessary; I hope that I have done enough there to pass muster. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sirhenryclinton2.jpg: American Museum link is dead
CPR administered to the American Museum link, and patient has made a full recovery. PD-US-expired added to monument image, supported by date monument was dedicated as provided with source in summary info. Hope that's all in order now, and thanks as always. Factotem (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Citations are properly formatted
  • Suggest adding |lastauthoramp=y to multi-author sources
  • Bibliography otherwise properly formatted.
  • Sources are high-quality and published by reputable houses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know about that parameter - added now. Appreciate the review. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, very comprehensive article, which is well referenced and illustrated. I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is a mixture of English variation, for instance "kilometres" (British), "realised" and "emphasised" (British) but also "favor" (US)
Fixed these, but...
  • "manoeuver" --> "maneuver", per the above?
  • "endeavouring" --> "endeavoring", per the above
...not these two, because they are in quoted text which, in the 18th century, used BrEng on both sides.
No worries, although I wonder if then perhaps it would be best to put the whole thing in British English, but I don't really care either way and I suspect that such a wholesale change might derail the focus of this review which should be on more important aspects. Beyond that, though, wouldn't it be "manoeuvre" rather than "manoeuver"? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the use of BrEng would survive too long in an article that has a lot more significance to an American audience than it does to a British audience. The hybrid British/American spelling of "manoeuver" is as given in the source. Factotem (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, seems sensible. Thank you for confirming that the hybrid "manoeuver" comes from the source. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 550 men and 4 artillery south: --> "550 men and 4 artillery pieces south..."?
Done.
  • Using the same wounded-to-killed ratio and assuming a proportion of the missing were fatalities, Washington's casualties could have exceeded 500: probably best to attribute this synthesis. For instance, "Using the same wounded-to-killed ratio and assuming a proportion of the missing were fatalities, authors Lender and Stone suggest that Washington's casualties could have exceeded 500..."
Done.
  • promised he would "be the last one to leave the field."[110][107]" suggest ordering the refs numerically here
  • reenactments staged every June.[181][179][182]: same as above
Done & done.
  • as did numerous more junior officers: --> " as did many junior officers"
Prefer to leave this as is because the officers specifically mentioned in the source included colonels, which I don't believe is a junior officer rank.
G'day, but doesn't "numerous more junior officers" in fact imply that the previous officers were also junior officers, which you are saying they weren't? Is there some other way you can word this to maintain your meaning? I say this because "numerous more" seems very awkward. If you are wed to the word "more" in this case, I'd suggest changing "numerous" to "many", or if you are wed to the word "numerous", then I'd simply suggest dropping the word "more" AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've recast the whole to read: In their accounts of the battle, Washington's officers invariably wrote of a major victory, and some took the opportunity to finally put an end to criticism of Washington; Hamilton and Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens, another of Washington's aides, wrote to influential friends – in the case of Laurens, his father Henry, President of the Continental Congress – praising Washington's leadership. Factotem (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the quote, "the important victory of Monmouth over the British grand army", possibly needs attribution in text. For instance, are these Lander & Stone's words, or Congress'
How much of an issue is this? They're Congress's words, which I think is reasonably implied by the text and the fact that a modern author would not refer to the British grand army, but can see no elegant way of specifically stating that.
No worries, it is probably ok how it is now. I was probably seeing something that wasn't there, although potentially this might work: army to honor, in their words, "the important victory of Monmouth over the British grand army. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Further reading section should be above the External links section
Done
  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
  • at 9,694 words it might be perceived as being a bit long when taken to FAC, so I would suggest potentially looking at ways to tighten the language a little
  • is the 14,300 figure that is mentioned in the infobox, clarified and cited in the body? I couldn't readily find it, but I might have missed it
Yes, but indirectly. The last para in the "Reining in Lafayette" section details the strengths of the four American contingents which together add up to 14,300.
No worries, works for me, although if there is a source that provides the aggregate total, it might be good to work this in at some stage, but it isn't a major issue. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, such a figure isn't available in the sources. It took quite a bit of reading to track down the given figure. Factotem (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, good work tracking it down. Added my support above. Good luck taking the article further and thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review. Factotem (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does the lead have to be so long? Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that it's excessively long. It covers the salient points, and I'm not sure what can be cut to make it shorter. Maybe other reviewers can comment? Factotem (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2019 (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) 10:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

George Washington's political evolution

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

George Washington's political evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers George Washington's evolution from a young man 'on the make' to the first president of the United States and father of his country. Although the main focus is political, Washington's military service played a significant part in his political development, so I'm hoping that it will be acceptable to put it up for review here. A peer review did not attract any attention, but the article has just succeeded at GAN. I'm keen to get more critical eyes on the article before a possible run at FAC. Factotem (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding to the map caption an explanation of what the colours mean
Done Factotem (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lawrence_Washington.jpg needs a US PD tag
The best I could find is a source indicating that the portrait wasn't sold from private ownership until 1936, so suspect no copyright expired tag will possible. Replaced with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Lawrence_Washington_B%26W.jpg, which is a copy that was published in a book published in 1889 (and added link to source to the commons info for it as proof). Factotem (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Flickr_-_USCapitol_-_The_First_Continental_Congress,_1774.jpg should include a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Flickr_-_USCapitol_-_Apotheosis_of_Washington,_War.jpg
I changed File:Flickr - USCapitol - Apotheosis of Washington, War.jpg so that both these images are licensed as the work of an employee of the Architect of the Capitol. Obviously I'm missing something here; would you mind elaborating? As works of art commissioned by the US Congress and displayed in the US Capitol building, aren't they federal works in the public domain, as stated in the licence tags? Factotem (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's not enough information given to say for sure, particularly for the first. It is stated to be a canvas - is it known to have been commissioned by Congress for display? That something is displayed in a US federal building doesn't automatically make it a federal work. For the second, is the artist known? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first was completed by Allyn Cox, the second by Constantino Brumidi. The WP articles indicate that both were commissioned by the federal government, though obviously WP is not a valid source. Bear with me please, I'll do some scurrying around the internet for some decent sources. Factotem (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Architect of the Capitol website provides information on Allyn Cox, the Cox Corridors (where the first image is displayed), and Constantino Brumidi. I've added these links to the commons pages. The site does not explicitly state that they were commissioned, but both artworks are part of the frieze that decorates the rotunda, which I believe is in areas I believe are open to the public - Brumidi's Apotheosis in the rotunda and Cox's work in the Great Experiment Hall (part of the Cox Corridors linked above). And the canvas was applied to the walls, so Cox's work is not a painting but a mural. Factotem (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Washington_taking_command_of_the_American_Army_at_Cambridge,_1775_-_NARA_-_532874.tif: licensing tag doesn't make sense here - are we saying that Wageman was a US Government employee? Same with File:Triumph_of_Patriotism._George_Washington_entering_New_York,_1783._Copy_of_print_by_A._H._Ritchie_after_F.O.C._Darley.,_1_-_NARA_-_532881.tif. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as always. I had a mad panic just after submitting this for ACR when I realised that I had forgotten to review the image licensing, then spent a good part of the afternoon going through them all and fixing that as best I could. I'm quite relieved that relatively few have been flagged, and that I have hopefully not wasted too much of your time. Initial comments above. The rest will need a bit of research, if you could bear with me. Factotem (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Washington_taking_command_of_the_American_Army_at_Cambridge,_1775_-_NARA_-_532874.tif - I've replaced it with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Washington_Taking_Command_of_the_American_Army_%E2%80%93_At_Cambridge,_Massachusetts,_July_3rd,_1775_MET_DP853566.jpg, which has a {{Cc-zero}} license. I've not seen that before, and it looks a little suspect to me. If that doesn't fly, then both the source and the image itself state that it was published by Currier & Ives in 1876, which I believe makes a {{PD-US-expired}} licence valid if necessary. Factotem (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to this site, the museum places images of artworks it believes to be PD under a CC0 license. This is a bit weird - if it's PD, CC shouldn't be applied at all - but could be gotten around by saying that the museum believes the artwork to be PD. I wouldn't use the US-expired tag unless we can demonstrate publication at that time, as the source doesn't seem to say explicitly when or if this was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source says publisher is Currier and Ives, and gives a date of 1876, and the caption below the image itself states the same. If that does not convince, can I simply add text to the commons description along the lines of The Metropolitan Museum of Art believes this artwork to be Public Domain? Factotem (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Triumph_of_Patriotism._George_Washington_entering_New_York,_1783._Copy_of_print_by_A._H._Ritchie_after_F.O.C._Darley.,_1_-_NARA_-_532881.tif, I could not find any source to confirm the artist was a government employee, so I've replaced it with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evacuation_Day_-_Washington%27s_entrance_into_New_York_-_Emmet.jpeg, to which I've added numerous sources to support the artist biography and 19th century publication. Factotem (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I've replaced the infobox image with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Washington-patriae-pater.jpg. I believe the new image is correctly licensed. Factotem (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Chetsford

edit

This is a very good article but I need to marinate a bit on whether or not to support it or remain neutral, only because I'm unclear as to the actual subject of the article. The title seems to indicate it's a study in personal ideology, however, the content of the article veers heavily into biography with dates and facts of occurrences and actions without (sometimes) a clear linkage to their philosophical import. To be clear, though, I have no intention of opposing it, I just need to cerebrate upon it a bit. My only functional comment is that "The Intolerable Acts being forced down the throat of America" may not be an entirely NPOV descriptive caption for the drawing titled America Swallowing the Bitter Draught. Chetsford (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. Much appreciated, and some valuable feedback. I've fixed the caption. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, the article is meant to be about how a relatively minor member of the colonial Virginia aristocracy who started out in life agressively pursuing his own self-interest ended up as the first president of the United States. It's not just about his personal ideology, i.e. how his loyalty shifted from the Crown to the colonies and the path by which he arrived at republicanism, nationalism and federalism. It's also about how he transformed from a soldier then plantation owner chasing glory/social elevation/riches, one who professed to have little interest in politics, to someone who became the centre of politics. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does that clarify things? If it does, then clearly I've not done a good job in the article itself. Could you perhaps point me to a specific example of where the article veers into biography without linking back to philosophical import? It might help me better understand the general issue you have identified. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not just about his personal ideology" I think that helps clarify the purpose of the article for me. I was reading it as a philosophical study, but - if I understand correctly - it is a chronology of appointments.
"It's not just about his personal ideology, i.e. how his loyalty shifted from the Crown to the colonies and the path by which he arrived at republicanism, nationalism and federalism. It's also about how he transformed from a soldier then plantation owner chasing glory/social elevation/riches, one who professed to have little interest in politics, to someone who became the centre of politics." The trouble I'm having is understanding how this is so different from what one would expect in a conventional biography that it would not be more appropriate in George Washington or the numerous existing subsidiary articles about him. Fundamentally, I might be able to wrap my head around it better if it were organized by subject-matter instead of chronologically, more similar to Religious views of George Washington. The structure, at present, is sectioned around a sequential narrative of life events. That said, I don't suggest you make any changes to the article based on my comments as this is more likely than not a personal difficulty I'm having understanding the article; the article, as I said, is very good and I think you should ignore everything I've just written unless or until someone else expresses a similar perception (which may not actually occur). I have no intention of opposing this article, my !vote is Neutral right now and, pending feedback from other editors, I intend to change it to Support. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington biography has a huge amount of ground to cover and is already excessively long, and this one creeps just over the maximum size recommended in WP:LENGTH. I can see no alternative to the current structure; an article that discusses an evolution is, I think, necessarily sequenced chronologically. Having someone oppose this candidate concerns me nowhere near as much as the possibility you've identified that I've written about events and actions without clearly establishing their relevance to the article subject. Your input is much appreciated and valued. Factotem (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine. And just to clarify, if I haven't sufficiently already, I believe this article is otherwise beyond reproach in every way and is, frankly, superior in both prose and completeness to any of the various Washington articles. I'm going to read it again a few times. Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read it again and more thoroughly compared it against the other Washington articles and I'm prepared to Support now. A few general comments:

  • You mention Washington's discomfort at the Society of the Cincinnati in 1786 but it might be good to briefly mention his role in the first plenary session of the society in 1784 when he (ultimately unsuccessfully) tried to have the hereditary requirements dropped since his own writings at that time, I believe, more fully addressed his issues; I think a further mention of Washington's later decision to apparently embrace it in some form by wearing the badge of the Cincinnati for the rest of his life (IIRC he even had a special diamond-encrusted one made for his exclusive use) might balance his apparent wishy-washiness with respect to the Society. This might veer into the realm of WP:OR, however, so take this as nothing more than a throwaway comment; I defer to your judgment.
  • I think it would be worthwhile briefly mentioning the dichotomy or evolution in Washington's views about federal order insofar as his treatment of the Shay Mutiny and the Whiskey Rebellion. "Washington and the Whiskey Insurrection" [1] is an all encompassing source if that could be distilled to a few sentences (LMK if you want me to send you the PDF if you don't have access).
  • Thank you for linking to Provisional Army of the United States!!!

Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! You're welcome. Didn't realise that was one of yours. Thanks. Washington's efforts to get the Cincinnati to renounce hereditary membership is already mentioned, albeit in a footnote. There's a strand in post-revolutionary politics relating to the fact that Washington never intended to upend the social order inherent in the British colonial system and bring greater democracy, but intended instead to maintain essentially the same order but with American rather than British aristocracy in control. I think that's what you're referring to with the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions, but it's an avenue I didn't go down because it seemed a bit of a stretch. I'll ponder on that some more. Factotem (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With both apologies and thanks to Nikkimaria and Chetsford, I'm requesting withdrawal of this review to clear the way for an ACR of the Battle of Monmouth Factotem (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Strike that. Didn't realise it's OK to nominate more than one ACR at the same time. Factotem (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Factotem, I think that given this has been open for three months and has only attracted a single support, it might be time to close it as no consensus to promote, without prejudice to a run at FAC if that's what you are thinking. I'm sure that Chetsford's comments and Nikkimaria's image review will have been helpful in that regard. It may be that the military angle to it wasn't enough to attract sufficient reviewers. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello gentlemen greetings to Factotem and PM, if you both don't mind then I'll have a review here. Because I thought I reviewed this one a while ago, looks like I didn't sadly. Please do not close this nomination (not for now). I'll give you both my review this evening CET or tomorrow evening, it's really long so I'll need some time to have a look here in it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

In general

  • Link France with the Kingdom of France's article.
  • Link Canada with The Canadas' article.
  • Try to avoid using seasons in this article like summer, winter, and fall by MOS:SEASON.
  • Like these examples were written in the summer of 1783 on the subject,
  • short-term enlistments expired in the fall of 1775,
  • Washington's own radicalization began over the winter
  • over the difficult winter of 1777–1778 at Valley Forge – a winter,
  • Note c,
  • Note m,
  • became fully radicalised over the summer of 1774
  • the Declaration of Independence the next summer
  • I enter upon the command of the American armies, I date my fall
  • And Note o.

Infobox

  • Do we know the specific dates when he took those titles? If we do shan't we put them in the infobox?
Not all of them.

