Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2020/Failed

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment | 2020

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 - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Price's Lost Campaign: The 1864 Invasion of Missouri

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Price's Lost Campaign: The 1864 Invasion of Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Here's a bit of a different one from me: a military history book. This is my first book-related GA, and only the second book article I've ever written, but I think it's ACR-able, and hopefully I'm not wrong. The book itself is about Price's Raid, a topic which might be familiar to the reviewers of the Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment and Battle of Marais des Cygnes ACR reviews. Hog Farm Bacon 17:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Only image meets non-free requirements (t · c) buidhe 00:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Eddie891

edit

Looks like a nice article:

  • " to posterity as a lesser raid" what does 'lesser raid' mean here?
    • Rephrased
  • "Elements of praise for the book include " how about "the book was praised for its"
    • Done
  • ", focusing on the Civil War " comes before you spell out and link American Civil War
    • Fixed.
  • I find it odd that you don't specify more than '1864' when the raid occured
    • Clarified it a little bit as "late 1864". Not sure how best to describe Sept. - Dec. beyond "late"
  • "how he responded to the" I'd prefer "his response to the raid"'
    • Done
  • "; this book completes the story of the campaign" why not just ", completing the story of the campaign"?
    • Done. I tend to overuse semicolons.
  • I think this might benefit from a paragraph of context or background about the raid itself
  • "He considered that the omission of Westport and Mine Creek " -> "the battles of Westport and Mine Creek", I don't think they've come up enough to assume a reader knows
    • Done
  • "While recognizing that the book had these shortcomings," what does this add?
    • Removed.
  • " initially designed as an invasion, became known to posterity as a simple raid" Feels like we've seen variations of this "invasion -> simple raid" a lot. Consider if you can eliminate some of the repetition?
  • Might be worth giving WP:RECEPTION a read through; i.e. "Clampitt criticized Lause's weak prose " suggests that Lause's prose is weak, but really I imagine Clampitt just considers it weak. There are a couple of things like this-- there's an incredible amount of repetition about the two maps as well.
  • "epilogue discussing how the campaign was remembered in posterity was lacking." as in there was an epilogue and it was lacking, or it lacked an epilogue completely?
  • "noted the lack of a bibliography " did he just note it or did he criticize it?
  • "Overall, Piston described Price's Lost Campaign as "well-written" " from what you give, I would not have considered Piston to have such a positive overall opinion-- are you giving too much weight to his criticism?
  • "Alex Mendoza reviewed the book for America's Civil War stated" missing word?
    • Added.

Nice work as usual, I'll probably come back and give it another pass later. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this. I've started replying, I'll be working on this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Bacon 06:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 - Sorry to state this after you've put in the effort to review, but after looking over this again, I'm not particularly sure this is really that close to the criteria for the prose standards. The rest of the month is gonna be fairly busy for me (working retail over the Christmas holiday), so I'd probably be better off withdrawing this one and nominating one much closer to the standards. Hog Farm Bacon 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Hog Farm! thanks for all the work you've been doing this year. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:24, 10 December 2020 (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 - Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hasdrubal, son of Hanno

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Hasdrubal, son of Hanno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


During the 23 years of the First Punic War there were only four set-piece field battles. Hasdrubal commanded the Carthaginians in two of them and was a general officer (probably second in command) at the third. Yet there was no article on him. I assume because of an almost complete lack of information about him in the primary sources. So last Thursday I knocked one together; squeezing, I believe, the sources dry to do it. This is the first biography I have offered above GAN, so it probably needs a fair bit of attention. I do not think that it can aspire to FA because of the lack of information specifically about the subject. (But views on this would be welcome.) It may be that it cannot meet the A class criteria for the same reason, but that is why we are here. Any and all comments are most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
  • It's a little weird that the denarius image has both the PD-old-us template and an OTRS ticket suggesting copyright, but the OTRS ticket takes care of it. Hog Farm Bacon 02:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hog Farm, if you look closely there are separate copyrights for the coin and photographs of it, because as a three-dimensional object it is not subject to scanning exception. Similarly, a photograph of a statue has separate copyrights for the statue and the photograph. (t · c) buidhe 12:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit

All of the sources appear to be reliable for what they're cited for.

  • Checks:
    • "Regulus was left with 40 ships, 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to overwinter in Africa." Checked one of the sources cited, Tipps, who does not give these figures on the cited page, but does mention figures on the next page (378)?
Tipps was there to support the "overwinter" bit. I didn't use him to support the numbers as he doesn't mention the 40 ships. (I could make the citations more specific if you think that would be helpful - I have a tendency to bunch cites at the end of a sentence.)
    • I don't think Tipps supports "inland". Instead, he seems to be contrasting Adys to smaller targets.
I am not sure that I grasp your point. Adys is an inland settlement, so paraphrasing "Regulus committed his relatively small holding force ... to a siege of .. Adys" as "Regulus chose to take his relatively small force and strike inland" seems straight forward to me; even a tad over-close[?] But I am always willing to be educated.
    • Citations for "Total misuse" and "recklessness" are correct, as is the last citation to Tipps 2003

(t · c) buidhe 18:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe. Comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, seems fine. Passing (t · c) buidhe 12:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • when the Romans invaded North Africa in 255 BC Unlink North Africa.
Done.
  • Hasdrubal took part as a general in three of them This is a little bit vague to me. Are you referring he was general in three battles of the four and in the last one he was just a soldier or something else or he fought only three of the four battles all of them when he was general?
I'm not sure how to make it clearer. He took part in three of them, like it says. I could add "but not in the fourth", but that seems painfully redundant to me.
  • Hrr. And that's one of the reasons I sometimes hate languages since some sentences could've two different meanings. Maybe one day we will find a new source who can clarify this.
  • mid-3rd century BC it had come to dominate southern Spain Not Iberia? Since Spain wasn't a thing and the name Hispania was formed more than 30 years later?
I could say "Iberia", but virtually no reader will know what I am talking about, so it seemed an unnecessary elaboration. The sources usually, but not always, use "Spain".
  • That's true you could say that but would you say "The Roman proconsul and general Julius Caesar pushed his army into France in 58 BC" or "The Roman proconsul and general Julius Caesar pushed his army into Gaul in 58 BC" since it's virtually unknown for most readers?
Thinking on this, you have persuaded me. Changed to Iberia as it is a modern word, if not too common.
  • The Carthaginian senate appointed him as a general --> "The Carthaginian Senate appointed him as a general"
Oops. Done.
  • Is there a link for Bostar?
  • This isn't addressed.
No. And in my opinion not worth red linking. This is his one and only mention in history.
  • Maybe you are right, unless, a new source would be published in the near future who gives us more info about him.
  • Polybius is critical of this decision Polybius isn't here introduced and linked.
Tut, tut. Done.
  • meant that they suffered few or no losses.[38][35][40] Re-order the refs.
Done.
  • only 16 km (10 mi) from Carthage.[42][41] Same as above.
Done.
  • despair the Carthaginians sued for peace.[43][41] Same as above.
Done.
  • overcome the Carthaginian phalanx in their What's a phalanx? Maybe link it.
Good thinking. Done.
  • withdrawn and a reinforcement of 140 elephants.[72][68] Re-order the refs.
Done.
  • Roman commander, Lucius Caecilius Metellus, into battle.[77][74] Same as above.
Done.
  • Hasdrubal was recalled to Carthage to be executed. After reading so many articles like this I assume which kind of dead he gained but most of the readers won't?
Umm. I am possibly being slow. I don't mention what kind of death he suffered and I don't expect a reader to work it out. Hr was executed. Method not specified. End of.
  • Don't the sources say he was crucified? Since a lot of your articles say Carthaginian generals were crucified if they failed?
Some do, some don't. None of the more solid sources mention crucifixion for Hasdrubal, even those which do specify it for other Carthaginians.
  • If mankind finds this out one day in a new source, then it should be added but, since our knowledge about the Punic Wars is limited this would be open to grab.
  • This assumes, per G.K. Tipps, that all 114 captured Carthaginian vessels were sailing with the Romans --> "This assumes, per G. K. Tipps, that all 114 captured Carthaginian vessels were sailing with the Romans"
Done.
  • Somehow this isn't addressed yet.
It is now.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And he is back!   Wonderful. And thanks for the comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent CPA-5: all addressed - but not necessarily agreed with. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Well since a lockdown is inching closer and closer here because a "tsunami" probably would happen in the hospitals and cases are skyrocketing and even recently broke the 1,000 cases per 100,000 per two weeks per the ECDC. I have a little bit more time for small reviews. But nominations over 40,000 bytes is too much since I don't have the time for it. But at least I'm a little bit happy to be more active online. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: I think that I have now picked up the bits I missed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, is there anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Gog the Mild. I don't think there is. I'm only thinking about maybe adding "floruit"'s template since his birth date is unknown and his death date has also a circa date? MOS:CIRCA says that both should be unknown to use it if I'm not wrong? In my view, it could help the reader to point out when he was active. Of course, my views aren't part or aren't the guidelines in general so they're not important. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5 Your views are always important. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5, are you supporting here, or sitting this one out? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I have problems with my monitor so I prefer not to be online that much and since Black Friday has passed and Cyber Monday is coming I'm not sure when I will get a new one. This year is gonna be a busy sales. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

Hate to see this one stagnate, I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 01:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "Early in 254 BC the triumvirate of Carthaginian generals gave control of the army to the Spartan mercenary commander, Xanthippus and accompanied him when the Romans were decisively beaten at the Battle of Tunis" - I'm bad with commas, but I wonder if there should either be no comma after commander or one after Xanthippus
You are absolutely correct. Inserted.
  • Link war elephant in the lead
Done.
  • "and took a leading part in three of the four major field battles of the war" - Did he really play a leading part? He's barely mentioned at all in the Tunis summary.
I don't insist on "leading", but he was almost certainly second in command at Tunis, only giving up operational command as they marched to the battlefield.
Name
  • Lead says His date of birth and age at death are both unknown, as are his activities prior to his coming to prominence in 255 BC. This section says Hasdrubal's date of birth and age at death are both unknown, as are his activities prior to his coming to prominence in 256 BC during the First Punic War. A bit of a contradiction here.
256 BC was a typo. Thanks for spotting it. (I blame the GAN reviewer for not picking it up.)
Invasion of Africa
  • Is Bostar worth redlinking, or is this his only real appearance in the records?
CPA-5 asked the same question above. Yes. I have no objection to red linking it if that is the consensus. I suppose that someone might milk a four sentence stub out of the one and only mention of his name in the historical record one day.
Probably not worth redlinking then. I'm personally not a giant fan of three-sentence stubs. I could have nailed all the Missouri CSA units down by now if I'd just written half a paragraph based on McGhee, but I think the encyclopedia is better served when articles are given significant content.
  • "and were joined by a third general, Hamilcar, the Carthaginian commander on Sicily " - This is the same Hamilcar as before, right?
Yep.
  • " This column was thrown back by the Carthaginians – it is assumed at the line of their fortifications, although this is not certain – and driven down the hill in disorder" - Is this assumption about the line of fortifications a consensus of historians, or is it just Goldsworthy? I feel like it needs some attribution
Removed.
  • "and at around this time a large group of recruits from Greece arrived in Carthage" - At least in my somewhat nonstandard use of English, recruits implies something a little different than a hired mercenary, which Xanthippus seems to be.
A "recruit" can be a mercenary. One can recruit mercenaries. Eg, Miles "New mercenary soldiers had been recruited in mainland Greece". Goldsworthy "added drafts recruited in Greece". Lazenby "The Carthaginians sent a number of recruiting officers to Greece."
Sicily
  • " Hasdrubal, hearing that one consul (Gaius Furius Pacilus) had left Sicily with half of the Roman army" - Did the Romans go back to Rome, or to Africa, or where?

Back to Rome. Now added.

Images
  • Personally, I feel like a map of the fighting in Africa would be more relevant and helpful than, say, the elephant statuette image
References
  • Is it really necessary to author-link Walbank twice?
No. Fixed.
Infobox
  • Are the sources clear enough about when he died that we can really say without reservation that it occurred in 250 BC?
This is 2,270 years ago. We can't say for certain that Elvis is dead, and they televised his funeral. Hasdrubal was recalled in 250 BC and executed. The primary source puts these two facts in the same sentence. The secondary sources do the same "recalled to Carthage and executed" or variations. It depends how certain you want to be. Maybe they waited 50 years and then executed him. The sources don't explicitly rule this out.
I've slung a c. into the infobox next to that then, to reflect the slight ambiguity.
Fair enough.

That's it from me

Cheers Hog Farm. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, although I handled one small item myself, so you might want to check on that. Hog Farm Bacon 23:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Harrias

edit
  • "..he is distinguished by modern historians from other Carthaginians named Hasdrubal by the cognomen.." I found this a little confusing at first, and potentially slightly ambiguous. How about "modern historians distinguish him from other Carthaginians named Hasdrubal by the cognomen.."
OK.
  • You might be shocked, but I have some significant concerns about how much information is provided that is not directly related to Hasdrubal. The whole two-paragraph "Background" section, and then the first three paragraphs of the "Invasion of Africa" are (in my opinion) more detailed than is necessary to provide context for the subject of Hasdrubal. Beyond that, much of the article is giving pretty detailed accounts of the battles Hasdrubal is involved in, without necessarily connecting Hasdrubal to many of the events. For example, the "Battle of Tunis" section does not mention Hasdrubal until the final paragraph. In fact, it reads more like an account of Xanthippus than of Hasdrubal.