Lead

  • youth spent around his half-brother Lawrence Maybe add this surname. I know he has the same surname then George has, however, he was his half-brother so the readers don't know or his mother or father was the same as George had. If he came from George's mother then he had a different surname.
Not sure that's necessary. The link reveals that Lawrence is a Washington, not explicitly stating the surname pretty much defaults to a Washington surname, and by restricting "Washington" to mean only George, we avoid any confusion about which Washington we're writing about in subsequent sentences.
  • he had been surrounded with in a youth "with in" --> "within"?
Re-written to avoid the false "within"
Sorry, but disagree; the definite article is necessary here.
  • Victory cemented Washington's reputation --> "The victory cemented Washington's reputation"
Sorry, but disagree again. In this case, the definite article would, I think, trip the reader. It forces a pause to consider "What victory?", because none has previously been mentioned. The more generic "Victory", without a definite article, relates naturally to the American Revolutionary War previously mentioned in the narrative and flows more smoothly.
  • Link Great Britain with Kingdom of Great Britain's article both in the lead and body.
Done
  • Cultivating an image of disinterested patriot --> "Cultivating an image of the disinterested patriot"
Again, definite article is not necessary here
  • him widespread acclaim as a modern day Cincinnatus You mean "modern-day"?
I do, and done
  • insisting that he was accepting only at --> "insisting that he was accepted only at"
He was the one doing the accepting, so the 'ing' form is correct
  • Link "president of the United States".
Done. Factotem (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Body

Young Washington

  • British colony of Virginia on February 22, 1732 Old or New Style calendar? I think we should add the Old Style here. Also, capitalise "colony" here.
O.S. date added, "colony" capitalised. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • George inherited the 260-acre Ferry Farm and Lawrence inherited the 2,500-acre Little Hunting Creek No metric units here?
  • who presided over some six million acres of land Same as above.
  • On his return he was appointed adjutant --> "On his return, he was appointed adjutant"
Done Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in him a lifelong need for approval.[7][6] Suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
Done Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • he had acquired some 2,500 acres on the Virginia frontier No metric units here?
  • This was a little mistake of mine here we shouldn't add a metric unit here.
Did wonder what the metric equivalent was. Will leave as is. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question you ask Factotem, well in metric units it should be squere metre. However, most people use hectare instead of square metre. Hectare isn't part of the metric units so exactly I'm wrong in this sentence but even it isn't part of SI-units it's still acceptable to use it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Major Washington

  • asserting their claim to the territory, No comma here.
Done Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Securing a reputation

Sorry, disagree. Definite article is necessary here. Although "Forks of the Ohio" looks like a proper name (and we wouldn't write, for example, "for the Pittsburgh", which is where the forks are today), the place is actually the fork where two rivers meet. The source uses the same definite article and capitalisation. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ambushing a French force of less than 50 men Replace less with fewer.
Good catch. Done. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • promoted colonel following the death of the regiment's commander Do we know who the commander was?
Added. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • honor and widespread acknowledgement for the victory Here is the first British/American English issue. British acknowledgement.
Did not even know the Americans spelled that word differently. Corrected. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note b to mis-translate the word "assassination" to "death" or "loss".[32][31][30] First "mis-translate" --> "mistranslate" and second suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
Done and done. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • resigned his commission rather than accept demotion Add an "a" before demotion.
Sorry, but disagree again. The indefinite article is not necessary, and I think the prose is more elegant without it. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part two

In pursuit of a royal commission

  • Still unwilling to accept demotion, Same as above.
  • king and country "with my poor abilitys" Is this old English? I mean it looks odd to me shouldn't it be "abilities"?
Quoted text like this is presented verbatim, as originally written and with no amendments for 18th-century spellings (and the American English of the day doesn't appear to have developed its distaste for the letter 'u' etc.). Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • pressed Dinwiddie to appoint him commander and urged Add an "a" before commander.
  • the appointment to be "press'd upon me Isn't it "pressed"?
Quoted text. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disillusionment

  • of British forces in North America, did I do not think we should use a comma here.
That comma ends a parenthetical clause and is necessary. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the two met in Philadelphia later that year Link Philadelphia here.
  • grateful country" (i.e. Virginia), a regard in which I think we should remove the a here.

Mr. Washington Esq.

  • In 1757, Washington had added 500 acres to Mount Vernon No metric units here?
  • expansion that would ultimately result in an 8,000 acre estate "8,000 acre" --> "8,000-acre"?
Done. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • both causes for further disillusionment with Great Britain.[75][71] Suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
Done. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Land speculation

  • 2.5 million acres of land in the Ohio valley No metric units? And shouldn't "valley" be capitalised?
Ohio valley is not a proper name, so no capitalisation for valley. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note e Washington suggested 200,000 acres along the Monongahela No metric units?
  • Still Note e various tracts, to agree how the land "agree on how"?
"on" not necessary here. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Note e secured for themselves seven eighths of the bounty lands Shouldn't there be an hyphen between seven eighths
Indeed there should, and there is now. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to grant him a colonel's entitlement of 5,000 acres, which he No metric units?
  • Washington had amassed some 32,000 acres of land Same as above.

Burgess Washington

  • He was re-elected in 1765 and returned British re-elected.
Done. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political awakening

  • to petition the king for the redress the "King"?
I struggle with the correct capitalisation of King, but on reflection I think you are right, and all instances where "king" refers specifically to King George III have been capitalised now. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • they drank toasts to the king Same as above.
  • colonial rights and loyalty to the king Same as above.

Political ascendancy

  • became fully radicalised over the summer British radicalised.
Americanised. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unexampled testimoney of the most despotic system I think this is a typo "testimoney" --> "testimony"?
Quoted text. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • by which Washington still stood to gain 10,000 acres No metric units here?
  • that ever was practiced in a free gov[ernmen]t".[112][113][61] Suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
Done Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • final resolution recommended petitioning the king to assert The King?
  • to the Crown, warn the king "to reflect Same as above.

Militancy

  • "regular, systematic plan...to fix the Shackles of Slavry on us" Is Slavry here as a typo?
Quoted text Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Massachusetts.
  • the business of the congress was conducted The Congress?
I don't believe so. In this case, congress refers not to the later, formally constituted body but a gathering, and should be no more capitalised than if it was a "summit" or "convention". Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The congress also urged the mobilization Same as above.
  • his return from the congress The Congress?
  • accepted command of the Prince William The Prince William? Maybe remove "the" or uncapitalise prince here.

General Washington

  • Link Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire

Republican

  • by the British. Gage refused to recognise any rank British recognise.
Americanised Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • derived from the king and declared the The King?
  • "conceive any more honourable, than that which British honourable.
Quoted text Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • manifesto for his behavior throughout the war, and demonstrated I do not think we should add here a comma.
You think right. Removed. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent

  • who had deceived the king and sought The King?
  • French and Indian War without pay out of a You mean "payout"?
No. "payout" is not correct here. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • colonies, and it was the king on whom the revolutionaries The King?
  • a majority supported petitioning the king Same as above.
  • acting on the commission of the king Same as above.
  • explicitly refer to his enemy not as I think we should add a comma behind enemy.

I don't believe it's necessary Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Political infighter[reply]

  • s short-term enlistments expired in the fall of 1775 Avoid using seasons here.
  • accounted for 15 per cent of its strength British per cent.
Americanised Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist

  • were written in the summer of 1783 on the subject Avoid using seasons here.
  • "Competent powers to congress for general Congress?
If I had written this, then yes, I would have capitalised congress because it's now referring to the formal body, but in this instance it's another case of quoted text. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Convention

  • being associated with an organisation increasingly British organisation.
  • aristocratic and politically intrusive organisation Same as above.
Done and done. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell to politics

  • His final address to congress called for To Congress?
Done Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • government was the proper fulfilment of the British fulfilment.
Done Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell to politics

  • His final address to congress called for an expanded To Congress?
  • In March 1797, Washington retired once again to Mount Vernon Remove 1797 here. I don't think we should've here a year because the same year is in the previously sentences.
Not done - 1797 is not stated earlier, so it is necessary to state it here. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambition

  • concludes that the attack on Jumoville was motivated You mean Jumonville?
Good catch - fixed. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political disinterest

  • After his re-election to the House of Burgesses British re-election.
Americanised Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • towards Redstone Creek on June 16 No comma after 16?
Rest of the sentence is in parentheses, so no comma needed. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

  • Ref 25, "p. 23–24" --> "pp. 23–24".
  • Ref 69, "p. 117, 137–138" --> "pp. 117, 137–138".
  • Ref 162, "p. 127–128, 139" --> "pp. 127–128, 139".
  • Ref 285, "p. 678–680" --> "pp. 678–680"
Done Factotem (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • In the "File:Map of territorial growth 1775.svg" The thirteen American colonies (red) and limit of westward expansion into uncolonized territory (pink) as set by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 Shouldn't there be a "the" before uncolonized?

That's anything from me, for now, I'll continue later and finish the article tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Little issues Hey Factotem could you please address these comments if you do then we're done here because I can not see any other issue here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not think we should add a second "(10 km²)".
  • Washington had added 500 acres (2.0 km2) It's not necessary to add an extra nought here.
  • formed to claim two and a half million acres By MOS:NUMERAL we can't use a number which has more than two words in it. We've to change "two and a half million" to "2.5 million" here.
  • chance of success to be worth risking his reputation for.[213][210] Suggest adding the citations in numerical order.
All done. Factotem (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me, for now, I'll continue later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, it's much appreciated. I'm afraid I disagree on pretty much every point you make about the need for (in)definite articles, and have pushed back on those, but the rest of your comments have been addressed. Factotem (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's anything from me, for now, I'll continue later and finish the article tomorrow. Well yes, probably but I'm not an expert in this area in history, but I'm happy to help you. Even if I make grammar mistakes or you disagree with me than I am open to your answers. I'm not a native English speaker if you didn't notice that already? But does that means I can't help you with that? I don't think so, I follow my feelings whether it should have an a, the or a comma. Anyway please have a look in my new comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More responses above. I had not realised that you are not a native English speaker, and your command of English is all the more impressive for its mastery of national versions. Having said that, I think I'm on the opposite side of you 100% of the time in terms of the appropriate use of (in)definite articles. Occasionally your suggestion to use/not use "a" or "the" are, to me, just wrong, but most of the time they are, whilst not wrong, not necessary, and the prose is, in my opinion, more elegant without. I have still yet to address the metric conversions for acres, but will do so. I also need to fully acquaint myself with MOS:SEASON; something about that doesn't sound right to me, and certainly, the winter at Valley Forge cannot be de-seasoned because the fact that it was winter is an important detail. Factotem (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added conversions to show all acreage in km2 as well. I've also removed all instances of dating an event to a season, but have retained mentions of winter where it is an important detail (i.e. the winter at Valley Forge, and in a footnote discussing the Forbes Expedition's need to complete a route into the frontier before winter). Factotem (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Factotem, well first MOS:SEASON says that we should try to avoid to use seasons. Because it probably could confuse our readers especially in regions like the southern hemisphere and around the equator line (because they have not the same seasons as we have). If it is really important to use a (or more) season(s) in this article, or if it is safe to use seasons than I don't think it'd be a bad idea to let them like they are. Second, it's not a bad idea of yours to use km² instead of hectares. Both are 100 per cent correct to use, only that hectares are more commonly in small areas but that doesn't mean we shan't ignore kilometres. Also, thank you for your kind words, You're not the only one who said my English is good for a non-native English speaker. Which surprises me every day because I personally do not think it is that good so I every day surprised that can understand me. Most people think I'm an American or Briton even Americans and Britons think the same, that's just so weird to think about. It also took me literally hours and hours to review this article. First read the text then search the "issues" then write them up in the nomination and of course, re-read them to be sure that I didn't miss an "issue". I took me at least five hours to read, search, write, re-read and sometimes search it on Google for some information. Anyway, we're just 2/3 into the article and Hopefully, it was helpful. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's anything, this time the whole review and the whole article. I'm happy to help you even you disagree with "some" of my comments, but that's fine we all learn something more every day. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you so much for your very thorough review. I know from my own reviews how much effort is involved, especially for articles as long as this, and your devotion is commendable. I've addressed pretty much every issue you've identified, bar two: I just cannot get on board with your suggestions about the use of (in)definite articles, and have not changed those; and the linking of places such as Philadelphia, US States and some countries are, in my opinion, not optimal per MOS:OVERLINK. I hope you're OK with these pushbacks - happy to discuss if not. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2019 (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) 00:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Working Group (resistance organization)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Catrìona (talk)

Working Group (resistance organization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

In 1942, a small group of Jews in Axis-aligned Slovakia hatched a scheme to bribe Heinrich Himmler into halting the Final Solution. This is their story. The article was promoted to GA in August; since then, it has received a peer review and a GOCE copy edit. I then made a FA nomination, which attracted some support. However, the topic is more controversial than I anticipated, and it didn't end up being promoted. Courtesy ping to all previous reviewers @Vami IV, Kaiser matias, Dudley Miles, SlimVirgin, and Bloger: who kindly offered feedback on earlier versions of the article. I have pdf copies of most of the works cited in the article and would be happy to provide them to anyone doing a source review. Catrìona (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2018 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

The Holocaust in Slovakia

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Fiamh (talk)

The Holocaust in Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Holocaust is a contentious issue in Slovakia because the Axis-aligned Slovak State was also the first time that Slovakia had been an independent country. The Slovak State not only implemented anti-Jewish measures of its own accord but paid Germany a large sum of money in order to permanently remove 57,000 Jews. In this article, I've tried to be as comprehensive as possible with high-quality sources.

Unfortunately, I had to quit editing suddenly due to a personal crisis and therefore did not finish the previous A-class review earlier this year. I've now returned under a new account and want to finish the process. I've examined the comments left by @Indy beetle and Lingzhi2: and believe that I've addressed them. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 11:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

edit
  • I'll look at this later. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Tiso's leadership, the Slovak government resumed negotiations I presume this has to do with the partition of Czechoslovakia and is thus referring to the Munich Agreement. Yet, far as I can tell, that agreement involved no negotiations on the part of the Czechoslovaks, so it is inaccurate to say the new Slovak government "resumed" them.
    • Reworded
  • it was neither a fully independent state nor a puppet government, subservient to German demands. As in it was subservient to German demands or was not?
    • Reworded
  • In the days after the announcement of the First Vienna Award, antisemitic rioting broke out in Bratislava; Jews were blamed for the rioting as well as the territorial losses. While I'm sure the HSL'S government was not much concerned with logic in its explanation, how exactly were the Jews blamed for anti-semetic riots? The riots seem to have been triggered by the grievances over the territory losses, and those losses were blamed on the Jews. So was it a form of indirect blaming, as in, the Jews were responsible for the riots because they were supposedly responsible for the losses which triggered them, or was there an even more in-depth conspiracy that the Jews orchestrated the riots themselves?
  • My question from the previous review regarding capital flight is unanswered. The arrests did not prevent a spike in capital flight. So the wealthier Jews managed, despite the arrests, to send their money abroad, or were poorer Jews starting to evacuate their funds out of fear?
    • Unfortunately, none of the sources go into any detail about the capital flight. I would guess that it may have come from upper-middle class Jews who were not rich enough to be imprisoned, but that's OR.
  • Thousands of Jews were living illegally, often under false papers identifying them as "Aryans". Is it known if this was the result of a coordinated resistance effort to forge documents, or were papers produced on an ad hoc, independent basis?
    • I've added a note explaining the sources of forged documents.
  • Slovakia has promised to return over $185 million in confiscated, nationalized property to the Jewish community. This is from a 2013 source. Any progress on this?