As it stands, I feel I have to oppose this article, as I believe it is not "focused on the main topic" as required by A2. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand where you are coming from, but disagree, and don't wish to gut what I see as a full treatment to generate what IMO would be an inferior coverage just to get a blue A. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Just checking you had seen this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias Thanks for the ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Harrias, I think that I answered your previous ping on autopilot. Yes, that was my response. I could expand on it, but it gets across my opinion, if perhaps a little over-bluntly. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from PM

edit

I tend to agree with Harrias. I looked at this earlier, and it seemed to me to be a summary of the First Punic War rather than a biographical article, and decided not to look at it in detail. Now that I have read Harrias' concerns and looked at the article myself, I can only join him in opposing. The actual facts about Hasdrubal himself are very sparse, essentially that : 1) he was a general in three battles of the war, 2) he may have made the decision to confront Regulus, 3) he and the rest of the triumvirate were supplanted by Xanthippus, 4) he trained and drilled his army in Sicily, 5) he initiated the Battle of Panormus and escaped, 6) he was executed for failure around 250 BC. It just isn't enough to base a biographical article on. If this is all there is on him, they really are passing mentions, so I'm not sure he even has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, and therefore there is a question of whether he meets the GNG. Perhaps it would be better to abandon this idea, merge anything unique into the First Punic War article, and redirect this there? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Mongol invasions of Vietnam

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Laska666 (talk)

Mongol invasions of Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it now is full covered with well citations. Second it is a important article. Pls review Laska666 (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please use a consistent citation style. Half of the article uses sfn refs (which are better imo) and the other half uses footnotes. Pick one. (t · c) buidhe 05:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI to any potential reviewers: this was also posted at GAN and FAC. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that this has been simultaneously listed at GAN, ACR and FAC, I would recommend this closing in favour of the GAN (though I acknowledge there is no rule disallowing a simultaneous GAN/ACR. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not yet: significant sourcing issues: beyond the inconsistencies mentioned by Buidhe, the article lists Wikipedia as a source, and includes a lot of book sources without page numbers. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As well as the sourcing issues already identified, I note that several commanders/leader listed in the infobox aren't mentioned elsewhere thus constitutes uncited material. There are likely to be other issues that I wouldn't expect to see in an article going for A or FA class review. This should be closed off so there is only one review in progress, either GA or Peer Review. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2020 (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) 03:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it clearly doesn't meet the A-Class criteria, and seems unlikely to meet them unless a significant effort is made to bring it up to speed. It was promoted in 2007, then went successfully through FAC later that year, and has was demoted via a FAR in 2018. It looks like C-Class to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, it pretty clearly fails criteria b1. There may be a need to conduct some sort of A-Class sweeps for these older promotions, as the standards have changed a pretty fair bit since '07. Hog Farm Bacon 00:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse review and/or demotion. It would be really difficult to give an accurate *and* up to date assessment unless high quality recent sources are available, thus failing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class, criterion 1, verifiable against reputable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the user responsible for FA-demotion. When held up to the A-class criteria, it quite clearly fails A1; many parts of the text are unsourced, the citation style is grossly inconsistent, and there are some questionable sources in there (US Department of State telegrams provided via Wikileaks is not ideal). The prose style is also lackluster. It also probably does not meet A2, as so much is outdated (last best sources were from 2007). This is an army which has been at war for over 20 years now, and stuff changes about its composition frequently. There is inadequate discussion of brassage and the laws which govern the armed forces, and basically nothing about the military justice system. It is hardly "comprehensive". I also question whether so much about the Congo Crisis and 1960 Force Publique mutiny is WP:Due. I applaud those who are doing their best to clean up the article, but I don't even know if its realistically possible to bring this up to par with A-class standards until war stops in the Congo and new sources are released. I support demotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions: I have done a little bit of work today to hopefully clean up a few minor aspects, but unfortunately I probably cannot assist with much more (certainly nothing substantive given my lack of sources or subject matter expertise). I have the following suggestions, in case someone else can assist: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Force Publique saw combat in Cameroun: suggest adding a year, or year range for this
  • the narrative seems to jump from World War II to 1960 -- suggest adding a sentence about this period to the initial history paragraph
  • at five paragraphs, the lead is one too many per WP:LEAD: suggest condensing into four paragraphs
  • the lead talks about a 2010 law and legal standing in general, but probably needs to discuss this in the body, as well as providing an update
  • unfortunately there are many paragraphs or parts of paragraphs that appear to be uncited; for the A-class rating to remain, the uncited information at the end of these paragraphs will need to be referenced
  • the infobox lists a a 2004 budget estimate, a 2008 estimate of the number of pers over 60 and a 2016 GDP percentage -- is it possible to update these figures, please?
  • citations 136 and 137 "Archived copy" -- can the correct titles of these pages please be added?
  • suggest checking the English language variation (I see British "centre" but also US "defense")
  • the link for Jane's in citation 155 probably should be moved to an earlier mention (maybe citation 151)?
  • citation 32 (Air Combat Information Group) --> is this the same as citation 62 (Cooper)? If so, I suggest just using a WP:NAMEDREF
  • suggest sorting the Bibliography alphabetically by surname
  • in the Further reading section, "Disconsolate empires: French, British and Belgian military involvement in post-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa": is there an author, year and publisher for this?
  • in the Further reading section, suggest presenting the authors' surnames first for consistency
  • in the Ext links section "Recent German Foreign Ministry Report", suggest changing "recent" to a specific year if possible and adding an archive link as it appears to be a deadlink
  • he army's logistics corps [was tasked].. to provide logistic...: is this a quote? If so, it appears to be missing the first quote mark and probably should be attributed in text, with a citation
  • Kabila answered 'We are not going to: I think the MOS prefers double quote marks (suggest checking the whole article for consistency in relation to this, although this is a very minor point)
  • suggest adding a page number for citation 15 "Vanderstraeten 1985"
  • suggest adding a page number for citation # 121 -- Boshoff, The DDR Process
  • citation # 131: "Orbat.com's Concise World Armies 2005" -- is there a url for this?
I'll leave it to the end of next week and list it if nothing has changed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 17 October 2020 (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 - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Boreas (H77)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Thatoneweirdwikier (talk)

HMS Boreas (H77) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

(Note: This is my first ever A-Class nomination.)

This article is about the British B-Class destroyer Boreas, who was built in 1930 and involved in many deployments across Europe. She was eventually transferred to the Greeks and renamed Salamis before she was scrapped a few years later. I have been working on this article for over a month and I hope you can consider it an A-Class article. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 09:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm

edit
Why I shouldn't edit late at night

* The lead is incredibly lacking. It is just too short (five sentences) to be the lead for an A-Class article of this length

  • "Coventry-class sixth-rate frigate" MOS:SEAOFBLUE, three wikilinks in a row. (also in infobox)
  • The image in the main part of the article breaks over a section line, if it's moved further down it'll probably fit better
  • " that year at the Admiralty yards" - Link to Admiralty if that's the correct links
  • Consider linking the specific types of wood
  • Footnote a should probably have a period at the end, as it is a complete sentence
  • "Flaws in her design were apparent even at this early stage; in December 1757 Captain Boyle advised Admiralty that the fir planks adjacent to the hatchways were already badly worn, as were the strakes along the hull." - I'd recommend replacing the semicolon with a colon and then adding a comma after 1757
  • "captured off Louisbourg" - Link Louisbourg
  • "the recapture of the snow Muscliff, the sloop Dolphin, and the prize sloop Selleri" - Link the applicable ship types. I, for one, have never heard of the ship class "snow"
  • " In November 1762 Boreas was paid head money" - Comma after 1762 and is there a way to link/explain what "head money" is? Also link privateers here, instead of at the later mention
  • Link Admiral to the article about the rank in the British Navy
  • Some of the ships mentioned don't have the ship type included. If it's known, it should be included.
  • The location of that further information banner strikes me as very odd
  • "French fire disabled Boreas aloft" - Wouldn't it work to say that Boreas had its rigging/sails damaged, if that's correct? Try to cut down on the unexplained nautical jargon, as it can't be assumed that the reader will understand
  • "The French 20-gun corvette Valeur, struck to Lively" - Odd place for a comma. Also, link Striking the colors if that's what's meant
  • "cornered the King's frigate" - Another jargon thing. This is a French frigate right? Is there a way to reword this, I find it confusing.
  • " cut out the privateers Vainquer and Mackau " - Are these two French? And what does cut out mean in this context
  • The Fate section is very short, it can be merged into the service history section
  • The references to Winfield are in several different styles, they should be standardized.

I'm willing to discuss/retract any of these, especially since some of the technical terms in here went over my head. This one needs some work, but that's normal for a first-time ACR (my first ACR needed a lot of work). I'll give it another pass through once these are addressed. Hog Farm Bacon 05:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Self-trout - I reviewed HMS Boreas (1757). I'll try to get to the correct one soon. Lol. Hog Farm Bacon 05:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short description of "ship" can probably be made a little longer, about 40 characters is the target
    • Added.
  • Rohwer is in the bibliography but is not used. Move to further reading or remove
    • Removed.
  • Was it part of a class?
    • B-class. I've added it in the body.
  • The namesake needs cited. It can't be implied, especially since there's the possibility it was named after a previous ship
    • I think the text around ref 10 covers it.
  • "Her service in the Mediterranean was uneventful until shortly before she returned home when Boreas evacuated civilians at the start of the Spanish Civil War in July 1936" - This sentence reads awkward to me. Can it be rephrased?
    • Rephrased.
  • " Nationalist heavy cruiser Baleares" - MOS:SEAOFBLUE, three links in a row
    • Reworded.
  • Is there a reason the body cuts into WWII without stating that there was a war on?
    • Changed the wording a bit – hope that's what you were looking for.
  • Is there any further detail about Boreas' role in Operation Husky that can be added?
    • After doing some digging, I don't think there is, unfortunately.

This one's in much better shape than the 1757 Boreas article. Hog Farm Bacon 15:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, you may need that trout again. Does "Comments Support by Hog Farm" at the top of this section indicate support for promotion, opposition, or a complete inability to make up your mind?   Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Gog the Mild: - I'm honestly not sure. I'd supported, but then some more stuff came up later about Operation Husky participation suggesting there was information available that could be used to expand. Still not clear if that's all the detail known, or if the source the nominator is hunting for has necessary information. So I'm noncommital at this point. Hog Farm Bacon 20:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm: That's fine. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

edit

Parsecboy, would you mind clarifying what you mean by a "Commons category"? Thanks very much. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 07:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great work on this so far, and welcome to Milhist ACR. A few comments from me:

Lead and infobox
  • for "enforcing the arms blockade", link Non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War
    • Added.
Body
  • "Boreas was one of the nine B-class destroyers which was built for the Royal Navy in the late 1920s."
    • Removed.
  • "The ships were mainly constructed due to World War I experience indicating that destroyers needed to be multi-role vessels, capable not only of torpedo attacks but also anti-submarine warfare and minesweeping. To achieve all of these capabilities, larger vessels than the British destroyers of World War I were required."
    • Replaced.
  • for Japanese link Imperial Japanese Navy
    • Added.
  • link capital ship and cruiser
    • Added.
  • When a ship class is named for a member of the class, the class name is italicized. So, Fubuki-class destroyers, this can be done automatically by using the sclass- template, ie {{sclass-|Fubuki|destroyer|0}}
    • Added.
  • "These displaced" and use a convert template for 1,750 long tons ie {{cvt|1750|LT|t|lk=inshp}} and try to be consistent with displacements within an article, so use {{cvt|1200|t|LT|order=flip}}
    • I believe this has already been fixed.
  • use {{sclass2-|V and W|destroyer|0}} destroyers, Template:sclass2- is for hyphenated but not italicised ship classes
  • link arms race
    • Where?
  • drop the link to displacement (ship) as you will have already linked it earlier
    • Removed.
  • if you use standard load (which is a redirect) you will avoid flagging a duplicate link to displacement (ship), same as deep load
    • Done.
  • state how many turbines
    • Added.
  • for the shp conversion, add |lk=on to link kW per the infobox
    • I think what I've done is right.
  • specify that the main guns were two forward and two after and that they were superfiring
  • were the main guns in turrets or behind gunshields?
    • I can't seem to find any sources that mention this information.
  • say the AA guns were single mounts
  • where were the TTs located?
    • See above.
  • "shortly after World War II began"
  • "By October 1940, the ship's AA armament washad been increased"
    • Done.

Down to Construction and service. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "After a refit at Portsmouth that lasted until 26 September, she conducted multiple patrols off the coast of Spain in 1937 and 1938 as part of the United Kingdom's policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War." and delete the later reference to non-intervention
    • Added and removed appropriately.
  • suggest "a heavy cruiser belonging to the Spanish Nationalists"
    • Replaced.
  • "royal tour of Scotland"
    • Changed.
  • "In September of 1939"
    • Removed.
  • "she was lightly damaged by German bomb splinters on 19 January"
    • Replaced.
  • "after which she rejoined"
    • Added.
  • Eeastern Atlantic
    • Changed.
  • "Ssiege of Malta"
    • Replaced.
  • "in preparation for Operation Husky" did she participate? This needs to be included here to support the statement in the lead
  • add a main template at the top of the Description section
  • "loaned to the Royal Hellenic Navy on 10 February 1944" good to add the year immediately after changing sections
    • Added.
  • link training ship
    • Done.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose - Source review

edit
  • Lest I be accused of a secret bias, I'll state it up front, I was the GA nominator many years ago.
  • Alphabetise the bibliography.
    • I believe it's already alphabetised.
  • Put all of Jordan into title case.
    • Removed the paragraph where he is used.
  • Be consistent if you're going to abbreviate states or not.
    • Which states are you referring to?
  • Do not abbreviate Publishing
    • Unabbreviated.
  • Add author links for Friedman, Lenton and Whitley
    • Added.
  • Add the subtitle for Whitley
    • Would you kindly clarify?
      • The title is missing it's subtitle. You can find it by going to Worldcat via by clicking on the ISBN.
        • Added.
  • Jordan does not support cites #2 and 3. Page 273 is a simple chart comparing late 1920s destroyers from multiple nations and makes no mention of the British reasoning behind the development of the As and Bs, much less the two prototypes. Page 281 covers Italian designs of the period.
    • Removed the paragraph.
  • As a general rule I disagree with Parsecboy and do not put material relating to the design history of a ship class into that ship's article as I believe that it's best suited for the class article. The ship article needs to focus on the activities of that ship with the description providing considerably less detailed information than the class article. All that said, I'm opposing because this first paragraph is almost completely wrong about the development history of the As and Bs as the British response to the super-destroyers fielded by the other major seapowers was the Tribal class, not the As and Bs. Either get it right or delete it, I don't care which. And the one of nine sentence should be consolidated with the opening sentence of the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • Now to transition to the completeness aspect as I skimmed over quite a bit those many years ago.
  • You need to cover the primary difference between the A and B classes. It's covered in Jordan.
  • What was the 12th Destroyer Flotilla doing in April and May 1940? Were its ships participating in the Norwegian Campaign, or were they further south on convoy escort duty?
    • According to this website, Boreas was part of the 19th Destroyer Flotilla for this campaign. However, this doesn't look like much of a reliable source to me. I'll keep researching.
      • Good idea, I've personally found too many mistakes in those ship activity pages to believe them a reliable source, as tempting as they are.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems as though Boreas was only with that flotilla for six weeks, so I can't imagine she did much in that time. That's just an inference though.
          • Rohwer might be able to help with that, but that's a big might as he tends to focus on interesting events. Probably worth checking http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/ as well which should list any convoy escort missions that she might have been doing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've been spending the past few days trying to find anything related to this specific Boreas on the site – all I can find are a few vague mentions. I'm not even sure she's registered on the site. As before, apologies for my inactivity, will probably be more active in the next few weeks until this review is complete.
  • Was the ship damaged at Millwall by hit and run raiders or during the Blitz? Add some context here.
  • A link is available for the Type 286 radar although it goes to a list.
    • Added.
  • What did the 18th Destroyer Flotilla do at Freetown and what did Boreas do when she returned to Freetown in 1943
    • Again, all I can find is from this website. I'll continue to look.
  • What did the ship do during Husky?
    • I removed all mentions of Husky, as I couldn't find any reliable sources mentioning Boreas' involvement.
    • I will research this further.
      • There's probably a mention in Rohwer covering this; if you don't have access to it, you'll need to get it because just deleting the reference means that you'll fail the completeness criteria. This isn't something optional like the background coverage that I dislike and others prefer. Generally, you need to have access to just about every source listed in the bibliography if you're going to nominate articles for A-class or higher reviews.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like the only way to get your hands on it is to purchase it. I'll get it through Amazon AbeBooks. @Sturmvogel 66: Just to check so I don't waste my money: is this the right one?
        • Hmm, don’t think the ping worked. Let me try again. Sturmvogel 66, please see above.
Sorry, I thought the book was listed in the bibliography already. Rohwer, Jürgen (2005). Chronology of the War at Sea 1939–1945: The Naval History of World War Two (Third Revised ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-119-2. Dunno where you're based, but there are copies available in the UK and Australia, so you shouldn't need to buy it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review both images are appropriately licensed and the captions are ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nigel Ish

edit
It's been well over two months since @Thatoneweirdwikier: made any edits to this article. It's time to archive this nom so he can address these issues at his leisure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2020 (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 - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Second Punic War

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Second Punic War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


To round out my attempt to improve the top level articles on the Punic Wars I would like to push this one above Good Article status. I have struggled with it a little, perhaps because there is so much going on - Hannibal over the Alps, Cannae, Zama, Scipio Africanus etc. So any and all comments would be gratefully received; including, if felt appropriate, that I should drop the stick. Thanks in advance. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source reviews

edit
Image review—pass
  • The only issue here is the coins, which I nominated for deletion at Commons. Coins are not purely two-dimensional, and this photograph does not appear to be released under a free license. (t · c) buidhe 14:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. From memory, which may be faulty, T8612 added that image. Hi T8612, any comments or information on the licensing of the photograph (not the coin)? If not, what do you think of replacing it with File:Carthage, quarter shekel, 237-209 BC, SNG BM Spain 102.jpg? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, np. This one is a quarter-sheckel though, so you will have to change the caption. T8612 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, good spot and apologies for missing it. Swapped for another, similar, but better licensed coin. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • The sources all look OK to me in terms of reliability
  • Hoyos 2015: Hoyos is only the author of parts of the book. The sections which are cited should be enumerated in the bibliography.
  • p. 122 n.. Citation is missing something
Source checks
  • I have made some minor adjustments to page ranges
  • Edwell
    • "A rushed Carthaginian attack in late 218 BC was beaten off at the Battle of Cissa." Cissa is not mentioned on the cited page of Edwell.
    • Important details such as "29 Carthaginian ships lost" and "55 Roman and Massalian vessels" are not to be found in Edwell, the only source cited
    • "Hasdrubal received orders from Carthage..." most of this is not supported by the cited source.
    • "thinned-out center" "taking heavy losses themselves." not supported
    • "In 213 BC Syphax, a powerful Numidian king in North Africa, declared for Rome. In response, Roman advisers were sent to train his soldiers and he waged war against the Carthaginian ally Gala." most of this is not supported by the cited source
    • "although many of them were subsequently to fight against the Romans" source does not say this explicitly.
    • "It captured several Roman-garrisoned towns on Sicily; many Roman garrisons were either expelled or massacred by Carthaginian partisans." not in source
    • " Archimedes was killed by a Roman soldier" not in source
  • Rawlings
    • "the Carthaginians' key ally in Italy. In 211 BC Hannibal attempted to lure the Romans into a pitched battle, but was unsuccessful; and was also unable to lift the siege by assaulting the besiegers' defences." "hoping in to compel the Romans to abandon the siege in order to defend their home city. However, only part of the besieging force left for Rome and Capua fell soon afterwards." not in the source.
    • "In 210 the Carthaginians caught the Romans off guard during their siege of Herdonia and lifted the siege after a pitched battle in which the Romans lost 13,000 men from their army of 20,000" The source does mention a siege of Herdonia in 210, but the rest is not supported
    • "Hannibal then fought the inconclusive Battle of Numistro, but the Romans stayed on his heels, fighting the also inconclusive Battle of Canusium in 209 BC." Both battles are mentioned but not the other details.
    • "In 212 BC a Roman army was ambushed,[where?][by whom?] losing 15,000 of their 16,000 men" not in source, as far as I can tell
    • I did not check the rest of the citations to Rawlings
  • Overall, there are some significant issues with verifiability here.

(t · c) buidhe 23:42, 14 October 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tiberius III

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Tiberius III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my Roman/Byzantine Emperors project, and I believe it meets the criteria. Previously failed an A-Class, but this was mostly due to my inaction, rather than the article itself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Constantine

edit

Will have a look over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Can we add the regnal number footnote in the lede as well? And add who Tiberius II was?
    Done.
  • I think we can drop three obscure, niche, mid-19th-century sources as evidence that his name has been misspelled in the past. This is irrelevant for a modern reader.
    Have removed, was added by another editor in October.
  • Please use {{transl|grc|}} for transliterated Greek terms.
    Done.
  • Tiberius was part of an army led by John the Patrician sent by Byzantine Emperor Leontius for the lede, I would omit 'led by John the Patrician', especially since he is redlinked, but also to shorten it to the essentials. Then killed John can simply become 'killed their commander'.
    Done
  • former Emperor needs to be decapitalized.
    Done
  • Link Slavs to Early Slavs and Bulgars to the First Bulgarian Empire?
    Done
  • several month one to six months or so is not really 'several', rather 'a few' ;)
    Done
  • The inscription reads dn tiberius pe av. Why is that interesting? The average reader won't even know what these terms mean... Unless you provide the complete inscription, e.g. 'Our Lord Tiberius, Perpetual Augustus', I'd recommend omitting it.
    Done
Early life
  • Given that the origin of his name has been used to speculate as to his origins, I would move the footnote into the main body, explain as much (esp. in respect to Vasiliev's claim) and expand a bit on the issue.
    Done
    Have done a slight copyedit there. Can you also add separate references for the Germanic origin? Also, the Germanic origin of the name is the traditional version, right? I would clarify this, and add that the dissenting views are from more recent scholars (hence may indeed represent the current common view). Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added first reference, hunting one down for the traditional bit, which I'm sure is right. So far only Peter Crawford is willing to say such, and I'm sure he fails HQRS, down the line if not immediately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally tracked down a source (Brandes) Willing to say as much.
  • Byzantist is slightly archaic, better 'Byzantinist'
    Done
  • Refs #9 and #10 are from the same work. Unless it is conjecture, Kaegi bases his statement on sources, please mention them.
    Fixed referencing; it seems to be conjecture on his part as no sources are cited. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Per WP:SS, I'd say the entire first section, and probably the second one as well, can be omitted entirely as it concerns events that are not necessary to comprehend the subject. Justinian's exile can be mentioned later when he becomes relevant. E.g. 'In 696, the Islamic Umayyad Caliphate, the primary rival of the Byzantine Empire, renewed their attack upon the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa. In the next year, they managed to capture its capital, Carthage. The Byzantine emperor Leontius...' It works fine as an introduction, and does not need the entire back story of Leontius, Justinian II, and the Muslim civil war, with a host of names and dates that are not directly relevant here.
    Done.
  • with the Green faction (one of the Hippodrome factions) close repetition of 'faction'. Perhaps simply 'with the Greens (one of the Hippodrome factions)'?
    Done.
  • Add timeframe for Michael the Syrian
    Done.
  • Don't know about the quote. E.g. Cyprus is not mentioned before, 'Roman lands' would need explanation, etc. I'd recommend simply working into the article, i.e. that Tiberius justified his coup by drawing parallels to Leontius' own deposition of the previous emperor, Justinian II, on account of the latter's responsibility for the disasters in the war against the Umayyads. This way you'd also introduce Justinian II to the reader.
    Done.
Rule
  • Link 'crowned' to coronation of the Byzantine emperor, Syria to Bilad al-Sham, sea walls of Constantinople to the relevant section in the walls article.
    Done
  • Gloss/explain 'patrikios'
    Done
  • crossing into the mountain passes 'crossing the mountain passes'
    Done
  • which had been underpopulated since much of the populace was moved to the region of Cyzicus under Justinian close repetition of 'populace'/'populated'. And please consistently use 'Justinian II' for the deposed emperor.
    Done
  • moved to Propontis no reason to introduce a new, different term. Stick with Cyzicus.
    Done
  • as well as strengthened Would begin a new sentence here.
    Done
  • separating the Theme of Sicily not entirely certain, and not the common view AFAIK. Cf. Sicily (theme).
    What would you recommend doing here? Adding a footnote that Treadgold maintains it, or removing it entirely? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason to remove, but we need to qualify the statement. I would simply mention that some scholars (or just Treadold?) consider that this separation happened under his watch. Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • patrician to 'patrikios'
    Done
  • according to Byzantine chronicler Theophanes the Confessor start a new sentence, and give timeframe for Theophanes. I am on the fence about dropping this part entirely, as a) it is likely invented and b) it concerns Philippicus more than Tiberius.
    Removed.
  • Somewhat pedantic, but I wouldn't call Tervel a 'king', rather a 'ruler', or his proper title of khan?
    Done
  • Later, Justinian Strike 'later' as unnecessary.
    Done.
Family
  • Link either 'Ephesus' or the whole 'bishop of Ephesus' to Metropolis of Ephesus
    Done
  • Decapitalize Historian
    Done
See also
  • Why is '7th century in Lebanon § 690s' relevant?
    Removed.
Sources
  • Add locations to the books missing them.
    done
  • Vasiliev certainly was not published in 1980. Please verify and correct the date.

@Iazyges: That's it for a first pass. Constantine ✍ 14:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will see about finishing this off when I get back on Sunday. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Have done or responded to all, apologies for taking so long. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iazyges, most of the comments have been addressed. Have done some small copyedits, and another read-through now. Some additional comments follow (and see also above for a couple outstanding issues), but I think it is close to passing now.