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up both maps
    • Done
  • Not convinced the tagging re: images in The Tragedy of Slovak Jewry in Slovakia is correct, unless we can confirm non-US publication did not occur - see the Cornell chart
    • Well, if it was first published in Slovakia before 1949 (although Mandel does not say anything about prior publication of the images) it would still be public domain as {{PD-Anonymous-EU}}. According to Mandel, he found the photographs in 1945 (p. 4); if he knew who was the photographer he makes no mention of it. It's highly doubtful that the authors are known, or will ever be found, because they would want to avoid prosecution for being involved in criminal activities.
      • PD-Anonymous-EU for a 1949 image would have the copyright expiring after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's impossible to prove a negative. No one could look through all non-US publications between 1945 and 1950 to prove that this image was never published first. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have temporarily removed two of the images, because they may have been first published in this 1949 book and would be PD-Slovakia but not PD-US. According to this, the 1949 book was the first to be published with photographs from the Holocaust in Slovakia. The header image of the article is unlikely to be in the book, because there are no results for "Lipa" or "Baum", and the only result for "Stropkov" is not consistent with this image. buidhe 13:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your comment. If they aren't PD-US, you and I both agree that they can't be kept. But I'm not sure what evidence you think is sufficient to establish first publication. I will try to get a copy of the 1949 book (probably by late January) and will check what images are and aren't there. If not, perhaps I need to establish consensus via an FFD discussion. buidhe 23:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Slovak_Republic_1939_45_Administrative_Map.png: what's the source of the data presented in this map?
    • You can find the same information on this map, published on a website belonging to the Slovak Ministry of Environment. Also, the Commons image was used in materials for a history conference.
  • File:Miloslavov_tent_camp.png: don't think the current FUR presents a strong enough case for the use of a non-free image. Same with File:Kremnicka_massacre_exhumed_victims.jpg
    • Removed both
  • File:Antisemitic_graffiti_in_Bratislava,_c._1941.jpg: freedom of panorama does not typically extend to 2D works like graffiti, unless specified by the legislation. If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Also needs a US PD tag
  • File:Majdanek_-_Aktion_Erntefest_(1943).jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • Removed

Comments from Harrias

edit
  • "In a 23 March treaty.." The wording is a little awkward, maybe change to something along the lines of "In a treaty agreed on 23 March.."
    • Done
  • "..was neither a fully independent state nor a German puppet.." I would consider switching where state is, and removing "a": "..was neither fully independent nor a German puppet state.."
    • Done
  • "indigent" Ideally replace this with a more common, better-known word. If you feel it is the only word that will suffice, provide a Wiktionary link.
    • Used "impoverished"
  • "..the no-man's land during the winter." The use of the definite article makes it seem like this has been mentioned before, but this is the only mention of a no-man's land in the article. Please clarify or soften.
    • replaced with "on the new Slovak–Hungarian border during the winter".
  • In the Background section, the article uses "HSĽS", but thereafter, it uses "Ľudák". It isn't major, but it bugged me, and made me double check what they were.
    • Switched to HSLS exclusively
  • "Jews were required to register their property; their bank accounts (valued at 245 million Ks in August 1941) were also frozen.." The "also" jars a bit here: it suggests that something else had been frozen. I would suggest removing it.
    • Removed
  • "..revenue into Slovak coffers." The use of "coffers" here is not encyclopaedic language.
    • Replaced with "the Slovak treasury".

Reviewed to the end of the Aryanization section, more to follow. Harrias talk 11:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, use {{lang}} for foreign language terms, not ''.
    • Done
  • Our article on Romani people suggests that "Roma" is a colloquialism, so it should be avoided in our articles as non-encyclopaedic language.
    • Done
  • "During the summer of 1941..", "In the fall of 1941.." per MOS:SEASON, avoid the use of seasons as a frame of reference.
    • Removed all cases of spring, summer and fall. Left winter because in those cases the time was obvious and the season (i.e. cold) was relevant to the reference.
  • "As indicated by a cable from German ambassador to Slovakia Hanns Ludin, the.." To avoid giving Ludin a false title, this needs to be reworked. Addition: There are quite a few instances of this in the article that need to be addressed.
    • This particular case was introduced by the copy editor; I restored it to what it had been previously. I also looked through the whole article and was not able to find another instance of this. Could you let me know what I'm missing?
  • "..which paid 30 Reichmarks.." Should presumably be Reichsmarks as previous.
    • Good catch!
  • "..were marked by "horrific scenes".." According to who? This requires in-text attribution.
    • Replaced with "scenes that horrified many non-Jewish Slovaks".
  • "..accepted thousands of Ks in bribes.." Per MOS:CURRENCY, currency symbols should be only be used when accompanied by a numeric amount, otherwise spell the currency out.
    • Done
  • The red-link for "selection" should move to the first use, a sentence earlier.
    • Done
  • "Acting on behalf of the Vatican in April, .." April when? The last date mentioned was November 1943, so it would follow that this is April 1944, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
    • Clarified "April 1942".

Reviewed to the end of the Deportations (1942) section. Harrias talk 13:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll be honest and admit I forgot I hadn't finished this review:

  • "Unlike German-occupied countries whose the governments.." Remove "the".
  • "According to Israeli historian Gila Fatran.." Another false title.
    • Aha! I did not know what false titles were until just now. I think it may be an ENGVAR issue, because they're very common in the States. I got rid of some of them, but in some cases I think they read better than the alternative. They're accepted by Associated Press Stylebook among others so I don't think they're incorrect.
      • I think you are right that there is an ENGVAR issue here, but on the other hand, even in AmEng, I think it is journalese rather than encyclopaedic language. Nonetheless, the A-class criteria only requires that the article is "written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear", so I won't press this point. If you were considering taking this onto FA, then I am unsure if it would meet the stricter "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" requirement. Harrias talk 16:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Einsatzgruppe", "SS-Obersturmbannführer", "Einsatzkommando", "Sonderkommando", "SS-Heimatschutz" and "Abwehrgruppe" need {{lang}} templates. Check for others.
    •   Done "SS-Obersturmbannführer" and "SS-Heimatschutz".   Not done the rest—according to Google Books, they are more commonly not italicized.
      • Wikipedia's MOS, via MOS:FOREIGNITALIC states "Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." Is there a specific reason why these terms don't meet that criteria? My understanding would be that they should all be italicised. Harrias talk 16:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's reviewed to the end of the article. This is a phenomenal piece of work, and very educational: well done. Harrias talk 10:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Cite 292: "p." → 'pp.'. Cite 312, vice versa.

That trivia aside, a remarkably solid job on the citing and sourcing. The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. The article itself is an impressive piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

Let's see or we can promote it before New Year.

  • A total of 68,000 to 71,000 Slovak Jews were murdered Link for Slavak Jews?
  • Slovak Jews who had come of age under Austro-Hungarian rule spoke German, Hungarian, or Yiddish Same as above and unlink German because it's a comment term.
  • and supported Czechoslovakism or Hungarian expansionism.[9][6] Re-order the refs.
  • states of Hungary, Poland, and Romania Unlink Hungary because it is already linked before.
  • formed the Freiwillige Schutzstaffel militia.[10][3] Re-order the refs here.
  • border guarantees and economic assistance.[20][6] Same as above.
  • foreign interests and emphasized Catholic clericalism.[24][11][25] In note c - same as above.
  • Seventy-five percent of Slovaks were Catholics In note d - unlink Catholics because of commen term.
  • over 500,000 Czechoslovak koruna (Kčs) were arrested to prevent capital flight.[43][35] Same as above.
  • the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom; additional Unlink both countries because of commen term.
  • I see a lot of "howevers" maybe reduce them?
    • Removed some.
  • Jews were also forbidden to write for Christian publications.[60][28][61] Re-order the refs here.
  • cabinet (including Ferdinand Ďurčanský) with radicals.[64][65][26] Same as above.
  • talks was the appointment of SS officer Dieter Wisliceny as a "Jewish adviser" British adviser.
  • Link dollar in note f.
    • Linked in note e, which comes first. Let me know if you think it should be linked in all the notes.
  • withdraw only 1,000 Ks (later 150 Ks) per week.[56][28] Re-order the refs here.
  • Jewish property and the dismissal of Jewish employees.[72][28] Same as above.
  • propaganda boasted that the Jewish Code was the strictest Why has code an upper case?
    • Because it's a proper noun for a specific piece of legislation. Also, it's capitalized in the sources.
  • The president, however, could issue exemptions protecting --> "The President, however, could issue exemptions protecting"
  • were ordered to move to fourteen towns.[103][32] Re-order the refs here.
  • German government proposed the idea.[116][95][h] Same as above.
  • Solution in Slovakia "will not be very difficult".[126][127][121] Same as above.
  • Lutheran is overlinked.
    • It's linked once in a footnote and once in the body. I think that's appropriate, since not all readers look at footnotes.
  • On 25 March 1942, the first train departed from Poprad transit camp Remove the unnacassry "1942".
  • he continued to organize transports[153][151] and said that Re-order the refs here.
  • to justify the deportations relative to Christian ethics.[163][132] Same as above.
  • Eighteen trains with 18,746 victims[159] went to Auschwitz, and another thirty-nine went Maybe unlink this Auschwitz to the first time it uses it, unless the Auschwitz is already mentioned then just unlink this one.
    • This is the first time it is mentioned in the text after the lede, so I think it makes sense to link here.
  • Jews who had been promised immunity to labor camps.[198][166] Re-order the refs here.
  • the Catholic Church issued a pastoral letter in Latin on 8 March condemning Unlink Latin.
  • After the battle of Stalingrad it was evident to the Slovaks Battle of Stalingrad is a proper noun.
  • known euphemistically as a "radical solution" (German: radikalen Lösung) Unlink German.
  • eradicate Slovakia's remaining Jews before the Red Army advanced further into Poland Link the Red Army.
  • as the population swelled to 3,000 – twice the intended capacity.[264][171] Re-order the refs.
  • an office in the former Jewish Center to hunt down Jews in hiding.[281][278] Same as above.
  • provide the names and addresses of other Jews in hiding.[281][278] Same as above.
  • Tiso claimed in his reply to the pope that the reports of mass --> "Tiso claimed in his reply to the Pope that the reports of mass"
  • were taken to Sereď and deported to Auschwitz on 17 October.[292] [293] Remove the unnacassry space.
  • In all, 211 mass graves with 5,304 victims shot by Axis forces in late 1944 Link Axis.
  • After the liberation of Slovakia by the Red Army in 1945, it became part of the Third Czechoslovak Republic Hmm was this really a liberation? Dictionaries say a liberation is someone or something is free from something/someone else. But Slovakia became part of Czechoslovakia again which doesn't make it liberated you know. I mean can believe most Slovaks though they're liberated from Czechoslovakia after the country got dissolved. To my eyes Czechoslovakia became liberated but Slovakia and Czechia not. Yeah, sure Slovakia was liberated from the Germans but does that mean it was really liberated because the Soviets occupied it?
    • Today's Slovak media and Slovak politicians (except Kotleba) call it liberation. Then again, so does Angela Merkel referring to Germany. I've changed this instance to "conquest" but kept "liberation" where it refers to Jews being liberated.
  • the country's European identity before it joined the European Union in 2004 Unlink the EU because of common term.
  • "68,000—71,000" in the infobox should change from em dash to en dash.
  • In the image "File:Antisemitic_graffiti_in_Bratislava,_c._1941.jpg" the circa should have a template.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your comments! Much appreciated. I've done everything except re-ordering references and where there are comments above. Putting citations in order is AFAIK is not required by A-class or any other standard. I have some content in a sandbox that I'm planning to add before FAC, which would probably throw the numbering off anyway. buidhe 13:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: They are not necassry but I saw many encyclopaedias use it in numerical order and they look nicer if they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPA-5 (talk • contribs)
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) 09:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Marcus Aurelius

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Векочел (talk)

Marcus Aurelius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Marcus Aurelius is an important military figure in Roman history. He was Roman emperor from 161 to 180, the last of the Five Good Emperors. The Roman–Parthian War of 161–166 and the Marcomannic Wars occurred during his reign. Векочел (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

Awesome work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Векочел (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, Векочел, epic work. Thanks for your efforts so far. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the topic, so can't really help much. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from T8612

edit
  • I find it a bit weird that modern sources do not have the "p." for page, as they could therefore be confused with ancient sources. Is it possible to fix that? The other possibility would be to switch volumes of ancient works in latin numbers (for example: "Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae ix.2.1–7; Birley, Marcus Aurelius, pp. 64–65.").
Simply by adding the "p." and Roman numerals. I can do it if you don't have objection.T8612 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much appreciate thst. Векочел (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is necessary to add the translation of ancient works (unless it's a literary work like the multiple translations of the Iliad). You could lighten the article by removing these.
You misunderstood me. I ment it's not necessary to add references to translations of ancient works because there often have been several of them, and they all basically say the same thing. You can add links to Wikisource or Perseus, etc. but it is superfluous to add the reference to a particular translation, unless the translation itself is a work of art (as with the Iliad and Odyssey). See for example with Severus Alexander, it takes much less space. T8612 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could move these translations to external links. Векочел (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I've added the link to the ref.T8612 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

What I think Nikkimaria means is that CNG didn't make the coins, for example, just the photograph of the coins, so each one needs an additional tag for the actual item depicted, which is a work of art in its own right. In the example of File:AELIUS CAESAR RIC II 987-671493.jpg, and the others, this would probably be PD-old-100, wouldn't it, Nikkimaria? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a source review as yet. Have asked someone about doing it, as I just don't know this time period or the primary and secondary sources well enough. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - fail

edit

While this is a little outside the periods of Rome I usually cover, it seems to me that all of the works which one might reasonably expect to have been consulted have been. Indeed, the list seems to me to be impressively comprehensive. Differing viewpoints seem to be reasonably covered and attributed. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

I have issues with the reliability of some sources. Machiavelli! Seriously? Quoted at length and referenced to an undated, un-OCLCed source. Gibbon taken seriously regarding his views on the imperial treatment of Christians. Again referenced to an undated, un-OCLCed source. I won't go into less obviously unreliable sources, but the inclusion of these two raises serious doubts regarding all of the sourcing.

I would recommend that all sources prior to (the arbitrarily chosen date of) 1945 supporting statements of fact be replaced or discarded unless the author is quite sure that they can be relied upon. I have nothing against older sources per se and have used 19th-century sources myself and defended them at ACR. But the use of centuries old, clearly non-RSs suggests a lack of understanding of how to appropriately source for an ACR. I would further recommend that any sources 'inherited' by the nominator be at least briefly checked for their reliability.

In addition there are some formatting issues:

There are other points I could make, but I have been at this for several hours and am getting stale. Broadly this is a fine piece of work, but the 'picky' points on formatting the sources need to be addressed and there needs to be reassurance that the sources are reliable. I shall leave the nominator to comment on and/or address the points above, but note that this is not an exhaustive list.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Векочел, that's looking better.
  • There are still "sources" which you do not use as sources. Working from the top, I hit one on my third try: "Codex Justinianus. Scott, Samuel P., trans. The Code of Justinian, in The Civil Law." (The only cite I could find to the Codex Justinianus was to a translation by Birley.) At the bottom, you have neither removed nor cited Yü, who I flagged up above. There are others. You will need to check every one.
  • There are a number of works which do not have OCLCs nor ISBNs. Could you check each work which does not have one and add it if one is available. (Mostly they are.)
  • Could you put the titles of all articles in inverted commasquotation marks. Eg Thinkers at War, Portrait of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.; there are others.
  • Is there a reason why you have linked to a review of Thinkers at War and not to the actual work.
  • Could you put the titles of all works in title case. Eg ref 285. There are others.
  • Several entries under "Citations" are really notes. Eg refs 276, 279. There are others. Could you move all non-citing 'citations' to "Notes".
  • Publication dates. Just the year is required, could you remove the day and month where they are present.
  • Numerous links are broken. See here.
  • Works not in English need an indication of the language they are written in.
  • There remain a number of issues with the sourcing. I flagged up issues with Gibbon above. He is quoted at length towards the start of "Death and succession" without any warning to the reader that he died over 200 years ago. The quote is cited three times, twice tothe the same work but giving different titles, neither of them correct; both within inverted commas, not in italics; neither in title case; both linked, but with no author, publisher, publication date, etc given; no page numbers are given (the work is 628 pages long). The third link is to a random looking web page ("naturalthinker.net") of unknown provenance, which happens to include the same quotation. Gibbon is over 230 years old and is thoroughly unreliable. This is from a hard look at just one citation. I would repeat my comment of yesterday: "I would recommend that all sources prior to (the arbitrarily chosen date of) 1945 supporting statements of fact be replaced or discarded unless the author is quite sure that they can be relied upon. I have nothing against older sources per se and have used 19th-century sources myself and defended them at ACR. But the use of centuries old, clearly non-RSs suggests a lack of understanding of how to appropriately source for an ACR. I would further recommend that any sources 'inherited' by the nominator be at least briefly checked for their reliability."
  • It is best, I agree, that Gibbon not be used in the article. Векочел (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "External links" seem close to random. What value does Find a Grave add to the article?
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've edited the page to comply with your suggestions. Векочел (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was impressively swift, given the amount of work involved. However, it is getting a little frustrating as you have not "edited the page to comply with your[my] suggestions". To state that you haven't and give a reason why you haven't and/or shouldn't is one thing, to state that you have when you haven't is another. Can we give this one last try. I will break down my comments as much as possible. Could you please indicate under each one separately what you have done. Thanks.

  1. There are still "sources" which you do not use as sources, including at least one which I mention above by name. Could you delete them or move them to a Further reading section.
    1.   Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Could you put the titles of all works in title case.
    1.   Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Publication dates. Just the year is required, could you remove the day and month where they are present.
    1. Removed Векочел (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Numerous links are broken. Could you repair or delete them.
    1.   Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. From Wikipedia:External links: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Could you check each of the ten external links and delete those which do not meet these criteria.
    1.   Done Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is there a reason why you have linked to a review of Thinkers at War and not to the actual work?
    1. The actual work is now linked. Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Is there a reason why you have linked to a review of Edward Champlin's Fronto and Antonine Rome and not to the actual work?
    1. The actual work for this is also linked. Векочел (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have serious doubts regarding the quality of the sourcing. To give two examples more or less at random.

  • The cite to McLynn (2009) actually includes a link to a very negative review which indicates that it not suitable for scholarly use.
  • Picking the first paragraph to meet my eye, the one under plague. It has five citations and a note:
  • "The pandemic is believed to have been either smallpox or measles" is referenced to an 1875 work, and is immediately contradicted by a note ("There is not enough evidence satisfactorily to identify the disease or diseases".) referencing a 1961 work. I rather doubt that either of them represent the current state of knowledge on this point.
  • Cassius Dio, who died in 235, is baldly used as a source; it is pointed out in the cite that "his book that would cover the plague under Marcus is missing".
  • A BBC news item on "Past pandemics that ravaged Europe"

This is the totality of the referencing for this paragraph. I note that the two paragraphs which I queried in my last two sets of comments have now been removed. Why should I assume that any other paragraph I examine will be better sourced?

Apologies if I come across as slightly tetchy, but I have now spent slightly over seven hours going through this article. I want it to be promoted. I have worked with the nominator previously and they are a fine editor. Clearly an enormous amount of work has gone into this article. Nevertheless, it is not, IMO, a reviewer's role to point out each and every fault. Can the nominator take this away and give it a long hard scrutiny. I would strongly recommend that they involve at least one other editor in this. Time, within reason, is not, so far as I am concerned, a major issue. This is an important article, let us get it right.

However, if I am looking at it for a forth time without noting significant improvements I shall be recommending that it not be promoted.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote, I have just realised that this article received a quick fail at FAC five months ago, largely on inadequate referencing. There was a recommendation that "I'd suggest the article be taken through peer review or good article nomination". This would still seem to be where the article is at. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I asked "I will break down my comments as much as possible. Could you please indicate under each one separately what you have done. Thanks." You didn't. I am going to assume that you believe that points 1 to 5 have been satisfactorily addressed, unless you indicate otherwise. (They have not. A glance shows that you have changed several titles out of correct title case. Can I repeat "I would strongly recommend that they involve at least one other editor in this". Cite 280 links to " 'The Plague under Marcus Aurelius'"; it should link to an author's name and a date. I could go on, but if I did, considering that this is my forth look at the sourcing, I think that I would oppose. Can I repeat "I would strongly recommend that they involve at least one other editor in this".)
  • This leaves several specific queries. Could you please respond to them individually:
  • Frank McLynn is an experienced historian and biographer who has published many books on subjects ranging from wars to Napoleon Bonaparte to Richard Lionheart. If he were to lie in his books, I think this would be largely noted. Векочел (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you believe that a BBC News article on "Past pandemics that ravaged Europe" is an appropriate source for the Antonine Plague: symtoms, modern scholastic consensus regarding the nature of, dates of reoccurance and daily death tolls? (I note that the article Antonine Plague has a number of quality, and more recent, sources.)
  • "scholars have concluded the pandemic to have been smallpox.19th century medical author Heinrich Häser believes that it may have been either smallpox or measles" Why should we care what a scholar writing 150 years ago, prior to modern medicine, much less DNA testing, concluded differently to modern scholars?
  • Cite 277. Is a museum caption of a portrait the best available source of the origin and duration of the Antonine Plague?
Векочел, you seem to be out of your depth here. This is not your fault, but it is about to prevent this otherwise fine article from becoming A class. Please seek assistance from someone with more experience of sourcing and referencing before you ping me again.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will look for someone else to give me feedback. Give me a few days to choose who this might be. Векочел (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Векочел. That would be a sound plan. You have done sterling work on this and I really want you to get it through. You could do with some specialist help on a specialist aspect of the article. Consider posting a request on the MilHist discussion page - just a suggestion. From my point of view, there is no rush at all. Take your time, get it right. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Векочел. How is this progressing? As you know, a positive source review is necessary for a promotion to A-Class, and this seems to still have some issues outstanding. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, my request for assistance in the section of the article about the Antonine Plague seems to have been archived. I will add this on the project talk page again. Векочел (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I see no problem with having a relatively brief section on the Antonine Plague. This is really more of a Marcus Aurelius article than an Antonine Plague article. Векочел (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Векочел. You are missing the point. Still. I do not have any issues with the length of this nor any other sections. I am doing a source review. Each time I have come to this article I have pointed out major failings in the sourcing and asked you to review all of the sourcing. Each time you have removed all or part of the specific case I have flagged up and left other fairly obvious inadequacies. It is not my job to check each and every source. That should have been done before the article was nominated. The section on the plague was simply a random paragraph I chose to focus on. It, and all other paragraphs, need to be adequately sourced to pass ACR. It isn't:

  1. When I asked "Why do you believe that a BBC News article on "Past pandemics that ravaged Europe" is an appropriate source for the Antonine Plague: symtoms, modern scholastic consensus regarding the nature of, dates of reoccurance and daily death tolls? (I note that the article Antonine Plague has a number of quality, and more recent, sources.)" you responded "I see no reason to disbelieve the source." This does not address my concerns, and on its own, IMO, leaves me no choice to oppose. You are using a topical news item to support "scholars have concluded"!
    1. @Gog the Mild: I've removed the 'scholars have concluded' so it reads 'the pandemic may have been smallpox' Векочел (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I asked "Is a museum caption of a portrait the best available source of the origin and duration of the Antonine Plague?" You have not responded.
    1. I personally think it would not be good as the only source for the plague section. But I see no problem in using it for a few sentences in the section. Векочел (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The third source you use is from 1961 and supports "There is not enough evidence satisfactorily to identify the disease or diseases." I neither know nor care whether this is still the case, but suggest that medical and archeological advances over the past 58 years render it a thoroughly unsatisfactory source for this statement.
    1. I've removed this as well, and added some more information (with sources) to the plague section. Векочел (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The article states "scholars have concluded the pandemic to have been smallpox. However, historian J. F. Gilliam concluded in his summary of the written sources, with inconclusive Greek and Latin inscriptions, two groups of papyri and coinage: 'There is not enough evidence satisfactorily to identify the disease or diseases' " Leaving aside the issue of the last sentence mot being grammatical, you have stated that the modern consensus is that the plague was smallpox, and contradicted this in the next sentence.
    1. Some scholars does not mean all scholars. Векочел (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is the third time I am flagging up these same issues.

As I note above, I have no particular reason to believe that any other random paragraph I choose to examine will prove to be more adequately sourced.

In addition, there are many inconsistencies, MoS breaches and other issues I have pointed out above, some over three weeks ago. Despite my asking you to respond to them point by point you have not, which makes it difficult for me to tell what you have done about them. A check of several suggests that in some cases the answer is "nothing".

In the light of this and with great regret I have to oppose the nomination with respect to sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on source review
edit

Hi Векочел. I have now spend a total of over 12 hours on this source review and it is possible that I am becoming a little tetchy. I would therefore be happy for another editor to take it over. If this happens I would recommend that they read through my review from the top, as a large number of the issues have not been addressed, or not fully addressed. It is difficult to tell which as the nominator, despite my requests, has not responded inline, and with regard to most points has not responded specifically at all. For my part, my fail on sourcing stands. I have flagged up my main issues three separate times, and still do not feel that the sourcing is up to A class standard (or, to be frank, GA standard), or even that my qualms have been understood. To close I will summarise, again, my main issues; but would also draw attention to the penultimate paragraph of the section above.

  1. A general BBC article from 14 years ago is not, IMO, a reliable source. I note that I have pointed out where more scholarly and recent sources can be found. The nominator disagrees.
    1. Now it is only used for a quote by the physician Galen, who lived in Rome during the time of the plague. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A museum caption of a portrait is not, IMO, a reliable source. The nominator disagrees.
    1. Removed altogether Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The article states "scholars have concluded"; I would expect a reader to understand this to mean the consensus of scholarly opinion. The nominator contends "Some scholars does not mean all scholars.
    1. Now it just reads "it is believed that the plague was smallpox" Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. These issues are being mentioned here for the fourth time in this review.
    1. I'm sorry, Gog, if I had some trouble understanding your comments. Векочел (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The fact that the sourcing is so weak on one randomly chosen paragraph, after I have flagged up numerous sourcing weaknesses and requested "I would further recommend that any sources 'inherited' by the nominator be at least briefly checked for their reliability" casts serious doubt on the reliability of the rest of the sourcing.
    1. Most of the sourcing comes from a mix of Birley, Grant, and McLynn. So I think that it is reliable. Векочел (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The nominator's responses to my comments causes me to believe that either I or they do not have a complete grasp of Wikipedia sourcing requirements at this level.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Gog the Mild, I would be glad to remove the sources and insert new ones. Векочел (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I've done some editing to the paragraph on the plague (which is now under legal and administrative work because it has to do with Rome trading with China). Векочел (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: You may be missing the point. I really am jaded with this review. I could literally have written an FA quality article of my own in the time I have spent on this review. IMO you need to find a third opinion or accept that you need to take the article away and work on the sources before resubmitting it. However, I really would like to see this article pass, so, if you address every one of the points I raise in the section above and respond satisfactorily in line to each one, then I will consider relooking at it. Every point, responded to in line. If you do this, and I wouldn't blame you if you decided not to, then I will consider re-reviewing from scratch. I warn, however, that the first time I find even a small discrepancy between what you write and the article I will stop, and stand by the existing oppose. If I were you I would take the opportunity to lose me as a source reviewer, but another option is there if you wish it.
Gog the Mild, It's perfectly fine if you don't wish to continue with the review. There are other editors who have done a source review. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the ACR coordinators may rule this out of order. From my personal point of view there is no timescale for getting this done. But it may be considered that the article as a whole has timed out.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info. If this remains opposed on sourcing, it will not get promoted by me, and I doubt any coord would promote it. I also doubt anyone is going to re-review the sources given the time Gog has dedicated to it and the concerns that have been raised. This sort of situation is precisely why we introduced a source review at ACR last year. All of Gog's concerns need to be properly and comprehensively addressed, line by line, or this just will not pass. And it has no chance of passing FAC if it can't pass a source review at ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, let's let Gog have another look at this. I appreciate all the effort Gog has put into this review. Векочел (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Векочел: I possibly wasn't clear enough. By "the section above", I meant the one titled "Source review - fail". So the first issue to respond to in line would be Machiavelli, the second Gibbon, etc. If you are happy that everything has been dealt with on these and all of the subsequent issues I raise (it hasn't) then it should not take you long to paste Done in thirty or forty times, especially as many of these thirty or forty are repeats of the same issues. If you aren't, then it will take longer, but that is the point. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I am sustained by your tireless effort. You must remember that this article on Marcus Aurelius is a relatively long one. Векочел (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have come back to this more in hope than expectation.

There are issues which I flagged up on my first or second runs through, to which you have responded "Done" which have not been addressed. To take just two examples: an available OCLC not used; the sources include a work which is not referenced to. You insist on using a BBC report as a source, despite my repeatedly stating that it is not acceptable.

This is most frustrating, as it is possible that the article is not too far from passing a source review. However, I have feel that I can no longer take your responses on trust, I have spent an inordinate amount of time on this, and have not even started a spot check of cites.