That's it :) Constantine ✍ 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Should be all; I have added some bits I came across the article as I searched for the origin cite, not a huge amount but a few sentences. Thank you for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: excellent job, I am very happy to support at this point. Constantine ✍ 13:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

edit

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why does Tiberius III's birth name need to be given twice in the lead?
    Fixed.
  • [...] focused on seizing the city of Carthage and managed to capture it in 697. Recommend condensing.
    Done.
  • After several months of siege, [...] "of siege" unnecessary.
    Done.
  • [...] however, this surrender did not prevent his troops from plundering the city. What surrender.
    Done.
  • Heraclius invaded the Umayyads [...] How does one invade a person or group of people? It would be better to name places.
    Changed to "Umayyad Caliphate"
  • It would suffice to refer to Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik as just al-Malik after his introduction.
    Done.
  • [...] exiting at the northern edge of the wall near the Palace of Blachernae, and quickly seizing the building. Recommend past-tense.
    Done.
  • [...] this Theodosius may be the same person as later Emperor Theodosius III [...] Condense this.
  • @Vami IV: Done all, thanks for reviewing! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit

Will do after Vami's review has been made. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CPA-5: Believe this is now ready for review. Thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "than that he was droungarios" to "than that he was a droungarios"
    Done.
  • "led an army of Slavs and Bulgars" This is a MOS:EGG 'cause people would think they mean the people Bulgars instead of the empire.
    Done.
  • "between August 705 and February 706" Maybe the infobox needs to a note describing this?
    Changed to "between August 705 and February 706"
  • "His body was initially thrown into the sea" Maybe replace sea with the Black Sea might be helpful for the reader?
    It's not certain it was the black sea, is the problem. It might have been the sea of Marmara, for instance.
  • "church on the island of Prote" Which church and was it destroyed by the future wars?
    This seems unknown to history, so far as I have found. Would appreciate any insight you have.
  • "he was a droungarios (a commander of about a thousand men)" Maybe add this in a note?
    Do you mean transfer this to a footnote? That hardly seems useful for such a short gloss.
  • "and declared Apsimar emperor" to "and declared Apsimar as emperor"?
Done
  • "which forced John to retreat to Crete" to "which forced John to retreat to the island of Crete"
  • Done.
  • "allied himself with the Greens" This looks like an EGG?
    Not really; the section that the link opened speaks of chariot racing factions, of which the Greens were one. There is no better page for them, unfortunately.
  • "the city and depose Leontius;[5][11][12][13]" Maybe remove one citation?
    Done.
  • There are four "However"s maybe remove some?
    Done.
  • "of the Anatolian themes.[19][20][21][22]" Remove one citation?
    Done.
  • "al-Malik from reconquering Armenia.[23][20][13]" Re-order the refs here.
    Done.
  • "In 693 Justinian II escaped from Cherson" Link Chreson especially now that people associate it with the city beingcaptured by the Russians not that long ago. It might confuse the reader if you meant another Cherson.
    Done.
  • "sought the support of the Bulgar" MOS:EGG here.
    Done.
  • Add the reigns for Tervel and Busir.
    Done.
  • "to the Kynegion and beheaded.[5][6][25][29]" Remove one citation.
    Done.
  • "Their bodies were initially thrown into the sea" Replace sea with the Black Sea.
    Not done per above.
  • "in a church on the island of Prote" Which church and was it destroyed by the future wars?
    See above.
  • Why is instead of Apsimar his Latin name is been used in the "Names" in the infobox?
    Because that was his name as Emperor of the Romans, not Apsimar.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done or responded to all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Happy with the article now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Only two images:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Sources are all of high quality.
  • Formatting is nice and generally consistent. Anomalies:
    • Brandes, Wolfram (2003). Page numbers? (pp. 716-725) For other journals, you have supplied a location and publisher (although I wouldn't bother).
      Done.
    • Bryer, Anthony; Herrin, Judith (1977). Publisher missing (Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham). ISBN missing (978-0-7044-0226-3)
      Done.
    • Garland, Lynda (2017). Location missing.
      Done.
    • Lilie, Ralph-Johannes; Ludwig, Claudia; Pratsch, Thomas; Zielke, Beate (2013). ISBN missing (978-3-11-016668-2)
      ISBN is not strictly useful given that it's an online journal (and subject to changes in ways that published books are not, which the ISBN is helpful for); to this end, the template doesn't even have one.
    • Sumner, Graham V. (1976). Issue missing (3) Pages missing (pp. 287-294) No publisher, but location is misleading as it is the Cambridge in Massachusetts. Suggest adding the state. Only journal where you supply an OCLC (I wouldn't bother, although I normally supply an ISSN )
      Done.
    • Treadgold, Warren (1995): Compare with Treadgold, Warren (1997); that one has the publisher correct and the state where Stanford is. (Also: these are the only two references where the later one is listed before the earlier one.)
      Done.
    • Vasilev, Alexander (1980). Publisher missing (University of Wisconsin Press). Should probably supply the state as well as the city. Page number is not required. And it is the only book with an ISBN that also has an OCLC.
      Done.
  • Spot checks:
    • 6, 8, 12, 32 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being gone for so long; I’ll get to it tonight. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Sorry for the late response, all should be done now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good then - passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Abebe Bikila

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Janweh64 (talk)

Abebe Bikila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the requirements and would like to move to FAC before September 10. It was on that date 60 years ago this hero of Ethiopia and member of the Imperial Guard won an Olympic marathon in Rome barefooted. He entered the history books, and solidified his place in Ethiopian and Olympic mythos. Not satisfied with just one gold medal, he won the marathon again at 1964 Tokyo Olympics. Abebe is a name that brings pride to any Ethiopian's heart. I would appreciate any suggestions for improvements. —አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Janweh64: I will let the coords decide if this is in scope, since it barely discusses the military, but if you want to get it to FAC sooner rather than later I would just nominate it there, since reviews here are lagging a lot. (t · c) buidhe 22:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

edit

Lead A sporter and a soldier that's a while ago that I've seen such kinda type.

Early Life

  • then part of the Selale district of Shewa --> "then part of the Selale District of Shewa"
  • During the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, his family was forced to move to the remote town of Gorro Could you at least give us a year. Some people print our articles and a printed book has no links to the subjects.
  • Is Jato a red link?
  • played with goalposts sometimes miles apart Because this isn't US, British or Liberian related I think we should use kilometres because Ethiopia uses kilometres even though it is written by English speakers.
  • he joined the 5th Infantry Regiment of the Imperial Guard Is there a link for the unit?
  • Abebe ran 20 km (12 mi) from the hills of Sululta Per MOS:UNITNAMES Kilometres should be here fully written unless the comment two comments above is addressed it shouldn't be fully written.

Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ykraps

edit

Lead:

  • "...an elite infantry division that safeguarded the Emperor of Ethiopia". We have been told it's an infantry division in the previous sentence. To avoid the clunky repetition, can we say elite force or similar?
  • "Enlisting as a soldier before ..." sounds odd to me. Seems like a mixture of tenses. He enlisted might be better
  • "He placed second on his first marathon in Addis Ababa, won twelve other races..." Is it not 'in' rather than 'on'. Also, what do you mean by other races? I assume they weren't marathons, otherwise you would presumably say, He placed second in his first marathon in Addis Ababa, won his next twelve, then finished fifth....
  • "In July 1967, he sustained the first of several sports-related leg injuries that prevented him from finishing his last two marathons". I would be inclined to state which two marathons. If one has to read the article to find out, the lead is somewhat redundant.
  • "Abebe was a pioneer in long-distance running". In what way was he a pioneer?
  • "...long-distance running. Mamo Wolde, Juma Ikangaa, Tegla Loroupe, Paul Tergat, and Haile Gebrselassie..." See MOS:SOB
  • "New York Road Runners' Abebe Bikila Award...." More SOB. As New York Road Runners' is redundant, the simplest solution is to remove.
  • ".....are a few of the athletes who have followed in his footsteps to establish East Africa as a force in long-distance running". More odd phrasing. Do you mean, that like Abebe Bikila, they have helped establish East Africa as a force in long-distance running?

More to come.--Ykraps (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More in the lead:

  • "While he was receiving medical treatment in England, Abebe competed....", 'he was' is not necessary here.
  • "He is the subject of biographies and films documenting his athletic career". Of course he is. If someone else was the subject, it wouldn't be about his career. Just say, he is the subject of biographies and films or his career is the subject...

Early life:

  • "During the mid-1950s...." 'Throughout' might be better here.

1960 Rome Olympics:

  • "Abebe and ben Abdesselam remained together...." What is ben?
  • According to this [[2]], he was the first black African to win a gold medal at the Olympics. Why is that not in the article and, indeed, the lead?

@Janweh64: I see you haven't edited for a few weeks. Ping me if you intend to continue working on the article.--Ykraps (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: may have different opinions, but I don't think this fellow really fits in the scope of the project, as his military service was not significant in any way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I understood that we didn't include biographies simply because the subject had served in the military. (Otherwise the scope of the project would become infeasibly large.) Obviously the dividing line can be a little fuzzy, but in this case the subject's military career is barely mentioned in the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don’t see the notability of his military service. Векочел (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moi, aussi--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with no consensus to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2020 (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) 18:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cthomas3 (talk)

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to eventually take this to featured-article status. This second-generation jet fighter had a prominent role in the defense of western Europe during the Cold War, flying in no fewer than fifteen air forces. I'm new to the A-class (and FAC) process, so any advice is welcome. The article was recently reviewed as GA-class. CThomas3 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
Lead
  • "became widely used as a fighter-bomber" I am not sure that it was widely used; perhaps something like 'was frequently deployed in a fighter-bomber role'?
  • "it was developed into an all-weather fighter in the late 1960s. It was originally developed by" It would be nice to replace one of these with a synonym.
  • The first paragraph of the lead jumps around chronologically. Any chance of rearranging the sentences in date order?
  • "who contributed to the development of" Maybe 'who also contributed to the development of'?
  • "his outspoken opposition to the selection of the F-104" Selection of the F-104 as what?
  • "The final production version of the fighter model was" If this was the final production version, then "of the fighter model" should be deleted.
  • Overall the lead seems short for a 8,000+ word article. I note that it contains nothing on "Operational history" or "Flying characteristics" which occupy a lot of the main article. Are you happy that it meets MOS:LEAD, especially re being "a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
Background and early development
  • "especially high speed and altitude capabilities" Optional: → ' especially high speed and high altitude capabilities'?
  • Agreed, fixed.
  • "Armed with this information, Johnson immediately started the design of such an aircraft on his return to the United States" 1, Suggest deleting "Armed with this information". 2, "immediately" and "on his return to the United States" seem to contradict.
  • Agreed, fixed.
  • "The small L-246 design" This comes from nowhere; it needs introducing.
  • Agreed, now introduced as "designated Temporary Design Number L-246".
  • " the Model 083 Starfighter" Ditto.
  • Agreed, moved to its own sentence and introduced as a Lockheed designation for the prototype.
  • "Johnson presented the design to the Air Force" Specify which air force.
  • Turns out it was the United States Air Force. Added.
  • "and work starting on two prototypes that summer" See MOS:SEASON: Avoid ambiguous references to seasons, which are different in the southern and northern hemispheres.
  • Agreed, fixed. Now reads "soon after", as no specific dates are given in the source material.
  • "The second prototype was destroyed several weeks later during gun-firing trials" Wow! Any more detail on this?
  • Yes, plenty of accounts of this incident. I was planning on adding a detailed write-up of it to the XF-104 article (I'd like to take that to FA someday as well), but I can add a short summary to this article also. Although there seems to be some disagreement as to the exact date (14 April or 18 April 1955), the consensus appears to be that that during test-firing of the M61 Vulcan cannon, the hatch in the floor for the downward-firing ejection seat blew out, causing rapid decompression in the cockpit. Test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon's pressure suit inflated, restricting his vision and causing him to mistake the incident for a gun-firing mishap (an earlier incident of which had caused severe engine damage for a different test pilot). He promptly ejected, but a review of the incident revealed that wasn't crippled and could have been landed safely, though Salmon had no way of knowing this at the time. I'll put together a few sentences for this section.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest keeping it succinct.
I was going to suggest something, but if "the downward-firing ejection seat blew out", how did the pilot "promptly eject"?
Just the hatch blew out, leaving a big hole in the bottom of the airplane. The pilot and seat were still inside.
I thought as much. In which case the statement in the article is incorrect. How about something like 'The second prototype was destroyed several weeks later during gun-firing trials when the hatch to the ejector seat blew out, depressurising the cockpit and causing the pilot to eject in the mistaken belief that a major system had failed.'?
Thank you, I modified the above slightly but for the most part that's what I went with. I did want to emphasize that his belief was that specifically the gun had malfunctioned and blown off part of the plane.
Images

This is not an image review.