So I am leaving my source review outcome as Fail, Objecting to the promotion of this article to A class, and taking it off my watch list. Good luck with it in the future.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

I see, this article has some issues, but I think if you can address them then it is an A-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • He ruled the Roman Empire with his adoptive brother Lucius Verus (who took Verus as a regnal name) until Lucius' death in 169. I think you should add his son too because he co-ruled with him between 177–180. What do you think?
  • What of kinda English do you use? American? British? Or something else? Because I can see some American and British English differences. But I think you use British right?
  • Marcus' family originated in Ucubi, a small town southeast of Córdoba in Iberian Baetica. "American southeast"
  • Ref 3, p. 229–30 --> pp. 229–230
  • Ref 7, pp. 228–29, 253 --> pp. 228–229, 253
  • Ref 8, pp. 227–28 --> pp. 227–228
  • Ref 50, pp. 319–30 --> pp. 319–330
  • Ref 123, pp. 206–07 --> pp. 206–207
  • Ref 127, pp. 107–08 --> pp. 107–108
  • Ref 155, pp. 117–18 --> pp. 117–118
  • Ref 156, pp. 117–18 --> pp. 117–118
  • Ref 161, pp. 118–19 --> pp. 118–119
  • Ref 171, pp. 122–23 --> pp. 122–123
  • Ref 193, pp. 121–22 --> pp. 121–122
  • Ref 195, pp. 121–22 --> pp. 121–122
  • Ref 197, pp. 103–04 --> pp. 103–104
  • Ref 210, pp. 126–27 --> pp. 126–127
  • Ref 227, pp. 130–31 --> pp. 130–131
  • Ref 260, pp. 323–24 --> pp. 323–324
  • Ref 272, pp. 460–61 --> pp. 460–461
  • Ref 282, pp. 186–91 --> pp. 186–191

Lingzhi

edit
  • Only nitpicks about formatting of notes/references:
  • Three instances of "CS1 maint: Archived copy as title": Articles are listed in this category when Module:Citation/CS1 identifies template |title= parameters that use these place-holder titles. 'Archived copy' and 'Archive copy' are commonly provided by bots that are unable to identify the source's correct title. Articles in this category should be corrected by replacing the place-holder titles with actual titles.
  • Furtak in wrong alpha order but is never cited anyow. Does "McLynn" come after "Millar" in order?
  • As nearly as I can tell, and I searched fairly well, everything else seems OK. That's fairly impressive. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Sportsman

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): L293D (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Sportsman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Royal Navy Third-batch S-class submarine built during World War II. Sank a French transport, some Italian and Greek ships. Unfortunately also sank the POW transport SS Petrella. The boat was then lent to the French navy in 1952, but sank after eleven weeks from a diving accident. The article just passed GA, and I am wondering how well it would do at ACR. Thanks in advance for comments and suggestions! L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by PM

edit

I am reluctantly opposing this nomination due to the extensive use of uboat.net as a source. Over half of all citations are from uboat.net, which it claims is based on primary sources from the British National Archives. While I passed it at GAN, I don't think it meets criteria A1., in that it needs "high quality" sources, which I don't believe uboat.net is, especially when it is essentially self-published and the authors are enthusiasts not published experts in the field. The uboat.net page is relied upon for almost all of the Construction and career section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

edit

G'day, this article has clearly had a lot of hard work put into it, but I would encourage you to address PM's point above before the review process goes too far. As PM says, many of the paragraphs are solely sourced to Uboat.net. Where possible, I think it would be best to use additional sources for these paragraphs to corroborate the information. That said, once this has been addressed, I think that the article could achieve A-class standard. As such, I have a few comments/suggestions about other areas: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • ext links work (no action required)
  • no dab or duplicate links (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text to the images: [4]
  • suggest adding author and accessdate information for Citation # 7
  • 1952-09-26: adjust date formation for consistency, i.e. "26 September 1952"
  • The world's Merchant Fleets, 1939: adjust to title case caps --> "The World's Merchant Fleets, 1939"
  • Chatham publishing --> "Chatham Publishing"
  • in the lead, I suggest maybe splitting the first paragraph as it seems quite long compared to the very short second paragraph
  • in the lead, where she underwent additional training for operations in the far east --> "where her crew underwent additional training for operations in the Far East" or "where she participated in additional training exercises to prepare for operations in the Far East"
  • March 11 --> "11 March" for consistency of style
  • but its cable connecting it to the boat was broken --> "but the cable connecting it to the boat was broken"
  • I couldn't see where in citation 7 it supports the assertion that the ship was "clearly marked" - I think stronger sourcing is required here.
  • in reference to the paragraph about the Petrella sinking I am also a bit concerned that the wording here is a bit too close to the source, per this: [5] and [6] (suggest rewording this paragraph and a few other clauses as identified in the links to avoid close paraphrasing)
  • was there any disciplinary action taken as a result of sinking the Petrella, or any explanation as to why it was attacked if it was clearly marked?
    • Not that I've been able to find. They may not have known about it until after the war.
  • an additional image in the body of the article, if available, would be a good addition

Image review - image is correctly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2019 (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) 07:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC) numb« Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nazi Germany

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk) Diannaa (talk) Kierzek (talk)

Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This has been a project several editors have contributed to, most notably @Diannaa: and @Kierzek:. Since being promoted to GA-status, there has been an effort underway to improve the article to the point that it can be brought to FAC in the near-future. The editors involved mutually agreed it would be best to take it to ACR first however, to get input from the community before we take things to FAC (especially in light of the sentitive topic, the importance of this article, and the fact that millions of people view this page on a yearly basis). There need be little explanation what this article is, or the subject matter. Nazi Germany is quite well-known and studied throughout history. If any questions or comments arise regarding the scope and depth of this article, please do not hesitate to ask. Due to article length guidelines and the sheer scope Nazi Germany entails, this article is supposed to give an overview of the entity which ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945.

Note: Please keep in mind, Diannaa, Kierzek, and myself have been collaborating on improving this article, and using Diannaa's talk page as the hub for communication between one another, but by no means does this mean us three alone should get the credit for improving this article should it pass. Several editors have contributed to this article over the years. I've just included us three as the nominators due to the collaboration we each agreed upon to get it to ACR.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 22:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • All of the maps but the first, and several of the images, would benefit from being scaled up Y Done
  • File%3ANational_anthem_of_Nazi_Germany%2C_Horst_Wessel_Lied.oga: composition needs a US PD tag
  • File:German_Reich_1942.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Greater_German_Reich_NS_Administration_1944_Variant.png, File:Weimar_Republic_states_map.svg
  • File:Nazi_Germany.svg is tagged as disputed
  • File:German_Autobahn_1936_1939.jpg: where/when was this first published? Same with File:The_Bochnia_massacre_German-occupied_Poland_1939.jpg
  • File:1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.JPG needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:National anthem of Nazi Germany, Horst Wessel Lied.oga: I have added a {PD-1996} tag
    • File:German_Reich_1942.png: I have asked the image creator (Beyond My Ken) for more information. Update: Beyond My Ken says he didn't create the map; it's a derivative work of a map by User:Director, who appears to have left the project. I can get you data and sources as to when each polity was incorporated into the Reich if that's what you're looking for, but I need to be sure first that the work is necessary, as I expect it would take several hours. Alternatively, we could move File:Greater German Reich NS Administration 1944 Variant.png to the info box, since I can source it to Kershaw 2008. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Update: there's a map in Kershaw The End (2011) p.19 that is similar. It shows as of July 1944 the Nazis holding France, Belg, Neth, Lux, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Albania, Greece, Crete, northern Italy, and part of Russia. It doesn't go all the way to the Crimea because they'd lost that territory by July 44. It does not distinguish by status (incorporated, General-Govt, civilian administration, etc). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Greater German Reich NS Administration 1944 Variant.png: I have asked the most recent person to amend the map for information. The creator of the map is no longer active. This map was not present when the article passed GA review in 2013. Update: A version of this map appears in Kershaw (2008) Hitler pp. xx-xxi.
    • File:Weimar Republic states map.svg: I have asked the creator of the map, but he may not know, as he derived it from another map on the Commons. This map was not present when the article passed GA review.
    • File:Nazi Germany.svg: I have removed the map after reading the discussion at commons:File talk:Nazi Germany.png.
    • File:German_Autobahn_1936_1939.jpg: the Library of Congress states the image was created/published between 1936 and 1939 and that the image has no known restrictions.
    • File:The_Bochnia_massacre_German-occupied_Poland_1939.jpg: I have no way of answering with certainty, other than to state that the earliest publication mentioned on the file description page is 1957.
    • File:1933-may-10-berlin-book-burning.JPG: the source at the USHMM states it's a still from a Nazi propaganda film held at NARA. However such seized documents do not automatically fall into the public domain. I have replaced with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14597, Berlin, Opernplatz, Bücherverbrennung.jpg — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D It's great to see this article at ACR, and it's in excellent shape. I have the following comments:

  • The coverage of the Nazis rise to power in the 'Background' section seems a bit brief. In particular, it doesn't note the role of violence and lawlessness in the Nazis' rise to power, a point emphasised by Evans. Y Added
  • Say what the Sturmabteilung was the first time its mentioned Y
  • "In the following months" - as the previous para (quite rightly) jumps ahead, a date here would be helpful Y
  • "This meant the only non-political institutions not under control of the NSDAP were the army and the churches" - this is unclear, as the Army was under control of the Nazi government. Also, many officers and rank and file supported the Nazis. Y Evans states this, but it's obviously incorrect, so removed.
  • "An additional 20,000 died in the land campaign" - which land campaign is being referred to here? Y I can't access the 1960 yearbook to confirm what it means. I think this may overlap with the Battle of Berlin, so removing.
  • Rather than call out civilian deaths in the Battle of Berlin, it would be better to discuss the scale of civilian deaths on the eastern front during 1945 as a whole given that they were far higher Y Removed detail about Battle of Berlin, but not adding material regarding the Eastern Front in this paragraph, which is discussion casualties in Germany itself.
  • The para on mass suicides should discuss what motivated them. Kershaw's book The End covers this issue in detail. Y Added
  • "Himmler envisioned the SS as being an elite group of guards, Hitler's last line of defence" - how it ended up (a large and often low quality force which was frequently involved in war crimes) should be noted. Y Added
  • The "Reich economics" section doesn't really capture how unsustainable the Nazis' economic policies were (a major argument made by Tooze). Y added some
  • Picking up on another point made by Tooze and recent historians, the section also doesn't cover the considerable extent to which the Nazis economic and industrial policies damaged Germany's war effort (duplication of effort in multiple fields, over-ambitious, badly run and ill-conceived weapons programs, being too late in starting the shift to a total war economy, etc)  I read most of the book and added what I could. "too late in starting the shift to a total war economy": no, Tooze emphasises throughout that they were short of raw materials throughout the war. - D
  • The article presents the clergy as being unified in their opposition to the regime, which I don't think is correct – N Reply I'm seeing where the article demonstrates that the regime was opposed to pretty much all the churches, but I'm not seeing where it claims that all the churches opposed the regime.
  • "Hitler favoured the music of Richard Wagner, especially pieces based on Germanic myths and heroic stories and attended the Bayreuth Festival each year from 1933" - I presume he stopped doing this at some stage during the war? Y fixed
  • The article doesn't really discuss how public attitudes towards the regime, including active resistance, evolved over Nazi Germany. Evans and Kershaw argue that it probably only had majority support for a minority of its existence, and Hitler had become irrelevant to most Germans by 1945. The resistance movements in the foreign service, intelligence service and military were significant, and after the Western Allies crossed the Rhine in 1945 most troops and civilians were keen to surrender.  Y 500 words added on the resistance and added a bit in a couple of spots about deteriorating support for Hitler and the regime. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The large scale of the post-war trials and de-Nazisation process could be made more clear. Y done
  • The coverage of how the Nazi era is remembered in Germany and influences its government and society could be expanded a bit, given it seems quite profound on the basis of my visits to the country. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Y done[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle

edit
  • A word or two on the formation of the Weimar Republic, and how it was presided over by a series of unstable coalition governments that worsened as time went on would be helpful. Y
  • As the Free City of Danzig was a separate entity from Poland, it should be made explicit that it was annexed by Germany. Y
  • The display or use of Nazi symbolism such as flags, swastikas or greetings is illegal in Germany and Austria[449][450] and other restrictions, mainly on public display, apply in various countries. The rest of this sentence needs a cite. Y unsourced part removed; will look for sourcing.
  • Study of the era and a willingness to critically examine its mistakes has led to the development of a strong democracy in today's Germany, but with lingering undercurrents of antisemitism and neo-Nazi thought. A phrase less time-relative than "today's" would be helpful. Y removed the word "today's"

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've given an extensive enough review to be in a place where I can offer my support, but I can affirm that all of my comments have been addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PM

edit

Wow, great to see a level-4 vital article being nominated. I'm very impressed that this has been taken on. I will post some observations over the next few days once I've read it through a couple more times, but have to say from my initial read that it is already in great shape. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • I think there needs to be something in the lead about the way in which Germany dominated its neighbours and erstwhile partners economically in the lead-up to war, as well as the exploitation of puppet states and occupied territories for raw materials, food, manufactured goods and labour.
  • This is something I (White Shadows) agree with for sure. I'm just curious how we think we should word this? I'm thinking something like "The Nazi regime worked to impose economic and military dependency upon its neighbors in the lead-up to the war, and exploited the raw materials, agricultural, industrial, and labour output of occupied territories and allies alike throughout the war." That may be a poorly worded way to get those points across however, which is why I'd like to solicit input before making any article changes on this.
  • I (Kierzek) like the basic ideas conveyed. "The Nazi regime dominated both neighbours through military threats and partners economically in the years leading up to war. After the war commenced, Germany exploited the raw materials, agricultural, industrial, and labour of occupied territories and allies alike."
 Y done. - had to split it to fit properly.
  • I note that the lead is already over MOS:LEADLENGTH, but I think five paras is ok for a subject of this importance and complexity.
  • Wholeheartedly agree there!
  • "and his word became above all laws" is a bit inelegant. Perhaps "and his word became the highest law."?

 Y done.

  • suggest "and also as the master race"
  • Can I ask where you meant for this to be added? I'll put it in as soon as I can see where it's supposed to go.
  • instead of "and were therefore viewed as the master race"

 Y done.

  • given various definitions of what is or isn't included in the Holocaust and the need to include other atrocities besides the Holocaust such as Aktion T4, the murder of Soviet POWs etc, perhaps "were murdered in the Holocaust, war crimes and other crimes against humanity."

 Y done.

  • there is a bit of a flow issue and repetition between paras 3 and 4, in terms of the killing of Jews and other undesirables. I think the racism as a regime feature should be in para 3, along with a mention of the early concentration camps, but believe the Holocaust and other killings should be in para 4. This progression would show the increasing brutality of the regime as time went on, from detaining political prisoners to wholesale extermination. Y done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nazi concentration camps is overlinked, as is Allies of WWII
Background
  • I did a fairly minor c/e
  • suggest "Germany was known as the Weimar Republic during the years 1919 to 1933"

 Y done.

  • hyperinflation is overlinked

 Y done.

  • I think you could dispense with the note and give the original German for NSDAP in a lang template ie ({{lang-de|Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei}}, NSDAP, Nazi Party) as it is germane to the initialisation of NSDAP, and not providing it begs the questions of what it is an initialisation for

 Y done.

  • suggest stating explicitly that the NSDAP was founded in 1920, then say the DAP was founded a year earlier

 Y done.