  • Agreed, I removed one image that I found causing SANDWICH in the the Taiwan Strait subsection. Do you see others?
  • "Formosa"; "Taiwan" in consecutive image captions. Is there a reason this isn't standard.
  • Not a good one, no. Changed the two instances of "Formosa" in the captions and prose to "Taiwan", as that was used more often.
  • Insert Wikilinks into the image captions where applicable.
  • Done.
  • "Several images are missing alt text.
  • Embarrassing how many of these there were, because it is something I thought I checked. Evidently I didn't finish checking. Done.
Alt text tool.
  • "the red coloring has been added by the museum". "the museum"? What museum?
    The Auto & Technik Museum Sinsheim, Germany. Added.
  • "M61 cannon installation of a German Navy F-104G". Should "of" be 'on'?
  • I just rewrote the whole caption to make it clearer what it's showing.
  • "A Martin-Baker Mk.7 Ejection seat from an F-104G" Why the upper case E?
  • No good reason that I can think of. Fixed.
  • "West German F-104G with a Zero-length launch rocket booster and a B43 nuclear bomb at Militärhistorisches Museum Flugplatz Berlin-Gatow." 1. Why the upper case Z? 2. There is I assume (I hope) a missing 'replica of'.
  • 1. No good reason, and 2. yes. Both fixed.
  • Image captions should only end in a full stop (period) when completing a grammatical sentence.
  • Agreed, and fixed everywhere that I found.
  • "YF-104A, AF ser. no. 55-2961, NASA aircraft number 818 was flown by NASA from 27 August 1956 to 26 August 1975 for 1,439 flights flown." "AF ser. no." in full or not at all please.
  • Agreed, and spelled out. Also slightly rewritten in general.
  • "Italian Air Force F-104S in original camouflage scheme with Sparrow missiles mounted under the wings, c. 1969" Why the italics?
  • Good question. It shouldn't be italicized. Fixed and linked.
Nicknames
  • Be consistent as to whether the translations into English have uppercase initials. Eg "Fliegender Sarg ("flying coffin")"; Badmash ("Hooligan"); Spillone ("hatpin").
  • All nicknames should now be capitalized, and translations lower case (with the one proper name exception).
Further development
  • "with the other 16 trial aircraft" What 16 other trial aircraft?
  • Added sentence to clarify that these are the 17 YF-104A service-test aircraft ordered on 30 March 1955 by the USAF.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will do that. That's the first time I've seen this tool, very cool.
Design
edit
  • What is "the horizontal reference plane"?
  • The plane bisecting the fuselage into two equal top and bottom pieces along the longitudinal centerline. I've added "along the longitudinal centerline of the fuselage" as an explanation.
  • What is "the minimum-drag angle of attack"?
  • It is the angle of attack of the wings to the surrounding airflow calculated/tested to experience the minimum amount of aerodynamic drag. I've changed this to "which allowed the plane to fly at an angle of attack experiencing the minimum amount of drag through the air."
  • "the most efficient shape for high-speed supersonic flight was a very small, straight, mid-mounted, trapezoidal wing" Is there a reason why the thinness of the wing is not mentioned here?
  • It wasn't mentioned specifically in the passage I was using as a reference, but it is mentioned other places in that reference and in other references, one of which I added.
  • "during high-g maneuvers during air-to-air combat" Any chance of swapping out one of these?
  • How about "commonly used in air-to-air combat"? Or, we can just end the sentence at "high-g maneuvers."
  • "potential top speed" Why only "potential"?
  • I believe I added that because its actual top speed tended to suffer pretty dramatically as external stores were added, but that happens to most aircraft, and in re-reading the source passage, "potential" top speed isn't really discussed, so I have taken it out.
  • "allowing a maximum speed well in excess of Mach 2" In which version(s)?
  • All of them, really. Even the YF-104A could reach Mach 2.2+, but only for a limited time as the engine would overheat quickly. I've hopefully addressed this and the next point below.
  • "aerodynamic heating limitations of the aluminum structure" Maybe also explain this in English?
  • It now reads "Available thrust was actually limited by the geometry of the inlet scoop and duct; the aircraft was capable even higher Mach numbers if the aluminum skin of the aircraft were able to withstand the heating due to air friction. Furthermore, speeds above Mach 2 quickly overheated the J79 engine beyond its thermal capabilities, which resulted in the F-104 being "placarded" at Mach 2."
  • "presenting a foreign object damage (FOD) hazard with discarded links" And in English this means?
  • Changed to "resenting a foreign object damage (FOD) hazard as discarded links were occasionally sucked into the engine."
  • "The F-104S models added a pair of fuselage pylons" "models" or 'model'? (or maybe 'variants'?)
  • "Variants" works, as there were two (an intercepter version and a fighter-bomber version). Fixed.
  • Done.

I shall pause here and await responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you for your great review so far. I've read through your copyedits and agree with all of them (and cringed at a few actually, I shouldn't have missed them in the first place). This gives me plenty to work on tonight. I already have a new draft of the lead in flight; I'm not starting entirely from scratch but it deserves a fresh look. CThomas3 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edit: don't worry, it happens to all of us. I remember being picked up on Julius Ceaser and simply not being able to see what was wrong with it.  
No rush. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Take your time and get it right. As my father used to say "measure twice, cut once".
I usually leave fine tuning the lead until the very end. It is difficult to create an accurate summary of the article when it is subject to change. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's as far as I could get tonight. Assuming you are okay with the fixes thus far, I'll tackle the design section tomorrow. I agree it's quite technical and could use some clarification. CThomas3 (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. A couple of responses above.
Infobox
  • Why does "Retired" specify the nation and "Introduced" not?
  • That wasn't my edit, but my supposition is because "National origin" already indicates who introduced it and, were it not qualified, the assumption would be the same country retiring it. I'm fine with both being qualified.
  • The Canadian Air Force used the Canadair CF-104 variant. Why is it not listed under primary users?
  • WP:AIRMOS says to limit this to three additional, and as I add them all up I actually see I made an error (I was missing a couple of variants in my spreadsheet). The top four users were West Germany (916), Turkey (somewhere around 434), Italy (361), and the United States (296). I've corrected the infobox to list the US as the developer in the first primary user slot, and then the top three international users as the remainder. Taiwan is fifth with approximately 276, then Canada sixth with 238 and Japan seventh with 230.
Operational history
edit
  • Done.
  • Done, though I had a question about this. I've been trying to be careful not to link things more than once, but the earlier occurrence in this particular case is way back up in the first sentence of the lead. Do you have a rule of thumb you go by when it comes to situations like this?
  • "PLAAF": in full at first mention please.
  • Done.
  • "Col. Howard "Scrappy" Johnson" 1. "Col." in full please. 2. Who was he and why should weight be attached to his comment. These two questions probably have the same answer.
  • He was one of the pilots deployed to Taiwan. I like the quote, but if you think it needs to be taken out, I'm okay with that.
  • "1Lt" In full please.
  • Done.
  • "after the 6 October ceasefire" → something like 'after a ceasefire was agreed on 6 October'.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Red link "Operation Stair Step".
  • Done.
  • "did not directly engage any enemy fighters" Did any US aircraft?
  • Yes, many aircraft did directly engage the enemy, especially the F-4, which served as the primary counter to the Vietnamese MiGs. The F-100, F-102 and F-105 also were deployed in MIGCAP roles. I've not changed anything here yet; the point I was trying to make was the aircraft was used as a deterrent rather than for direct engagements. Accounts seem to differ as to why this was, which is one reason why I haven't expanded it.
  • Done.
  • "The subsequent F-104C" I think that we need a better word or words than "subsequent". And why is this under "Berlin Crisis of 1961"?
  • It shouldn't be there in that section, for sure. I've removed the redundant part of that paragraph and placed the remaining parts where they belong, and removed the word "subsequent" since it doesn't really need to be there where the sentence is now. See below.
  • Link "multi-role" to Multirole combat aircraft.
  • "Although not an optimum platform for the theater, the F-104 did see limited service in the Vietnam War" This seems a bit redundant as you then have a whole section on the Vietnam war.
  • Removed.
  • "in the air-support mission" That's not grammatically correct. You can have 'in [or "on"] a air-support mission', or 'in the air-support role'.
  • Agreed, it now reads "in the air-superiority and air-support roles".
  • Why is "Big Eye" in italics?
  • "an additional nine aircraft were lost" Why are the first five losses detailed plane by plane, while the subsequent nine get a brief mention? Why are the first five detailed in the text at all, when the information is then repeated in a table?
  • I've cut down the text to address just the Philip E. Smith incident that claimed three Starfighters.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. There are a few items above that probably aren't resolved yet, but hopefully we're making progress. CThomas3 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are, we are. You can see why I didn't think that it was ready for FAC - it could have been a chastening experience. But you have put in a huge amount of good work, so most of what is needed is presentational or MoS fixes. I'll try to get another chunk reviewed tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table of losses; 1 Aug 1966 : Were both aircraft lost in the same incident? If so, this could, optionally, be mentioned. If not they should have separate entries. The start of this entry "Two F-104Cs" is redundant.
  • Agreed. They are now two separate entries, as they were unrelated incidents about two hours apart. Rather than just "MIGCAP" I have included the fact that both were on escort missions for Operation Iron Hand SAM suppression.
  • "procured only 296 examples in single-seat and two-seat versions." This suggests that other versions are available. Perhaps 'procured only 296 examples; in both single-seat and two-seat versions' or similar?
  • How about "procuring only 296 examples including both single-seat and two-seat versions"?
  • "US" or "U.S."? Standardise.
  • I went with US, and revised one of them entirely.
  • There seems to be excessive detail on the Indian Gnat incident.
  • Shortened to ({tq|The Starfighter was also instrumental in capturing an IAF Folland Gnat on 3 September 1965, which opted to land at a nearby unused Pakistani airfield and surrender rather than engage the intercepting F-104s (though this account is disputed by the IAF).}}
  • "Squad Leader Rashid Batti" Really? Or 'Squadron'?
  • Squadron Leader, fixed, as well as the typo of his name (Bhatti).
  • "its pilot was listed as MIA" In full at first mention.
  • Done.
  • Link CL-1200 Lancer at first mention in the main article.
  • Done.
  • "U.S. favor" → 'favor with the U.S.'
  • "and eventually a total of 2,578 of all variants of the F-104 were built in the U.S. and abroad for various nations" I don't see how the total built belongs in this sub section and it repeats information from Further development. Is the number built just for non-US use known?
  • I don't know that I have exact numbers of how many of the remaining 2,282 aircraft were built solely for non-US use. The USAF didn't purchase any additional aircraft for itself beyond the 296, but according to Davies 2014, 110 F-104G/TF-104G were purchased by West Germany and operated by the USAF to train NATO pilots. This leaves roughly 2,172 that were likely produced exclusively for non-US use. However, since I don't have an exact number, I just went with "more than 2,000".
  • Done.
  • Linked to the Mk.7.
  • Link U.S. Senate.
  • Done, but my thought was the {{Main}} link at the head of the section meant I shouldn't link it again.
  • Is there an appropriate link for "advanced research aircraft"?
  • "their performance in moisture" is a bit clumsy. Reword?
  • Changed to "evaluate their performance when exposed to moisture". The wording from the source is They were also flown through rain to study how moisture would affect them.
  • " bringing the F-104's service with NASA Dryden to a close" Just NASA Dryden, or all of NASA?
  • No, all of NASA. Fixed.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions for you above, otherwise all set. CThomas3 (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flying characteristics
edit
  • "and its high-alpha stalling and pitch-up behavior was known to command respect" I am left wondering what "command respect" means. Could it be phrased less euphemistically?
  • I agree. How about "required attentiveness from its pilot"?
  • "raise the landing gear to avoid exceeding the limit speed of 260 knots" And "limit speed" would be?
  • Changed to "maximum landing gear operating speed" and linked to V speeds.
  • "Landings were also done at high speed:" Is there a better word or phrase than "done"?
  • How about "performed"?
  • "shortened the Starfighter's landing roll" "roll" will not mean much to most readers.
  • Changed the entire sentence to "To limit the Starfighter's landing roll, or distance traveled while decelerating from touchdown to taxi speed, powerful brakes were combined with a 16-foot (4.9 m) drag chute."
  • "Uncontrolled tip-tank oscillations" What is a "tip-tank"?
  • Changed to "Uncontrolled oscillations of its wingtip-mounted fuel tank sheared one wing off of an F-104B".
  • "Some aircrews experienced uncommanded "stick kicker" activation" I don't think that "aircrews" is a good choice of words. (Was the aircraft a single seater?)
  • There were both single-seat and twin-seat versions, though the two-seaters were mostly used for training. Changed the entire sentence, see below.
  • "at low level when flying straight and level," Is it possible to avoid using "level" twice in six words?
  • Changed sentence to read 'Some pilots experienced uncommanded "stick kicker" activation at low altitudes when flying straight and level, so F-104 crews were often directed to deactivate it for flight operations.'
  • "Asymmetric flap deployment was another common cause of accidents, as was a persistent problem with severe nose wheel "shimmy" on landing that usually resulted in the aircraft leaving the runway and in some cases even flipping over onto its back" Suggest that "asymmetric flap deployment" and "nose wheel "shimmy" on landing" are two separate topics, best dealt with by separate sentences.
  • Hmm, I'm not all that happy with the way it reads, but it's now two sentences. I unfortunately don't have a lot of detail to add about the asymmetric flap deployment.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by flying to 91,243 feet (27,811 m)[a] at Edwards AFB" I am not sure about "at".
  • Does "over" work better? The source text does say "at Edwards AFB", and the base is 470 square miles in area, so I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility the record was set within the confines of the base.
Your choice.
  • "Jacqueline Cochran" Why is her (reserve) rank not specified?

Very good question. I had no idea she was in the Air Force reserve, as none of my F-104 sources that reference her (I've found around five so far) mention that fact; they all call her simply "Jacqueline Cochran" (in one case, "famed aviatrix"). I was wondering if perhaps it was because she was 58 (exactly) at the time and therefore likely retired from the reserve, but after looking her up she didn't retire from the USAF until 1970. I then wondered if perhaps it was because she was flying a Lockheed-owned TF-104G rather than an Air Force one, and thus perhaps not flying in an official Air Force capacity, but that's just conjecture on my part, and I'm not really sure if that should make a difference anyway. I have a feeling it's just been omitted for no good reason. I added "a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force reserve", but I am open to better suggestions.