  • I'm sure I'm parsing this too finely, but instead of "removal of the Weimar Republic", suggest "the destruction of the Weimar Republic"

 Y done.

  • I think it would be worth adding a bit explaining how the NSDAP were going to improve Germany's international reputation, as it begs the question

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi seizure of power
  • I think it would flow better if the sentence beginning "Violent suppression..." was the last sentence of that para, as the decree was on the following day, so the SA actions seem out of chronological order
  • Done
  • Worth adding that there was significant intimidation of non-Nazi members of the Reichstag by the SA for the passing of the Enabling Act

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazification of Germany
  • suggest "Nazi-led coalitions if that is correct
  • Done
  • I was a bit confused with the use of Reichskommissar in regard to the German states. My knowledge of them was that they were civil governors over occupied territories, and I wasn't familiar with the use of the title prior to the war until I did a bit of digging. I was wondering if it might be worth mentioning that this position later became Reichsstatthalter and link?
Maybe I am just overly tired tonight, but I don't see Reichskommissar mentioned. I do know that Reichsstatthalter is an older term and I believe the correct one for use in Germany proper. We could link it to where the words "Reich Commissars" are used. Childers only uses the word "Reich commissars" and talks about them being "dispatched" on 5 March to 9 March 1933 to all German states not already under Nazi control. Kierzek (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of power
  • Given it was an attack on the NSDAP's own paramilitary wing, it sort of begs the question of who was responsible for carrying out the Night of the Long Knives. Suggest it is worth introducing the SS and Gestapo here as the main perpetrators.

 Y done.

  • Worth including Goebbels title as Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda?
  • Done
  • I think it would be useful to state that the Nuremberg Laws denied basic human rights to both Jews and Romani people, and resulted in their exclusion from wider German society, and led in many cases to their pauperisation.
  • I'm not sure about the Jews being dehumanised themselves, more that they became ostracised and dehumanised in the eyes of many German people due to the enforcement of the Nuremberg Laws?

 Y done.

  • was state authority really expanded? I thought the Reich became centralised and the states were stripped of their powers?

 Y done. Tweak per Childers with cite.

  • I'd say that the Nazi centralization effort of stripping Germany's states of their powers and establishing a unitary state run from Berlin went hand-in-hand with an expansion of state authority. I don't think there's any debate among historians that state authority in Germany was dramatically expanded under the Nazis, to the point that Nazi Germany is often portrayed as one of the ultimate dystopias in world history.
You are correct. Do you want something else tweaked? Kierzek (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from me. Kierzek (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Military build-up
  • suggest "Hitler found Germany without allies" → "Germany was without allies, and its military was drastically..."
  • Done
  • what German claims on the Balkans are we talking about here?
  • Done
  • suggest "95 percent of voters supported Germany's withdrawal" if that is what is meant?
  • Done
  • suggest "war in the east should begin in 1942"
  • Done
  • suggest "In March 1935, Hitler announced the creation of an air force, and that the Reichswehr would be increased to 550,000 men."
  • Done
  • Not just supplies were sent to Spain, but also the aircraft, tanks and their crews. The planes were part of the Condor Legion, as were the tanks, so perhaps just say "The Condor Legion included a range of aircraft and their crews, as well as a tank contingent. The aircraft of the Legion destroyed the city of Guernica in 1937."

 Y done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Austria and Czechoslovakia
 Y done.
Poland
  • all good
Foreign policy
  • I think Germany's pre-war attempts to achieve economic dominance over its (especially southeastern) neighbours should be emphasised prior to this point, perhaps in a separate subsection. Tooze talks a bit about this, and Paul Hehn's 2005 book A Low, Dishonest Decade gives a good overview too.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the key dates of the expansion of the Tripartite Pact should be included here, eg the dates Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania joined
  • Done
Outbreak of war
  • Heydrich was more than head of the Gestapo at this point, he was the head of the SiPo (which included the Gestapo and Kripo) and Sicherheitsdienst, and later in September 1939 he became chief of the Reich Main Security Office

 Y done. I tweaked it to state head of the SiPo and SD; and you are correct that he was not chief of the RSHA on 17 Sept. as the RSHA was officially established on 27 September 1939. Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • was he referring to Polish Jews at this point, or all Jews in occupied countries?
  • My understanding is that he was referring to all Jews the Nazis could get their hands on.

 Y done. He was referring to Polish Jews. Heydrich had already stated on 7 September 1939 that all Polish nobles, clergy, and Jews were to be killed. Kierzek (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Europe
  • suggest "Against the advice"

 Y done.

  • suggest mentioning Dunkirk at the end of the first para
  • Done
  • link Forced labour under German rule during World War II

 Y done.

  • link black market

 Y done.

  • mention of the Greek famine is out of chronological order, this was a common problem in occupied countries, so I would just say "Famine was experienced in many occupied countries during the war" rather than picking of two
  • Done
  • suggest linking to London Blitz, Coventry Blitz and Plymouth Blitz instead of the city articles
  • Done
  • move the sentence beginning "German efforts..." to the beginning of the para
  • Done
  • full stop after Greece
  • Done
  • I think that it should be pointed out that Greece and Yugoslavia were broken up between the various Axis powers after their defeat
  • Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "Wwest Ukraine"

 Y done.

  • suggest "popularity of the partyNazi Party"

 Y done.

  • "Eeastern territorial gains"

 Y done.

  • suggest "survived a bomb attackan assassination using a bomb"

 Y done, with minor tweak.

It was the last German offensive, but arguably not on the same scale and certainly not the same impact. I will tweak the Ardennes Offensive to say, last major German offensive on the western front. How about that? Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • say who Eva Braun was ie his girlfriend and then wife

 Y done.

  • suggest replacing "On 4–8 May 1945" with "Between 4 and 8 May 1945"

 Y done.

  • the main template for Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany should be at the beginning of the subsection not in the middle of it

 Y done.

  • regarding expulsions of Germanic people, this was widespread, not just in east-central Europe, but also in southeastern Europe ie Danube Swabians from Yugoslavia and Romania. I think if you said "central, eastern and southeastern Europe" that would cover it in a general sense, which is what we are trying to achieve with this article.

 Y done. down to Geography, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by me. Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
  • consistency with the italicisation of Anschluss throughout

 Y done.

  • the list of invaded countries between 1939 and 1941 is missing Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece (the latter two in conjunction with Italy)
  • Done
  • You might like to add that Germany also annexed part of northern Yugoslavia in April 1941, the current (though awkwardly titled) article covering this is Slovene Lands in World War II, these territories were annexed to two Reichsgaue, Carinthia and Styria
  • Done
  • Done
  • You might like to mention that the Germans facilitated the establishment and then propped up the genocidal quasi-protectorate/puppet state on Yugoslav territory, the Independent State of Croatia, and essentially gave large parts of Yugoslavia to Italian Albania, Hungary and Bulgaria to annex
  • the Independent State of Croatia has been included in the article.

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politics
  • the NSDAP didn't "arise" after the outbreak of the Great Depression, it arose from the social and financial upheavals at the end of WWI. It became a mainstream political party at the outbreak of the Great Depression, going from 2.6% of the federal vote in 1928 to 18.25% in 1930. I think it would be worth adding these percentages in at some point, to show it was extremely marginal before the Great Depression.

 Y done, with tweak from Evans & Kershaw. Kierzek (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • hyphenate Jewish-Bolshevik

 Y done.

  • worth mentioning that the German system of government was replicated in the occupied territories, which also had overlapping and competing fiefdoms, often split between the military command, civilian leadership, economic leadership and SS and Police leadership.
  • the bit about Rassenschande should be towards the top of the para after fn 211

 Y done.

  • Merriam-Webster includes Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, but not Kriegsmarine and Heer, so the former probably don't need to be italicised, but I do see a point about being internally consistent within the article.

I agree and it was discussed, but not all agree on this and its seems to be a matter of local article consensus as I find some articles do and others don't (including GA and Class A as to each way) at this point. Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heydrich's 8 July 1941 announcement, like the earlier one I queried regarding Poland, was this only in the Soviet Union, or was it everywhere including Germany? It reads like the latter, but I don't believe that is right.

 Y done. He was talking about Poland and especially the newly invaded USSR; so, I changed it to "eastern conquered territories". Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the bit on Blitzkrieg doesn't really reflect the current academic consensus on whether there really was such a concept in the Wehrmacht. Needs to be harmonised with the Blitzkrieg article, particularly Glantz and notes a and b. Also it was tanks and motorised infantry that did the initial attacks.
  • the Military and paramilitary subsection doesn't really fit under the Politics section, perhaps it should have its own section?
  • Done
  • when talking about the Einsatzgruppen, I suggest stating that they killed more than two million rather than millions, Hilberg is the source for the two million.

 Y done.

  • I think this section needs more about the extent of Nazi sympathies and Nazi Party membership among Wehrmacht higher commanders
  • I think the bit about the SA needs to make clear that the SA was decapitated soon after the Nazi seizure of power

 Y done.

  • The Night of the Long Knives is covered earlier in the article already. Does it really need to be repeated?

 Y done.

  • the photo caption with the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler needs to be adjusted to reflect that in 1938 it was not a Panzer division, but was just a motorised infantry regiment

 Y done. I believe stating the official name from 1934, forward, is sufficient for the general readers. Okay? Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the SA and SS section needs to differentiate between the Allgemeine-SS which had over a quarter of a million members in 1938 and the Waffen-SS which did the fighting alongside the Wehrmacht

That is an overall number. What you may be forgetting is the Leibstandarte and SS-VT were already formed and had members by that time. The Waffen-SS grew out of the SS-VT and did not exist in 1938. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "Himmler initially envisioned the SS"

 Y done.

  • suggest "and losses of Waffen-SS troops"

 Y done.

  • "Reinhard Heydrich" should just be Heydrich at this stage per MOS:SURNAME

 Y done.

  • the Einsatzgruppen info at the end of the section is a repetition of earlier info, perhaps capture any unique info and move it all up to first mention

That addition was done per the request of another reviewer herein and does discuss two different aspects. I moved it up, to group them together, see if that is more in line with your thought. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "From 1935 forward, the SS spearheaded the persecution of Jews" is this right? Which part? Are we talking about the Allgemeine-SS or the SD, Gestapo and other police here?

All of the SS branches were involved, some more than others (this includes the Orpo, which were under SS control, but not an official branch of the SS). Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Economy
  • suggest "created a scheme for deficit financing in May 1933"
  • Done
  • "The number of women in paid employment"
  • Fixed

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racial policy and eugenics
  • link National Socialist German Students' League
  • suggest "Jews were harassed...", given Jews were not citizens after a certain point
  • I can give you chapter and verse on killing of Roma in occupied Yugoslavia, but given that it was mostly done by the Ustashas rather than the Germans, I don't think it is directly relevant to an article on Nazi Germany. I would remove the Serbia and NDH examples, or if you still want to keep the NDH one, state that estimates are that the Ustashas killed 20,000 out of the estimated 25,000 Roma within the borders of the NDH. If you still want to do that, the citation for those figures is Tomasevich 2001, pp 608–610.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Y done. With that said, I don't totally agree with the sub-heading change as the main focus was people with real or perceived disabilities; mental, physical and social. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • was the Eastern Front campaign really about the Jews as the great enemy of the German people? I thought it was about Lebensraum, and Generalplan Ost was how Lebensraum would be created once military conquest had been achieved?
  • The Generalplan Ost section needs a few tweaks, as it appears to conflate Generalplan Ost with the Final Solution. My understanding of Generalplan Ost was that it was about ethnic cleansing Slavs and other non-Aryans (which included Jews) from eastern Europe to make way for German settlers, but this section is currently emphasising actions against Jews in its first sentences. Clearly there were a lot of Jews in eastern Europe and the SS were targeting them regardless, but I would have thought a fair summary of Generalplan Ost was more along the lines of what my understanding is, of being focussed on ethnic cleansing of all non-Aryans? According to my reading of the Generalplan Ost article, Browning states that two days after Barbarossa was launched the Jews were even removed from Generalplan Ost and were dealt with separately. Probably worth checking Browning on this, but I think that given persecution of Jews already has a section plus there is the section on the Holocaust, this section should be about the ethnic cleansing of all non-Aryans from eastern Europe. I'll defer to anyone who knows this stuff better than me (which isn't saying much), but I think this section needs greater focus. Perhaps it could be written in a chronological way to address how the Nazis treated non-Aryans in eastern Europe from 1939 on? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Holocaust and Final Solution subsection seems very light-on.
  • I wonder if the Oppression of ethnic Poles info sits better within the GeneralPlan Ost subsection, which talks about what was done to the Poles?

I don't believe so; given what the Poles went through and the losses the nation suffered, I believe they should have their own sub-section. And General Plan Ost covered a wider range of so-called non-Aryans, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest "During the course of the war, the Nazis captured 5.75 million Soviet prisoners of war (POWs), more than were captured by the Germans from all the other Allied powers combined."

 Y done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Catrìona

edit

I'm not familiar with the literature dealing with Nazi Germany per se, but here are some comments.

  • During the course of the war, the Nazis captured more Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) than all the other Allied powers combined, with an estimated total of some 5.75 million. This doesn't make sense, but I'm not sure what the intended meaning is.
  • Rephrased
  • By 1943 the Waffen-SS could not longer claim to be an elite fighting force.[231] In addition, a third of the Einsatzgruppen members that were responsible for mass murder, were recruited from Waffen-SS personnel.[232] The formations also committed many war crimes against civilians and allied servicemen.[233] It's not clear how the Waffen-SS participation in war crimes is "in addition" to its non-eliteness, and it's unclear that the Waffen-SS units themselves (not just the Einsatzgruppen) committed many war crimes and massacres. Given the small size of the Einsatzgruppen, very few Waffen-SS personnel participated in it; has Waffen-SS participation in the Einsatzgruppen been emphasized in the literature on Waffen-SS criminality? (Tens of thousands were transferred to the SS-Totenkopfverbande and served at various concentration camps, including several thousand at Auschwitz).
One has to read the short overview in context; the one point did not have to do with the other point, but I did tweak it. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust section
  • It seems odd that this section is significantly shorter than the "Persecution of Jews" section. Is that reflected in RS coverage?
  • I think it's more from 1) Space constraints, and 2) That many of the details covered in "Persecution of Jews" doesn't need to be repeated in this section. We can obviously add more if this is a problem.
  • From the first sentence in this section, it seems like this is actually covering the Final Solution and its implementation, rather than the Holocaust as a whole.
  • Section is supposed to cover both topics. I've also added the words "and Final Solution" to the section title to make that clear, but that may be a change that requires consensus.
  • Around the time of the failed offensive against Moscow in December 1941, Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated immediately. It's not clear that the Einsatzgruppen and others were already murdering Jewish men, women, and children in the Soviet occupied territories. Also, as stated later in this paragraph, the implementation of the Final Solution was not "immediate"; some Jews were kept alive for labor, some of the occupied countries initially refused to deport their Jews, and the Operation Reinhard camps were operational until early/mid 1942.
  • This should be addressed now, but please let me know if you'd like further changes.
  • Twelve million were put into forced labour. Twelve million who? This isn't referring to twelve million Jews, but unclear from context. Perhaps move to the forced labor section if that's what this is referring to
  • Done.
  • Initially the victims were killed with gas vans or by Einsatzgruppen firing squads, but these methods proved impractical for an operation of this scale. It should be made clear that shooting > gas vans > stationary gas chambers, as a general chronological progression. The Einsatzgruppen also used gas vans, and many Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS units participated in shooting.
 Y done. General chronological progression, noted. Small stationary gas chambers were already in use by 1939 and the gas vans came into use, thereafter. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1941 extermination camps equipped with gas chambers were established at Auschwitz, Chełmno, Sobibor, Treblinka, and elsewhere. The Operation Reinhard camps were not established until 1942
  • Fixed
  • Might be worth mentioning that about half of Jews killed were Polish Jews, and most of those were dead by the end of 1942.
  • If we begin to break down Jews by nationality won't we run into POV issues related to focusing on Jews from one country but not another?
  • most German citizens disapproved Evans is quoted as writing that "on the whole, German citizens did not approve". To me, these are not semantically equivalent. Not approving of something is not the same as disapproving of it (one might be neutral or ambivalent), and "on the whole" does not necessarily mean most, just a majority or consensus view. If there is concern about repeating a quote, surely another one could be found.
  • Good point. Perhaps rephrase this to say "most German citizens did not approve"?