That seems fine to me. I suspect that the rank was missing due to, hopefully unconscious, sexism.
  • "77 fighter-bomber versions for USAF Tactical Air Command" Sentences should not begin with numbers. I know, I know; I don't write the rules.
  • Fixed. I've rewritten a lot of these to be complete sentences.
  • "21 built." See above. This is also not a sentence.
  • Fixed.
  • "20 built by Lockheed."
  • Fixed.
  • "After their retirement in Japan, the U.S. delivered some F-104J/DJs to the Taiwanese Air Force" The same airframes?
  • Yes, the same airframes. I've changed it to "some of these F-104J/DJs".
  • "Inertial Navigation System" I am not sure about those upper case initial letters.
  • Lower-cased.
  • "with simplified equipment and optical gunsight" was the optical gunsight also simplified? If not, best 'with an optical gunsight and simplified equipment'.
  • It wasn't a simplified optical gunsight; it was an optical gunsight that replaced the NASARR radar system. I've swapped them.
  • "no strike capability" Sentence fragment.
  • Fixed.
  • "After being retired in Japan, the U.S. delivered some 104J/DJs to the airforce of Taiwan" The same airframes?
  • Yes. Fixed.
  • "Combat radius was up to 775 mi (1,247 km) with four tanks" fuel tanks?
  • Yes. Fixed.
  • "49 airframes upgraded from 1995 to 1997"
  • Fixed.
  • "200 Canadian-built versions"
  • Fixed.
  • "Operators" section: it would make sense to swap the paragraphs, so they are in chronological order.
  • Agreed, and swapped.
  • "Aircraft on display" I am not sure this is worth a section. I would put it at the end of the previous section - and rename the section.
  • I've removed the section entirely and moved the link to the list to "See also".
  • "Notable appearances in media" section. It is normal to put links like these in the "See also" section, rather than in a blank section.
  • Interestingly this is exactly how WP:AIRMOS says to do it. I've removed the section and placed the link to the aircraft in fiction article to "See also".
  • "See also" section. There should be nothing here which is already linked in the article. It is see also.
  • (I think) I've removed everything that appears elsewhere in the article.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other
  • Mohan & Chopra lacks a publisher and a publisher location.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a skim, that all looks good. I am a bit busy at the moment, so it may be a couple of days before I get back with a more detailed response. In the mean time other editors may comment, or comment on my comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes and amendments IMO. If you have the "Highlight duplicate links" tool you need to use it. And Mohan & Chopra lacks a publisher and a publisher location. Otherwise it is looking about ready for FAC. You could really do with someone who knows about modern combat and/or jet aircraft looking it over. Do you know any such editors who might oblige? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of your help! I think it's definitely a large improvement, and I appreciate you working through all that. I still have the new lead to finish, so I'll get that going now that the rest of the article looks like it's in shape. I don't have the "highlight duplicate links" tool, but that seems like something that's very handy. I'll go grab that and use it. And I'll take care of the last few issues like the Mohan/Chopra publisher and the images that haven't yet been verified. I do have a few people I can ask to review it from a more technical point of view, so I will go do that as well. CThomas3 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Images: if I haven't mentioned them, it means that I have checked them and considered them fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, I meant the three images that you identified but I haven't yet been able to locate an archived copy or suitable alternative for. CThomas3 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dup link tool: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • "File:Lockheed XF-104 (modified).jpg" Give the original source, not a link to another Commons file.
  • Fixed.
  • "File:Lockheed F-104A-15-LO 060928-F-1234S-008.jpg" The source is dead. (404)
  • Found archived version and updated source.
  • "File:Dafb-c-124-f-104-1958.jpg" Could we have a page number for the source, like for any other source.
  • Added.
  • "File:TF-104G LukeAFB Nov1982.jpeg" The source is dead.
  • I can't seem to locate an archived copy. In fact the entire website appears to be inaccessible. I tried dimoc.org, which evidently is where you look up VIRIN numbers, and that site appears to be down (but was archived at archive.org on 4 May 2020). I'm hoping this is just a temporary problem.
  • "File:Chuck Yeager in NF-104.jpg" The source needs a page number, or a more direct link.
  • Added archive link.
  • "File:West German F-104 Starfighter.jpg" The source link is dead.
  • Not having any luck with this site either, or finding an archive. It looks like the entire site has moved to an .edu address, and their online search isn't showing the file. I will try contacting them, but of course they have a COVID-19 notice on their new webpage.
  • "File:North American XB-70A Valkyrie in formation 061122-F-1234P-035.jpg" The source needs a page number, or a more direct link.
  • Updated link and included archive link.
  • "File:Lockheed F-104C Starfighter USAF.jpg" The source link is dead.
  • Added archive link.
  • "File:F104s.jpg" The lack of author information is likely to be a problem here.
  • There appears to be a black-and-white version of this file on Commons, and other F-104S photos as well, so this one can probably be swapped out.

Comments from Nimbus227

edit
Lead
  • The word 'Lockheed' appears ten times, I'm not sure mention of Johnson's other designs is relevant here.
  • Citations, can be removed from the lead per MOS:LEADCITE providing the facts are cited elsewhere. Cite number 4 appears after 'Luftwaffe' against WP:REFPUNCT.
If you could help me understand how this citation violates REFPUNCT I'd appreciate it. I am not seeing any restrictions there that would preclude a citation after Luftwaffe. The citation was included because a few editors were debating the accuracy of Luftwaffe vs. German Air Force.
All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies (and also any adjacent punctuation, except as below)... A citation to prove that German Air Force and Luftwaffe are interchangeable is daft, the blue link is enough. It's sometimes known as the Bundesluftwaffe with the whole armed forces being the Bundeswehr.
The footnote in this case does immediately follow the text it applies to (Luftwaffee), and there is no adjacent punctuation for it to be after. My reading of REFPUNCT is that it doesn't prohibit mid-sentence references if there isn't punctuation; it just says that if there is any, it needs to go immediately after it and not before. I'm not arguing that the citation is necessary, and I'm happy to take it out on the basis that it's daft. I just don't see why REFPUNCT would prohibit it, assuming it weren't daft.
  • Luftwaffe and Bundesmarine (seen later in the article) are foreign words and should be italicised per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
  • ...the F-104S, an all-weather interceptor designed by Aeritalia for the Italian Air Force... is incorrect, it was designed by Lockheed with the test programme flown in the US. They were license produced by Fiat/Aeritalia, 40 of this batch (of 245) were for the Turkish Air Force.
  • The Florida based F-104s (which is a growing fleet) are not mentioned.
I'm still planning on rewriting the lead in its entirety. I have a draft mostly ready to go, but I'll incorporate these comments.
If a new lead is on the way then there is no point reviewing the current one, this is part of the instability that I mentioned earlier, one of the FA criteria is article stability.
I totally get that. I'm not sure I fully agree that it is 'unstable' per se; the previous reviewer, Gog the Mild, correctly pointed out deficiencies in the lead which I hope to address in a new draft. You've pointed out further deficiencies that I also will take into account. The lead isn't subject to ongoing edit wars and the only "significant change" it is undergoing is in response to the review process.
Instability is not solely edit warring, this article is subject to daily edits, most of them from new editors and IPs, you can imagine that they are not high quality additions. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that there is no mention of the J79 engine in the lead, it wasn't in the previous version either. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background and early development
  • The image of an XF-104 says 'The XF-104 Starfighter prototype', there were two aircraft, this was the first to be built. The caption implies that there was only one.
Agreed, now says 'The first of the two XF-104 Starfighter prototypes'.
  • The word 'design' appears 13 times.
Down to 7, with two of them actually "designate/designation" and one part of "Temporary Design Number".
Fixed.
  • Plane, the av project generally uses the internationaly neutral 'aircraft'.
  • Fixed, though that now makes 10 instances of the word 'aircraft'. Are there any other acceptable terms?
Airplane, airframe, examples, unit. Some words are unavoidable to repeat.
Armament
  • The image of the M61 states that the aircraft is German Navy, 22+45, F-104G 683-7123 only served with the Luftwaffe (JaboG 36, LVR 1, TSL 3). The caption at Commons makes no mention of the navy?
Yup, I can't see any service with the German Navy either. I hadn't checked that caption evidently. Fixed.
  • The abbreviations CB and CI are not explained (caccia bombardiere/caccia intercettore).
Both added.
Operational history
  • The India–Pakistan Wars section is subject to daily edit wars with editors from both sides claiming and counter claiming losses, work to describe the conflict according to reliable sources is rapidly undone. If this section was moved out of the article the edit wars would move with it. The whole section is probably big enough to be split off.
I don't think it's appropriate to remove the section entirely as it's a significant part of its operational history, but I am absolutely open to reducing it. My last attempt at trimming it brought a CTHOMAS3, DON'T TRY TO HIDE FACTS FROM THE WORLD admonishment. Your advice on what to reduce would be welcome.
Not remove, move. There are two articles covering this conflict where they can edit war happily. The whole operational history section can be split in to a new article which is common for aircraft articles. This is encouraged by the summary style guideline.
Agreed, and I would support that. There would still be some mention of it here as part of a short summary, but hopefully it would be minimal enough to substantially reduce the possibility of edit-warring. To be fair, there have only been three full or partial reverts to the India-Pakistan Wars in the past 30 days, and only one additional in the previous 11 months, from 19 total section edits in that time (7 of which are mine).
That's how it works, I've been watching this article for 12 years, fixing the edit wars was one of the reasons I gave up with it. The F-86 Sabre and Folland Gnat articles suffer from the same problem. I notice the main article is edit protected. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
German service
  • The total fatalities of aircrew was 115 plus one ground crew passenger, not 110.
I actually spent quite a bit of time with this one, because sources aren't consistent regarding how many aircrew were killed. Bowman 2000 states twice that 120 Lu/Mfg pilots and ground crew were killed, along with 8 USAF pilots (page 67). Dobrzynski 2015 (page 27) does say 116 pilots; Paloque 2012 (page 46) agrees with this number. Donald 2003 (p. 164) says 110 pilots, as does Fricker and Jackson 1996 (page 92) the magazine article actually referencing the number in the article (though that one just says "about 110"). What I would have expected to be the best source, Kropf 2002, does indeed have a full list of 115 pilots and one passenger in Appendix F on page 164, but 8 of those pilots are listed as USAF, for a total of 108 German aircrew losses. The rest of the sources I have either don't mention a number, or were published before the last German fatality in 1984.
Kropf is the most accurate, the criteria needs to be defined which is lost in German owned aircraft. The USAF crews were either exchange pilots serving Germany or instructor pilots (in German aircraft) at Luke AFB.
I understand that, and I am aware of the background. I was merely pointing out the complete lack of agreement of the numbers across multiple sources.
I've changed the sentence to read "A total of 116 pilots were lost in German F-104 accidents, including 1 ground crew passenger and 8 USAF instructors." and cited it to Kropf.

I skip read from there on and ought to go through the rest of the text another time. In the variants section the NF-104 should be NF-104A. I'm sure there is a guideline that says not to to link the bolded line titles and use Template:Main instead as is done at List of Lockheed F-104 Starfighter variants#XF-104 and others. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the NF-104A, thank you. There is a guideline about not linking section titles at MOS:HEAD, but that is a description list (MOS:DLIST), which as far as I can tell does not speak to whether they should be linked or not. I'm okay with them not being linked at all, but I think adding a bunch of {{Main}}s to it would clutter the list.
Summary style again, the guideline itself is formatted this way. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it has some section headers defined this way, but it does not use any DLISTs that I can see. As I said previously, rather than add {{Main}} templates I would simply prefer to unlink them, as they are all already linked elsewhere anyway. List of Lockheed F-104 Starfighter variants article already provides {{Main}} links as you point out, and we're already in jeopardy of reproducing most of that content here as it is. If anything I'd prefer to make this shorter and include more content on the variants article. CThomas3 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions thus far! CThomas3 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A small point I meant to make, the Specs section is cited from 'Quest for performance' which sounds like a fan site but it's actually NASA. I would alter the cite slightly to add credibility to the source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits.

The lead is now seven paragraphs, the maximum recommended for a Featured Article is four. It does contain many specific facts which could be removed or reduced or summarised (per WP:LEAD). A fact not summarised is the current operation by Starfighters Aerospace which has recently added more aircraft and flight training capability.

Thank you for the feedback. I've edited it down a little and fit it into four paragraphs. That's not to say it can't get edited down further, of course, but at least it's hopefully in the ballpark. There is a very short blurb about Starfighters Inc at the end of paragraph three; hopefully that's enough.