Comment from White Shadows

edit

The length of this review is getting to the point where I think it may be wise to break things down into points which have yet to be addressed, and those which are still outstanding. The other noms and myself have been bouncing around addressing points here and there that I'm afraid we may accidentally still miss an outstanding issue here or there.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as individual reviewers use separate sections, keep track and don't support until they are satisfied, you should be ok IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

edit

I don't know if I'll have time to go through this systematically so will probably concentrate on the lead and various other sections as they catch my eye. To begin...

Culture

  • "Propaganda became less effective towards the end of the war, as people were able to obtain information outside of official channels." -- I think the question then arises, "how" did they obtain this info? BTW, I think we can safely lose the "of" in "outside of"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CPA-5

edit

I am glad to see this page got that far, hopefully it would get FAC soon too. Anyway here are my comments, hopefully it is usefull. CPA-5 (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • See some American English words like.
  • organization (Okey this one can be used as Britsh too but there are two different organisations one called organization and the other one called organisation.) (Background section)
  • "especially its paramilitary organization Sturmabteilung" and "disrupting the meetings of rival organizations and attacking their members (as well as Jewish people)"
 Y done.
  • labor (Persecution of Roma section)
  • "Following the invasion of Poland, 2,500 Roma and Sinti people were deported from Germany to the General Government where they were imprisoned in labor camps."
 Y done.
  • outmaneuvering (Conquest of Europe section)
  • "After outmaneuvering the Allies in Belgium and forcing the evacuation of many British and French troops at Dunkirk,"
 Y done.
  • marginalized (Same as the organization the whole page use -ise instead -ize at the end of such words.) (Ideology section)
  • "The NSDAP remained small and marginalized, managing 2.6% of the federal vote in 1928, prior to the on-set of the Great Depression in 1929.")
 Y done.
  • advised (Conquest of Europe section)
  • "Grand Admiral Erich Raeder had advised Hitler in June that air superiority was a pre-condition for a successful invasion of Britain,"

Correct me if I am wrong, but would it not be the same here; it would not be -ice. Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • defense (Wehrmacht section)
  • "The unified armed forces of Germany from 1935 to 1945 were called the Wehrmacht (defense force)."
 Y done.

I can hunt for those, as we are using British English. With that said, it would safe time if you could list where. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kierzek: Here you have them. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Nazi government declared a "Day of National Labor" for May Day 1933, and invited many trade union delegates to Berlin for celebrations." should it not be "The Nazi Government declared a "Day of National Labor" for May Day 1933, and invited many trade union delegates to Berlin for celebrations."?
  • "the Czechoslovak government" --> "the Czechoslovak Government"
  • "He permanently postponed the invasion, a plan which the commanders of the German army had never taken entirely seriously." --> "He permanently postponed the invasion, a plan which the commanders of the German Army had never taken entirely seriously."
  • "The West German government estimated a death toll of 2.2 million civilians due to the flight and expulsion of Germans and through forced labour in the Soviet Union." --> "The West German Government estimated a death toll of 2.2 million civilians due to the flight and expulsion of Germans and through forced labour in the Soviet Union."
  • "which involved using quick coordinated assaults" --> "which involved using quick co-ordinated assaults"
  • " In 1943 alone, 9,000,000 tons of cereals, 2,000,000 tonnes (2,000,000 long tons; 2,200,000 short tons) of fodder,"? Do you mean short tons, long tons or tonnes?
  • "and for the most part did not coordinate their activities." --> "and for the most part did not co-ordinate their activities."
  • Dates of the battles please?
  • "After the successful Battle of Smolensk,"
 Y done.
  • "the failed German offensive at the Battle of Kursk."
 Y done.

Comments by Robinvp11

edit

I commend your hard work on a topic so many people have opinions on, so I thought I'd limit myself to the Lead and Background :)

  • Germany conquered most of Europe by 1940;
Not really accurate, even for Western Europe (until 1942, most of France was ruled by Vichy) and its relevant because helping out Musssolini in South-Eastern Europe delayed the invasion of Russia in 1941. Maybe controlled much of Europe by early 1941 - that includes Hungary and Romania, conquest of Yugoslavia etc.

Tweaked it to fit the surrounding sentences to: "By early 1941, Germany controlled much of Europe." Kierzek (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Nazis, who suffered major military defeats in 1943.
Should mention the entry of the US into the war (Lend-Lease was a major factor in Russian effectiveness), Stalingrad is probably accepted as the turning point and while the Germans lost the initiative in 1943, it was Operation Bagration in 1944 that broke Army Group Centre and the Wehrmacht.
Suggested wording; 'While the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was initially successful, Russian resistance and the entry of the US into the war meant that in the East, the Wehrmacht was forced onto the defensive in 1943 and by late 1944 had been pushed back to the pre-1939 border.'
What about this: "While the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was initially successful, the Soviet resurgence, and the entry of the US into the war meant that in the East, the Wehrmacht was forced onto the defensive in 1943 and by late 1944 had been pushed back to the pre-1939 border after suffering major military defeats." Kierzek (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"While the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was initially successful, Soviet resurgence and the entry of the US into the war meant the Wehrmacht lost the initiative on the Eastern Front in 1943 and by late 1944 had been pushed back to the pre-1939 border." ('defeat' is superfluous). But its your article - I'm always condensing my own editing (simpler is better) so its a suggestion.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Y done.
  • After the Allied invasion of France, Germany was conquered by the Soviet Union from the east and the other Allies from the west and capitulated in May 1945.
Per Overmans, 80% of the Wehrmacht was destroyed on the Eastern Front; the current wording doesn't really convey that.
  • Hitler's refusal to admit defeat led to massive destruction of German infrastructure and additional war-related deaths in the closing months of the war.
Again, per Overmans, 30% of total German military deaths occurred between January to April 1945 (civilian deaths were even more skewed); even though it ended in early May, 1945 was still the bloodiest single year of the war, which is something many are unaware of.
  • The victorious Allies initiated a policy of denazification and put many of the surviving Nazi leadership on trial for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials.
Accurate to say many of the senior leadership were tried but denazification was quickly dropped; those involved in the Wannsee conference who survived the war mostly continued their careers, while even those directly implicated in atrocities in the West (Barbie, Priebke) were incorporated into the post-1945 intelligence systems. Again, worth stating because it is still with us in the 'honourable Wehrmacht soldiers, nasty Nazis' idea (eg Generals' speech in Band of Brothers), and why Austria nearly elected a modern Nazi as President in 2016.
  • Should mention the post-1945 ethnic cleansing in Europe which was a direct result of the Nazi regime eg the removal of Germans from the Sudetenland and East Prussia. It is the most visible consequence of the Nazi regime that remains with us today.
  • Background; I don't want to overdo it :) so these are just thoughts (I'll happily provide wording if you want)
  • Severe setbacks to the German economy began after the war ended, partly because of reparations payments required under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The government printed money to make the payments and to repay the country's war debt, but the resulting hyperinflation led to inflated prices for consumer goods, economic chaos, and food riots.[3] When the government defaulted on their reparations payments in January 1923, French troops occupied German industrial areas along the Ruhr and widespread civil unrest followed.
I don't think this accurately depicts the origins of hyper-inflation, since there is substantial evidence that it was planned, in the early stages as least. More importantly, it doesn't cover the impact (the consolidation of German industry into huge conglomerates, an entire section of the middle-class ruined overnight by the loss of their pensions and war bond investments, many of whose children ended up as Nazis eg Himmler).
Well, as to the "origins of hyper-inflation" that is what Evans states per cited pages and also the wording was tweaked to the present form to meet what Peacemaker (see above), wanted. As far as the rest, that will have to be looked at for citing. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, it's more about impact (and I think that's a general point); this might not be what you want to use as a reference but its a clear guide to that; http://www.ketteringscienceacademy.org/_files/files/Homework/A07D984FCFE61D8768344130F9EC059F.pdf

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • When the stock market in the United States crashed on 24 October 1929, the effect in Germany was dire.
Doesn't explain why ie the 20s boom in Germany and Austria was financed by short-term US funds, which were withdrawn when Wall Street crashed and several large Austrian and German banks failed.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, quick overview of why the Crash was so catastrophic for Germany (much worse than either Britain or France); https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/the-great-depression/

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however, I rather not cite to a website. Sorry, I have not been able to do more as of late, but my real life time is very, very limited right now. Kierzek (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It will keep :). I included the website, not for citing per se but as an easy way to explain why its worth clarifying, plus its much easier to find a RS if you know what you're after.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit
  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (95 with; 8 without)
  • 10 possible instances of Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
  • 7 Missing ISBN
  • 5 possible instances of book chapters without page numbers
  • 1 CS1 maint: Unfit url
  • 26 missing archive links
  •  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @White Shadows, Kierzek, and Diannaa: This has been on the list for four months now and hasn't attracted a support as yet. I know it is a large and complex article and I think it deserves more time. I know there has been a lot of interest, but could you summarise what the state of play is regarding addressing each reviewer's comments? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker. Sorry but I am very busy with copyright clean-up and will not have time to assist with this for the foreseeable future. I think it can be closed/withdrawn. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker, unfortunately, I am still in the middle of drawn-out divorce proceedings; that coupled with my regular work load as an attorney, has left me with a fraction of the available time I had even a few years ago to work on articles herein. I hope that changes, but I know it will not for the foreseeable future. It is always a pleasure to work with Diannaa and I have enjoyed working with White Shadows for the first time, as well. I think it can be closed. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2019 (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) 04:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Rhine Campaign of 1795

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Rhine Campaign of 1795 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... part of a series on the French Revolutionary Wars that ripped up Europe, and the better part of the world, in the 1790s. Extensive renovation since last A-class review. I look forward to your comments. auntieruth (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

I assessed this for GA, during its first visit to ACR and made a few suggestions while Auntieruth was subsequently working on it.

  • Optional: "Political terrain"? Perhaps 'Political background'? ″altered″
  • "the Rhine Ditch". Why is this in italics? removed
  • "Further to the north, the river became deeper and faster". Does your source definitely support this? I thought that in this stretch it became broader and slower, and meandered more. explained.
  • " For the French, the more German territory they could control, control of the Upper Danube would give the them a reliable approach to Vienna." I am not sure that this actually makes sense. fixed
  • "For the French, control of the Upper Danube would give the them a reliable approach to Vienna." In what way was the approach "reliable"? removed
  • Optional: "not only in terms of war aims but also in practical terms: the French Directory believed that war should pay for itself". I would replace the colon with a full stop. fixed
  • "and prepared for invasion". Is that 'and prepared to be invaded', or 'and prepared to invade'? fixed
In what way? It looks the same to me.
  • "By 1795, Pichegru was leaning heavily toward the Royalist cause. During the campaign, he accepted money from a British agent". Should events "during the campaign" not be covered in the section "Campaign of 1795", rather than one after the Aftermath section? In any event, I don't see what this paragraph has to do with the "School for marshals". No, Marshals is a title.
  • "The Army of the Rhine and Moselle (and its subsequent incarnations) included five future Marshals of France" You then list eleven men who served in the Army of the Rhine and Moselle and its subsequent incarnations and became marshals. So was it five or eleven or have I missed something? okay, it was 5 in Phipps' text, and 11 when you count them, so I took out the number and replaced it with "several"
  • an army could also use the river's flow to approach the Austrian capital" How? (Assuming they are marching and not swimming.) Yes, you know and I know the answer, because we are aficionados, but a reader wouldn't. removed. not really relevant to 1795 campaign
  • "engaged 12,000 Republican French soldiers" I think that you need to standardise on either "French" or "Republican French" throughout the article. fixed
You have one "Republican French" left, in " Wurmser, engaged 12,000 Republican French soldiers, commanded by Pichegru".
  • I would have thought that cadre was standard English and didn't need to be in italics. fixed

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got everything. auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Two outstanding queries above. Resolve them and give me a chance to have another browse through and I think that you will be getting a well earned support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
got them!  :) Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, Ruth, great to see you back. I reviewed this in the earlier ACR, and have checked the edits since then. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much of the territory of these polities was not contiguous, a village... --> suggest a semi colon instead of the comma here done
  • Dufour's division was cut to pieces and Dufour was captured --> probably could replace the second "Dufour" with "he" here to save repetition done
  • Of the lessons learned in both 1794 and 1795, the Habsburgs may have concluded that they could not rely on their allies --> suggest attribution in text here, for instance, "Rothenberg speculates that that of the lessons...", or something similar fixed
  • is the surname "Pattison" or "Dunn-Pattison"? If the latter, then the work appears out of alphabetical order in the Sources fixed
  • further to the above, currently this author's name is presented as "Pattinson" in the article but the link is at "Pattison" fixed
  • in the Sources section, the ISBN that is provided for Phipps appears to be the same as that provided for Rothenberg 2007 fixed
    • G'day, Ruth, I have adjusted this for you with this edit as I think you may have missed it earlier: [7] Can I please get you to check this is the correct isbn for your edition? (I was guessing at this from Worldcat). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the hyphenation of the ISBNs is inconsistent fixed
  • "Rothenberg, p. 39" and "Rothenberg, pp. 37–39" probably should employ something to clarify which work by Rothenberg (1973 or 2007) this refers to fixed
  • "fumbled" and "bungled" -- not sure about these terms as they seem potentially loaded I'm not sure what else to call them. It was a complete debacle, misuse of resources, loss/waste of manpower....
  • sources: look pretty good to me, although I caveat I am not an expert on this era. One query, though, the Rickard/History of War sources --- I have seen some editors express doubt about these elsewhere on Wikipedia. What is your take on their status as reliable sources?
  • Which is why I only cited them once, as background. They are very basic sources that sketch the bare outlines of the battles or skirmishes. I confirmed everything there with Smith. Since you questioned them, I took out the citation, and changed the header to "resources". auntieruth (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me, thanks. In terms of reliability, Rickard appears to have some military history credentials per this [8], and the site also has other published authors contributing to it, so it is potentially ok as a source at least for some of the articles that fall in the authors' sphere of expertise. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Should use |upright= rather than fixed px size fixed
  • File:Rhein-Karte.png: first source link is dead I removed the dead link.