The new F-104G development section is mostly accurate but lengthy, at 120 kb the article is over the size recommended for splitting. It is mentioned that the arrestor hook was added during F-104G development, this is incorrect, it was added to late production block F-104A aircraft around 1956, perhaps the source has been misread? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is getting a bit long, and agree that it could be split, especially the operational history section as you recommended earlier. I'll write a new lead section for a spinoff article that will hopefully also work for the summary section here. Regarding the tailhook, here is the relevant text from Kropf 2002, p. 21: Later modifications such as the installation of the arrestor hook, the standby altitude indicator or the engine emergency nozzle closure system were thought of and proposed by the Joint Test Force. I was wondering about that too, but given that the Joint Test Force appears to have been set up some time in either 1959 or 1960 (I can't find a date) and the USAF was still accepting deliveries of F-104As in 1959 (41 of them), I figured it was possible that the tailhook idea actually did come from the F-104G and added to the F-104A also. CThomas3 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that source and it supports the text as you say, I also have the German language version of that book which states the same. Photos of the first batch of F-104G (Lockheed built) show some aircraft with hooks and some without with no apparent logic. Checking other photos show all earlier types (A, B, C, D, and F) as a mixture of with and without and individual aircraft with and without (so it was retrofitted in service). Odd but not a problem for this article. I corrected 'altitude' to 'attitude', commonly mixed up in aviation. I'm away for a couple of days now, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for verifying that, and "attitude indicator" does make a lot more sense, so thank you for that as well. Have a good break! CThomas3 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

edit

Oppose I've always found this to be an interesting type of aircraft - on one hand it was an impressive fighter, but on the other hand it was a total deathtrap. As an Australian, I'm glad that the RAAF decided against buying any. I'm afraid that this article needs a fair bit more work to reach A-class, however. I have the following comments:

  • "seeing widespread service outside the United States. One of the Century Series of fighter aircraft, it was operated by the air forces of more than a dozen nations" - bit repetitive
Agreed, and I have hopefully addressed that with the new lead section.
  • "A total of 2,578 F-104s were produced by Lockheed and under license by various foreign manufacturers" - this topic deserves more than a sentence: how and where did production take place, what problems were encountered and overcome, etc?
Agreed, I've added a new section on the F-104G redesign and construction.
The material on the F-104G is great, but can more be said about the production of this type in the US? Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. There is also some additional information on further development (F-104S, and several follow-on designs that never made it) that I can add as well. CThomas3 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More broadly, the article needs more material on how foreign orders eventuated and took place and bids the type lost (such as that for the RAAF) for A-class. Did foreign air forces only select this type due to bribery, or did it fill a legitimate need?
It did fill a legitimate need, and there were some good reasons for its selection. The bribery case cast a large shadow over it, however. I'll include some additional information about that. None of my sources talk much about the bids it lost, but I will see what I can find.
More information on how the plane was selected would be helpful - it would be good to know whether it was selected only as a result of bribery, or whether bribery played a more limited role (e.g. was this a 'thumb on the scales' in a close competition or a total perversion of the selection process which led to an unsuitable type being ordered?) Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, I have compiled quite a bit of material and now I have to distill it down to a paragraph or two for inclusion. That's the next section I'll be working on. CThomas3 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The German order was influenced by a glowing report and recommendation after Werner Panitzki flew the F-104A and other contemporary types in a 'fly off' style competition. The performance figures did exceed the other types and another point he made was that the F-104 was in series production (a proven design) where the other types were not. Oddly, the Wikipedia article on him contradicts this version. I have a copy of his report which is clearly glowing. He broke some teeth in his first F-104 landing. The whole German story could fill an article on its own as could the consortium production effort, a large article was published in Flight magazine with flow charts of which company produced which parts etc, I have it on my hard drive as a PDF but this information is available in some of the books. The Spiegel affair was related indirectly to the F-104 and I believe the same publication ran F-104 headlines in 1966, the peak of the accident rate.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", which resulted in the F-104 being "placarded"" - what does "placarded" mean? Was this a limit imposed through mechanical means, or a restriction placed on pilots?
It was a restriction placed on pilots, displayed as a printed placard inside the cockpit. I've changed the wording to "design airspeed limitation" and linked it to maneuvering speed, which explains in more detail about the in-cockpit placard.
Actually it was a single red warning light on the instrument panel that illuminated with the word 'SLOW', the limit was the increasing temperature of the engine compressor face. The F-104S was allowed to fly marginally faster. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was both. Upton 2014, for example, mentions the placard specifically in at least two places, and also separately describes the "Slow" light (as does many other references). The "Slow" light, as you point out, was strictly an engine temperature limitation and not technically a speed limitation (though obviously speed is the reason why it is heating). CThomas3 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upton uses placarded with scare quotes, presumably meaning it is metaphorically placarded by the flight manual and other means. There is a physical placard on the upper instrument panel for empty external tank speed limit and a placard on the left cockpit sill for maximum speeds for landing gear, flaps, drag chute and rain removal operation. On a hot day (+10°) the limit is lowered to Mach 1.8, the slow light would illuminate at the correct speed because of the air data computer. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, he does use "placarded" in quotes when he uses it as a verb, but I just assumed that was because most of us do the same thing when we "verb" words that are normally nouns (see what I did there). In the image on page 24, he refers to the "J79 engine placard speed limit" without the quotes. Regardless, you clearly have better information as to what appeared on actual placards in the aircraft than I do, so if you think the text in the article needs to be changed, I'm open to suggestions. Thank you. CThomas3 (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is OK as it is, it's good that the word placarded is gone as that was copying the source too closely. The wikilink points to maneuvering speed (Va) which is quite different to a maximum speed limit, probably better to unlink it as the wording is clear enough. An aircraft's maximum speed limit is known as Vne (Velocity Never Exceed), mentioned at V speeds, it's not used in any of the sources to my knowledge as the speed limit is variable and related to Mach number (Mmo). It's used more for light aircraft and gliders. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a peacekeeping mission in Taiwan" - as the US wasn't neutral in this conflict and there was no peace, "peacekeeping" isn't appropriate: this was presumably an attempt to deter the Chinese
"Peacekeeping" was the word used in Davies 2014, but I've changed it to "air defense and deterrence" and provided another reference that described the mission as such.
  • Why is there a table of losses for USAF Starfighters in combat, but not for the other countries which lost Starfighters in combat?
The only other nation that lost Starfighters in actual combat was Pakistan during the 1965 and 1971 conflicts with India. The Pakistani and Indian accounts differ widely, but the five aircraft in question are all described in the prose of the India–Pakistan wars subsection. Do they need to be in a table as well?
Yes - the US losses are being accorded more article space than those of other countries Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nimbus227 above has recommended this article be split given its size (120 kB). The operational history section seems to be the prime candidate given it is the largest section and represents about 25% of the article. Replacing it would be a few paragraphs summarizing the entire operational history with a link to the new article; would this be acceptable to you? CThomas3 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could also just take out the table, and just state the number lost, which I'd suggest doing. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can do that, but do you have an opinion on the split itself? CThomas3 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The U.S. Air Force was less than satisfied with the Starfighter" - but earlier sections of the article says that the USAF was very pleased with them after the Berlin Crisis?
It performed satisfactorily in both the Taiwan conflict and the Berlin crises, but USAF doctrine had shifted away from air superiority, and it was deemed inadequate for either the interceptor or fighter-bomber mission. I've rewritten the paragraph to hopefully better explain that.
  • "As of 16 July 2017, both the 4Frontiers Corporation and Star Lab suborbital websites were unresponsive, and there appeared to be no mention of 4Frontiers or the joint project on the Starfighters Inc website.[115]" - as this is cited only to the website, this is original research
Agreed, removed.
  • The para starting with "The J79 was a brand-new engine" is unreferenced
Somehow missed that, thank you. References added.
  • The number of people killed in German F-104s is stated twice
Removed the redundant information.
  • The discussion of the type's safety record should discuss how it compared to equivalent types. For instance, the RAAF lost a high proportion of its Mirage IIIs during the same era, and the RAF and RN had high loss rates of comparable types.
The section does compare the F-104's safety record to the other Century Series aircraft, the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-105, and F-106. None of the sources I currently have did a comparison with any others such as the Mirage III, Lightning, or the MiG-21, which would probably be the best comparisons. I'm not hopeful that there's any data on the MiG, but perhaps there is on the other two.
I've found some information on the Mirage in Australian service and a little bit on the Lightning in RAF service, which I will be adding as well. CThomas3 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 2 November 1959, an F-104 crashed into a house in suburban Dayton, Ohio, killing two young girls and critically burning their mother; the pilot had ejected to safety a half-mile away from the crash site." - is there a reason this particular accident is highlighted? Presumably people were killed on the ground in other Starfighter losses?
I can certainly take it out. I don't have any other reports of a crash killed civilians.
Added reference, thank you.

G'day Cthomas3, because this is your first nom, we've left this open for a fair while, but as it has only attracted one support and has an outstanding oppose and quite a bit to do, unless you can give it some more attention shortly, we might need to archive it, and you can bring it back when you have made some changes? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Peacemaker67 (and Nick-D). My apologies, I somehow missed this entire section when I was away for several days and it evidently fell off my watchlist. I'll address the concerns outlined above as quickly as I can. CThomas3 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More work is forthcoming, especially on the lead. CThomas3 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Cthomas3, this is getting very long in the tooth, having been nominated in early May. I see you are working on it a bit, but with one support and one oppose, unless you can make improvements that change Nick's mind in the next week or so, or another reviewer pops up, I'm going to list it for archiving. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Peacemaker67, that's fair. I believe I've addressed most of Nick-D's concerns but I haven't heard from them in a while. There is one critical outstanding item that needs resolving: one reviewer (Nimbus227) has recommended that the operational history section be split into its own article, but I wanted to make sure that Nick was in agreement before doing so, as I didn't want that to result in a failed review. I'll try to get that resolved this week. CThomas3 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still strongly believe it should be split, operational history, the consortium production effort and the German story at least. As those are created content will reduce in this article, making reviewing difficult until it stabilises. If it makes any decision making easier I would also oppose award of A class status at the moment, perhaps re-review in six months? A comparison might be the Supermarine Spitfire article, it has its own category and navbox which links to eight directly related daughter articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:36, 19 August 2020 (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 - Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Leontios

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets, or else could meet, the A-Class standards, and it is part of my project to improve the articles of Roman and Byzantine Emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

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

  • suggest Isauria in Asia Minor and link, in the body also
  •   Done
  • "defeated decisively after the Battle of Sebastopolis" perhaps "at the"?
  •   Done
  • suggest "and imprisoned by Justinian for his failure"
  •   Done
  • Hellas→Theme of Hellas, also in the body, and say where it was. Central and southern Greece?
  •   Done
  • drop the comma from "been launched by Leontios, to recover Carthage"
  •   Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • link Constantinople in the lead and move link to first mention in the body
  •   Done
  • link Rhinotomy, unfortunately there is not an article for Elinguation (cutting out the tongue)
  •   Done
  • "where he remained until February 706" but the first sentence says August 706/February 706?
    First sentence says August 705/February 706, could have been any point between those dates. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right of course, but my point is that the range should be reflected in the text of the lead (second last sentence). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, now I understand. Fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Armenians
  •   Done
  • the link for Abd al-Malik is to the name Abdul Malik, not Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, and drop the later link to his article
  •   Done
  • suggest " the patriarch Patriarch of Constantinople, Callinicus."
  •   Done
  • link Crimea
  •   Done
  • link Byzantine army
  •   Done
  • "allegedly lead"
  •   Done
  • perhaps Byzantine Africa→the Exarchate of Africa for consistency
  •   Done
  • Hippodrome, patrikios and Green faction are duplinked
  •   Done
  • can you add the year Leontios ascended to and lost the throne into the body?
  •   Done
  • "It is said the body of Leontios was thrown into the sea" by whom?
  •   Done
  • consistency in hyphenating ISBNs
  •   Done
  • it says Monastery of Dalmatou in the lead, but Monastery of Psamathion in the body
    They are quite possibly one in the same (there does not appear to be any discussion of which one it was, so they are perhaps different names for the same place); but Monastery of Dalmatou has more usage so I've used it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Believe I have done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One outstanding. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

G'day Iazyges, I've asked for more reviewers on the Milhist talk page, but if one or two don't jump in shortly, I reckon we'll have to archive this one. You might like to consider adding a map if possible? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

edit

Will comment shortly. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • " However, he was defeated decisively" unclear here to me whether 'he' is Leontios or Justinian
  • Why "given the title of strategos of the Theme of Hellas" here, but "the Anatolic Theme" above? I'd reckon they are essentially the same.
  • "After being released, he led a rebellion" Suggest cutting "After being released" since it's already been mentioned
  • "because he feared losing control of Carthage" Unclear to the unknowing reader why this would factor into his release?
  • I'd recommend putting the sentence beginning "During his captivity, Leontios was" into directly chronological order, or replacing 'was' with 'had been'?
  • "out of reverence for Constantine IV" how does this factor in?
  • So did anybody not support leontios?
  • link Plague (the one you want)?
  • "emboldened by Leontios' perceived weakness" any reason for the perception?
  • link Exarchate?
  • ", and had his nose slit" is dupelinked
  • "with the Green faction" perhaps worth a link?
  • "until Justinian retook the throne " but I thought that "mutilated people were traditionally barred from becoming emperor"?