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead, are the Army of the Lower Rhine and the Army of the Lower Rhine notable?
  • Yes, but there are no articles yet.
  • link Cologne, move link to Düsseldorf to first mention, Duisburg, move link to Mannheim to first mention, Strasburg, Basel, Kaiserslauten,
  • "The remaining units of the former..." what army were they united into?
  • The right flank of the Armée du Centre (Army of the Center) later the called the Armée de Moselle (Army of the Moselle), the entire Armée du Nord (Army of the North) and the Armée des Ardennes (Army of the Ardennes) were combined to form the Army of the Sambre and Meuse. The remaining units of the former Army of the Center and the Armée du Rhin (Army of the Rhine) were united, initially on 29 November 1794 and formally on 20 April 1795, under the command of Jean-Charles Pichegru. ?
  • is the Army of Rhine and Moselle notable?
yes...It's linked.... fixed.
  • perhaps name and link both the Habsburg armies when introducing them in the Campaign section
  • redlinked
  • Dufour? full name and link? fixed.
  • link chasseurs à cheval
  • "defeated the left wing of the Army of the Rhine and Moselle at the Battle of Mainz:..." but isn't this following bit about Mannheim? Or should it be Mainz? This seems to have Mannheim first then Mainz? Confusing. fixed.
  • link Battle of Mannheim fixed.
  • is the Battle of Frankenthal likely to be notable? If not, link Frankenthal fixed.
  • suggest extending the piping of Siege of Mannheim to "invested by the Coalition" per WP:EASTEREGG fixed.
  • "this meant drafting raw recruits from the ten imperial circles, providing basic services and was authorized to act as he saw fit" who was authorized? and services, not training? fixed
  • suggest "Historians generally accept the French resultsinvolvement ofin the Campaign of 1795 as an unmitigated disaster" fixed.
  • suggest introducing Comité before the quote. Was this the Directory, or something else? fixed. Directory. But Phipps uses the old reference.
  • suggest "a cadre of young French officers" if that is what is meant fixed.
  • suggest a comma after "and interference from the Directory" fixed.
  • who is Lazar Hoche? link? fixed.
  • Lefebvre in full and link at first mention fixed.
  • later, François Joseph Lefebvre→Lefebvre fixed.
  • link Michel Ney fixed.
  • who is Massena? link? fixed.
  • are there links for the "south German and Swiss campaigns"? fixed. I've added them.
  • Jean de Dieu Soult→Soult as he has already been introduced fixed.
  • is the Swiss campaign of 1799–1800 notable? link? fixed.
  • link Jean Baptiste Bessieres fixed.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you....would you check again? I have no way to search to make sure I got all the links right. auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 14 June 2019 (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) 00:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Western Roman Empire

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk)

Western Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I was recommended to nominate this for A-class review as a part in the process of eventually getting it to FAC. The article has been worked on by me and Iazyges for more than a year and passed GA review today. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

edit
  • Suggest splitting the list of emperors off into a separate article.
I don't think there is a need for a separate article listing Western Roman Emperors, there are already two separate lists of Roman Emperors (Roman and Byzantine respectively). Iazyges did most of the expansion of this section, so he should probably be the one to weigh in here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 51 dioesn't go anywhere, and Merills, Andy; Miles, Richard (2007). The Vandals is not used. Suggest moving to Further Reading.
Fixed FN 51 and moved The Vandals to Further Reading. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Political aftermath section is far too long, given that none of it is about the subject of the article. Suggest cutting it back.
I disagree that none of it is about the subject of the article, it discusses the continued presence of Romans in the West and is fairly important information in regards to the later Middle Ages (which the Fall of the Western Roman Empire is generally considered to have started), but it might be a bit long, yes. Is there anything in particular you believe can be cut or is unnecessary? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need all the footnoting in the infobox?
This was based on the infobox in Byzantine Empire, where footnoting is used in the infobox with comments on the name and dates. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nomenclature section is interesting, but I think it belongs in the History section. It also begs the question: did contempories refer to an Eastern and a Western Empire? And who are the main historians of the period?
I'll have to look into this more, of course the information in the nomenclature section mainly follows a sixth century historian so it's not entirely contemporary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need for the See Also section, as all are mentioned in the article, most in "main article" tags.
Removed the "See Also" section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Oppose by Nick-D

edit

Oppose This article only scratches the surface of the topic I'm afraid. For instance, the 'history' section appears to be almost entirely focused on high politics and military conflicts, and the article covers little else. There's almost no coverage of key topics such as culture, demography, the economy, technology, or religion (the transition to Christianity is only mentioned in the context of high politics, for instance), and how these changed over time. It also seems to be very male-centric: searching for 'women' and 'female' returns zero hits. Likewise, there's no mention of the Western Roman Empire being a slave state despite the vast numbers of slaves resident in it for most of its history. I'd suggest restructuring the article along the lines of articles on countries. Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the Western Roman Empire only lasted for 81 years, leaving very little room for discussion of culture, demography, economy, technology and religion. I do believe all of these subjects are discussed in regards to the politics, with culture and economy being significant contributing features to the collapse of the Empire. These things are better discussed in something like Roman Empire, there is next to no research available specifically on these subjects in the west of the Roman Empire in the time frame 395-480. If anything could be added here it would be about the christianization of the Empire but since that is before 395 it would end up in the "Background" section.
Your way of showing the article to be male-centric is a bit disingenuous, the word "men" and "male" are rarely used, "men" only appear three times and "male" only once. Since the article is primarily focused on politics, it is to be expected that it would be male-centric since leading politicians and generals were all male. We can't change history. At most, some information might be added about the few known empresses. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about the Empire, not its politics. As a comparative example, the article on Nazi Germany covers only 15 years of German history, but discusses German society, culture, the economy, etc. The article should stand on its own feet, and discuss the Empire as a whole. There's no likelihood of the article passing a FAC in its current state, and the A-class criteria are not met either I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Germany has also received far more research in those areas but I can see where you're coming from. My point still stands with very little research pertaining to these areas in Western Roman history specifically. There used to be a section on economic decline (Economy) but its content was merged into the relevant parts in "History" during the GA review. There just isn't enough research to create a "culture" section pertaining to cuisine, art, language etc. and in any case, the "Western Roman Empire" wasn't a separate country from the Roman Empire before it. I can probably write a section on religion though.
I haven't been through the process before, but looking at the A-class criteria, I think it pretty much meets all of them? The only one out of the five that you're questioning is A2, right (obviously all need to be met but still)? I would argue that "it neglects no major facts or details" does apply here; the political disintegration and crisis is what has been primarily researched in regards to the Western Roman Empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, A2 is not met. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit
  • You seem to have two references in the sources section for Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?. the first one, w. two authors drinkwater&hugh, seems correct. I don't know about the second one. i think it is in error and might need to be deleted. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2019 (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) 00:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Apollo 15

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

Apollo 15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after months of fitful work, I think it's ready for review and I'd like it looked at. Thanks.Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Unrelated to source review, but the article has a very strange display with large gaps in text on my browser.
Where in particular?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long gap between "Support crew" (ending with "he was the only astronaut from that group to make it to the Moon, with Apollo 17.[8]") and "Backup crew". I think it is related to image placement with regards to the text. By the way, I'm using a 13-inch MacBook. Catrìona (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see this too on my 11-in laptop. I think you need to remove those two {{clear}} templates. You'll get sandwiching of text between two columns of images later in the article but that could be dealt with by putting some images in galleries -- better than the huge amounts of white space we have now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. I put them in there to minimize the white space to the right of the lists ... oh well ...--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN style is not consistent; I think the longer (new) ISBN numbers with hyphens are preferred
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher and location are not consistent (eg, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press vs New York: Viking.)
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still see one issue: Chichester, United Kingdon (sic) vs. London, UK Catrìona (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harland is missing publisher and location
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut that source as we do not actually use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of {{cite book}} vs. {{citation}}
    There is one use of citation because cite does not handle a single author's contribution within a compendium of chapters by different authors well. I've used this in articles that have gone through FAC, for example, Sovereign (British coin). If there is an alternative means, I will look at it and likely adopt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I usually do is use the |chapter parameter: i.e. Ramkissoon, Reuben A. (2006). "An Astrophilatelic Rendering of the Conquest of Space: Part 3, Project Apollo—the Moon Landing Missions". The Congress Book 2006. State College, PA: American Philatelic Congress, Inc. pp. 191–211.
        I use the contribution parameter: i.e. Chaikin, Andrew (2007). "Live from the Moon: The Societal Impact of Apollo". In Dick, Steven J.; Launius, Roger D. (eds.). Societal Impact of Spaceflight (PDF). Washington, D.C.: NASA. OCLC 175218028. SP-4801. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, it does not appear to make a difference to display, so I guess it doesn't matter. Catrìona (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, seems pretty heavy on primary sources. But I will have to look closer.

  In progress Catrìona (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I'll look at those. I'm not sure the Lunar Flight and Lunar Surface journals are primary sources due to the many annotations, comments, etc. I should note that Apollo 8 (a FA) and Apollo 11 (A-class and a FA candidate) also use the flight journals, mission report, press releases, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No identifiers (isbn, oclc, doi, jstor, etc.) on "Apollo 15 Mission Report", Ramkissoon, or Winick
  • Having checked the primary sources, I think the use of memoirs falls within WP:PRIMARY, and the NASA official sources can be assumed to be reliable. All of the sources appear reliable and used within guidelines, so I'm going to support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you did not discover this already, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal content is hosted on NASA's website but is not NASA content. I know you supported already, just letting you know if you are interested and did not already know. Kees08 (Talk) 22:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

edit
Lead
  • "spent three days on the Moon" I would say: "three Earth days", since a lunar day is 28 Earth days long.
I've massaged the need for the mention out of the passage instead.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scientific instruments in the SIM bay of the service module" Suggest "Scientific Instrument Module (SIM) Bay"
I've at least piped to service instrument module, but I think we have to mention it is in the service module, and for the sake of brevity, I've piped it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding that the mission also featured the first deep space EVA.
Done.
Background
  • "a plan of ten total lunar landings" Suggest: "for ten planned landings"
The word "planned" duplicates "plan" shortly thereafter, so I've omitted it here and said "hoped-for total"
Crew and key Mission Control personnel
  • All of the Excess Eleven support crew eventually flew, although I think one died climbing Mount Everest
Yeah, but I don't think it's necessary to go that far. All three of the support crew flew, that's as far as the article on 15 needs to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Planning and training
  • Apollo 11's backup crew had been designated for Apollo 13.
  • "but often there were higher priorities" NACA had been a engineering research organisation, and priority developing working spacecraft.
Yes, this was important, but the point is that Shepard, for example, was not interested in geology. Do we need to say more?
  • "contacted Caltech geologist" Link Caltech
Done.
  • "due to the explosion that damaged the Apollo 13 spacecraft" And caused the mission to be aborted.
Added.
  • You need to define CMP and LMP. Suggest doing so in the previous section
What do you mean, define? We have a pipe from "Position" above the crew's names and jobs to the astronaut ranks article.
  • Do we need the pic of group five? We already have one of the crew
I'm just looking to fill whitespace in this listy area of the article.
  • "(During a mission the capsule communicators (CAPCOMs), always fellow astronauts, were the only people who normally would speak to the crew.)" Suggest moving this up to the CAPCOM section.
Done.
Mission highlights
  • In the caption of the pic of Endeavour, I would mention that the SIM bay is visible
Fine.
  • I expected to find mention of the fact that Falcon carried a falcon feather from its namesake, the USAF Academy mascot (see Air Force Falcons#Team name origin) and Endeavour carried a block of wood from its namesake, HMS Endeavour (and hence the Br-spelling of "Endeavour"). In fact, this is the first time we read the names of the spacecraft; they should have been mentioned above. (Reading further down, I discovered the bit about the falcon feather, but still think it belongs above.) (Aha. Found Endeavour right down the bottom.)
I've added it further up.
  • "This rock, an anorthosite, is believed to be part of the early lunar crust" Uh no, it was believed to be, but subsequent analysis showed it was younger. No piece of the Moon's original crust has ever been found. (Or, for that matter, of the Earth's.)
I just said early, I did not say original. And I'm aware 17 brought home an older one.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hardware
  • Move this section up the top, as it introduces a lot of stuff talked about later.
Fine.
Mission insignia
  • Suggest moving this up the top too.
I feel it gets in the way and would rather leave it where it is.
  • Do we need the NASA nav bar? It doesn't have Apollo 15 in it like the others.
See discussion at Talk:Apollo 15
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the images are good to go? Other than the discussion above, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, images are all good to go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

edit

Starting my review below Kees08 (Talk) 01:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation comments

  • Citation 3: missing publisher
  • Citation 5: was last updated December 11, 2003, if you want to use that as the date field. There is also an author listed
  • Citation 7: should be in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal section, although if I had to pick, I would remove those sections and just have one references section
  • Citation 8: can add Mark Wade as author if you like
  • Citation 10: expand with this info (and combine w/ similar references, if applicable)
  • Citation 12: Work field should be Ars Technica
  • Citation 30: Expand with this. Apply to other citations as needed
I wasn't sure how to format this. Do you have any suggestions (also the adjacent ref).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 37: could probably go without having that giant quote
  • Citation 38: combine w/ citation 37
  • Citation 41: is Apollo Flight Journal
  • Citation 60: I usually stylize as Space.com but probably does not matter
  • Citation 62: although posted by a CNN correspondent, presumably blogs have less editorial oversight than articles. Could you find a non-blog source?
  • Citation 68: should be Houston Press
  • Citation 69: add agency=Associated Press
  • Bibliography section: I have been told if one has OCLC, give them all OCLC. I may be misremembering, but I believe you should add them where possible.
I have added them, where I could, where no ISBN is available. Two philatelic sources seem to lack either. As I got them from the American Philatelic Society Library, I'm inclined to think they are reliable.
  • Could you add a link to the Apollo 15 Mission Report?
  • Format all dates the same (if access dates will be in YEAR-MO-DY format, all of access dates have to be)

Other comments

  • Are we cool with the gallery? I always remove them and verify all of it is on Commons, if allowed. From Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries, However, a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Since you adequately explained the mission in the article, I think you can move the gallery to the Commons. Thoughts on that?
If the gallery should go, I would likely use at least some of the images to illustrate the article. Certainly the hammer/feather.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the best course of action, if you agree. Kees08 (Talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it better to put these historic films at appropriate points in the article, or most of them. We have a wealth of them, the reader isn't best served by having them at the bottom. I'll work on this, and on your other comments. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've got everything except where noted. I have decided to leave the journals grouped, there is no harm in it and it might be useful to some readers. I've moved most of the gallery oggs into the main text, except the one showing the takeoff from the Moon through the LMP's window, due to lack of room, but as I do include the takeoff from the camera on the LRV, that should be sufficient. Thank you for the very thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2019 (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/2019/Failed&oldid=939673270"