Very nice, if short, article overall! Perhaps some comments to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Constantine

edit

Will take this on in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 18:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Umayyads links to the dynasty. Replace the first mention in lede with Umayyad Caliphate
  • forcing the Umayyad caliph, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, to sue for peace. add the year for context
  • De-capitalize and de-link Southern Greece. The term is not really used.
  • After being released, he led a rebellion against Justinian, and seized power, becoming emperor in the same year It is unclear whether all of this happened in the same year, and the phrase "in the same year" suggests it was a drawn-out process, whereas it was essentially a coup in Constantinople.
  • I would recommend avoiding too many technical terms in the lede; the patrikios bit for example is not really necessary, or that Apsimar was a droungarios (simple "naval commander" or such like will do)
  • The lede states explicitly that Leontios was in command at Sebastopolis. This is not certain, however, as the main body of the article makes clear.
  • By this time Justinian had retaken the throne. Both Leontios and Tiberius were executed. Merge the two sentences.
Origin and early life
  • add regnal dates of the various rulers
  • Some WP:OVERCITE instances; unless something is really contentious, more than three references are unnecessary. I also see that refs #6 and #7 are from the same work, so why not merge them?
  • I suggest using at least one map like Asia Minor ca 740 AD.svg for context (Anatolic Theme, Cyprus, Armenia, etc.)
  • relink Syria to Bilad al-Sham, Iberia to Principality of Iberia in the first instance, delink in the second.
  • he campaigned successfully...successful campaigns repetition
  • such as Nikephoros and Theophanes conventionally, they are distinguished as "Patriarch Nikephoros" and "Theophanes the Confessor". Since the average reader won't be familiar with them, it is a good practice to do so here as well.
  • Why is Bacharach used to reference Leontios' role in the battle of Sebastopolis? Even if he mentions it, his specialty is not Byzantine history, and there are enough more specialist sources already cited. Also, it is unclear which source supports what in the preceding statement. Moore simply asserts that Justinian held Leontius responsible for the defeat, which is not quite what is stated here. As far as I can tell, the phrasing here is derived directly (to the point of being a verbatim translation) from the PmbZ article, which in turn cites Head's work on Justinian II. This and only this is what ought to be cited then, with reference that the PmbZ in turn cites someone else.
  • Leontios, once free, quickly raised a rebellion against Justinian per my comment above, make clear that this took place in Constantinople itself, and was not a provincial rebellion.
  • Link aristocracy to dynatoi?
  • Why was Patriarch Callinicus opposed to Justinian?
  • On his ethnic origin, Moore and Haldon & Brubaker say nothing of him being an Armenian; the PmbZ says not only that he was "from Isauria", but actually that he was "of Isaurian, possibly also of Armenian, descent", meaning not just the region but the Isaurians as an ethnic group. The first two should be moved to reference only the Isaurian origin, and the PmbZ one used for the possibility of Armenian descent.
Reign and downfall
  • adopted a moderate political stance. He restricted the activity of the Byzantine army, allowing small raids against the border of the Byzantine empire to proceed without reprisal, and instead focused upon consolidation I see some very close paraphrasing of Moore here. Also, in what way was Leontios more moderate than Justinian? Small raids by whom? In which border? I am pretty sure that there is information about these raids to be found in al-Tabari, or in modern works by Lilie and Stratos (I'll have a look myself at my copies).
  • Similar to my comment on Bacharach before, why is Garland's work used for the citations here? Her work is excellent, but its main focus is not Leontios. As far as I can tell, the exact same information is also given in PmbZ (and Moore, of course), so why Garland?
  • Conversely, I am a bit surprised to see that Treadgold is only once used here. He makes some excellent points, pointing out that Leontius "was the first man of mature age and experience to become emperor since Heraclius", that his sparing of Justinian was a deliberate gesture of moderation, and that his 'passive' strategy in the Anatolian border zone was because he focused his attention to North Africa, which if lost would be gone for good.

Content-wise, the article is in good shape. Looking at Moore, ODB, or PmbZ, it is clearly just as if not more comprehensive, so no problem with ACR, but if it is to move on to FA, more in-depth sources are needed. Just some examples of sources would be Theophanes' account, Stratos (Byzantium in the Seventh Century), Head's work on Justinian II, Lilie and Kaegi for the wars against the Arabs during his reign (possibly Kaegi's Byzantine military unrest as well?). Once my points above have been addressed (and I've had a look in Stratos at least), I'll have another look and then support. Constantine ✍ 17:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

This is rather outside my wheelhouse, so please feel free to disagree with my comments, and to revert/discuss any copyedits I make.

  • Is it conventional not to gloss the linked greek terms like "strategos"?
  • "Leontios' successful campaigns" repeats "successful" from the previous sentence; one of those could probably be dropped.
  • "the Umayyad Caliph, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan" he's been introduced already; is there a reason you style him this way here, rather than above?
  • "the port of Neorion in Constantinople cleared, which allegedly led to a four-month outbreak of plague." two questions; what does clearing mean here, and how could it cause the plague?
  • The lead mentions Leontis's tongue being cut off, but the body does not

That's essentially I have for the prose. I am a little concerned about the length of this. I'm fairly certain you've done the best you can with the source material, but the fact remains that we have the equivalent of sixish paragraphs of prose about the man himself, and precious little biographical detail. To be very clear, I don't think this reflects on you at all; some subjects are just not covered in as much detail as is necessary for top-quality articles. Personally I don't send something to GAN unless it's above 1200 words, and at FAC I'd definitely oppose this. Since ACR is often a step between the two, I think I'd like to hear from Peacemaker67 or one of the other coordinators how they judge comprehensiveness, and objections over comprehensiveness, at this level. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Vanamonde, personally I have got ship articles through FA with 800 words, but I think the smallest bio FA ever is about 1,400 words. The issue for me is whether this is all there is on this fellow. If it is and he is still notable, then it is as comprehensive as it can be, as it can only ever contain what is known about him and his reign. I think it has a chance at FA, and therefore is ok here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: The reason I'm uncomfortable with that logic is that it implies there's no minimum level of detail for an FA. To carry that argument to its logical conclusion; if I wrote a stub about a recently discovered exoplanet, I could reasonably argue that a three-sentence article included all the available information, and was therefore comprehensive. This is surely not what you mean; I'm therefore asking how one judges a minimal level of detail. I know this has been a point of contention at FAC, too, but I don't see evidence that it's been resolved. That said, this article isn't all that short, and this is ACR, not FAC; so I'll not stand in its way. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanamonde. Please bear with me as I try to explain my current position on this. I don't agree that my position implies there is no minimum level of detail for an FA. The minimum level of detail for an FA is that it is comprehensive. It is impossible to add detail that doesn't exist, and it is my view that any article on a subject that that is clearly notable should be able to be an FA. I've been ruminating over why several of these emperor articles by Iazyges have struggled to get enough reviewers, and am wondering if something else might be at play. My provisional conclusion is that the question is actually a different one, whether Leontios is clearly notable, ie really has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Perhaps the question should really be whether the heavy reliance on the tertiary sources Moore and PMBZ Online is appropriate in an FA. It is common for articles to be created on individuals who have an entry in a national or international biographical dictionary, but really the person should be discussed at some length in secondary sources as well to be clearly notable. For the reasons detailed, I won't be supporting it at FAC (my view may be unique and it may well get enough support at FA, so don't be discouraged, Iazyges), but see it as just meeting Milhist A2 as it stands, which is why I am supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hog Farm

edit

This is not a subject I'm particularly familiar with, so feel free to challenge any of these comments.

  • This really needs a map. For readers like me who aren't super familiar with ancient Byzantium, this is geographically confusing. I have no idea where half of these places are.
  • Rhinotomy is duplinked
  • I'm not seeing the full regnal name cited anywhere, and I'm personally not convinced that that's information so self-explanatory it doesn't need a citation
  • "He ruled until 697, when he was overthrown by Apsimar, a droungarios who had taken part in a failed expedition that had been launched by Leontios to recover Carthage. " - In the lead strongly suggests he ruled until 697, but the rest of the article strongly suggests 698.
  • The dynasty isn't cited anywhere. And was he really part of the Heraclian dynasty? The Oxford English Dictionary defines a dynasty as a group of rulers from the same family, I believe, and I'm seeing no indication that Leontios was of royal blood in the article. Especially since the navbox indicates that the 20 years' anarchy is separate from the Heraclian dynasty.
  • Link solidus in the infobox caption, it's not a well-known word.
  • "port of Neorion in Constantinople cleared" - I'm not 100% sure I'm getting exactly what cleared means in the context. To me, it would indicate a form of dredging, but it's unclear what that would have to do with the plague.
  • You state that he took the name Leo, with a wikilink to regnal name in there. However, the regnal name listed in the infobox has the full Leontios, not Leo, in it
  • Wouldn't it make more chronological sense to mention the monks caring for him during captivity before mentioning his release from captivity?

There may be more coming. Hog Farm Bacon 02:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Iazyges, this one is in the same boat, open since 3 April and has only attracted one support. Unless you can address the comments of the other reviewers in the next week or so, I'm going to list it for archiving. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 19 August 2020 (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) 10:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Heraklonas

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets, or else could meet, the A-Class standards, and it is part of my project to improve the articles of Roman and Byzantine Emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iazyges: I believe a reason why this article has not received any reviews is its tenuous relationship to military history in that Heraklonas seems to be more of a bystander or victim of the events described and did not reign independently. As a result, I would suggest that you could take the article to FAC and bypass ACR for these reasons. Kges1901 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kges1901: I think that you are largely correct, although I will note that another of my nominations, Leontios, is suffering a similar issue, despite being an independent ruler. That said, classical/medieval history noms usually get a lot less attention at A-class reviews, but do not seem to suffer such at FAC. At the moment I plan to keep this open for a while longer, and if reviews are not then forthcoming, try it at FAC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iazyges: As a (former) classicist, I'm all for improving coverage but there's not enough here for this to be an A class article. I don't think its linked to him being a bystander or his reign ending when he was 15; I think you could write a lot more on the context, the cause of military weakness etc. Also, graphics are essential - we are writing for users, so maps etc are there to break up the blocks of text. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Iazyges, this one is likely to be archived shortly due to lack of reviews. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know that more comments would help at this point, but I wanted to echo my comment from the ACR page for Leontios. The prose here is well-written, and I don't doubt that it's using most of the available material, but it's still very thin on information about the primary subject. Again, I don't think this reflects on the nominator, only on the subject material. Many topics just don't have the depth of coverage for GAN, let alone ACR or FAC. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:34, 25 July 2020 (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, 10 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Historiography of the Crusades

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Historiography of the Crusades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it turns out to be suprisingly interesting as a subject. The article is now fairly neat and tidy. It has just passed a GAR and it would be interesting to see what feedback you kind folks at Milhist would care to give it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

edit

There are some parts where the meaning of the text is unclear:

  • The debate between religious idealism, military conflict, and pragmatic contingency meant that crusading was always controversial. The debate is not between these things.
Removed The debate between Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It maintained a rhetorical, legal, and emotional connection to the objective of the Holy Land, but also proved applicable to other areas of interest to the Catholic Church. What are we talking about here? The crusades? The debates? Or the histiography?
With the rephrsing above this now reads better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Baltic Region Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the argument between the idealistic and the materialistic motivations of crusaders Again, argument is notbetween these things.
Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • critical history boasted the subject Is "boasted" the right word here?
changed to increased interest in'
  • against pagans, heretics, or for alleged religious ends Suggest: "against pagans and heretics, or for alleged religious ends"?
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historiographical issues:

  • considered a penitential exercise rewarding the participants with forgiveness for all confessed sins Was this case from the beginning?
Yes, added surviving quote in translation from the surviving eveidence of Pope Urban II's decree in 1095 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The modern English "crusade" dates to the early 1700s. Adopted from the French?
.....and Spanish & Latin, done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later commentators Who? What names and numbers were posited. Since the article is on historiography, this should be there.
Used Pasquier as the earliest I could find and reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attitudes toward the Crusades during the Reformation were shaped by confessional debates What were they about?
Changed confessional debates to the breakup of religious orthodoxy and expanded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For them the positive effects of crusading, such as the increasing liberty that municipalities were able to purchase from feudal lords, were only by-products. Um, that's correct actually.
Removed by product and expanded to get closer to what they meant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You critique Michaud before introducing him. Suggest reorganising the section.
Fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby was very conscious of possible offence arising from crusading rhetoric or triumphalism This needs to be explained; most readers will not know what you're talking about. Ditto for the Kaiser's 1898 trip.
Moved, and expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British media were not so sensitive and apocryphal, but repeated quotes were attributed to Allenby. Another sentence that makes no sense. Also seems to be in the wrong section.
Expanded for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a dated polemic that was derivative, tendentious and misleading even at the time Derivative of what works? Tendentious in what way? Mislaeading about what issues?
Expanded this to relect who it was derivative of and why it was tendentious. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giles Constable attempted to categorise what is meant by Crusade into four areas of contemporary crusade study. Sounds like he is classifying the works, not the meanings of Crusade. Unless I've completely misunderstood what you're trying to say, which is quite possible. (Apparently I'm a popularist.)
I am more of a generalist myself, but I think Constable was only having a bit of fun with this. I have rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For him the crusades are a medieval phenomenon in which the crusaders were engaged in a defensive war war on behalf of their co-religionists. This leads us towards a discussion of the whole just war doctrine.
This is more of a statement than suggestion @Hawkeye7:. Would you care to elaborate? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other:

  • Don't link modern-day countries like Israel, Germany and Italy
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usage of the term "crusade" can create a misleading impression Move this sentence to the next paragraph.
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-capitalise "rationalists"
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye7: what are your thoughts on the responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks good now. When I first reviewed I had doubts, but the work done in response to my comments ond those of others has addressed my concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: Two images, both fine.
 Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
Lead
  • "competing interpretations from the capture of Jerusalem" "from" → 'since'.
 Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The religious idealism, military conflict, and pragmatic contingency of crusading was always controversial." I think that you are trying to fit too much into this sentence. Religious idealism was always controversial: Umm, well, at least I understand that. Military conflict was always controversial: really? In what way? I know this is the lead, but what is this trying to communicate to a reader? The pragmatic contingency of crusading was always controversial." You what? What does "pragmatic contingency" even mean?
Ammended to reflect use of violence & compromises the crusaders made with morality. Does this work? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While it maintained a rhetorical, legal, and emotional connection to the objective of the Holy Land" Either delete "the objective of" or add what the objective was - eg 'to the objective of capturing/holding the Holy Land'.
 Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These wars created a body of literature, liturgy, and new religious orders" I think that you mean 'These wars created a body of literature and liturgy, and new religious orders'.
 Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "culturally normative" Could this be rephrased for a more general audience, per WP:TECHNICAL.
 Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The secular and religious were considered fundamentally different and historians found agreeing a consensus reconciling the idealistic and the materialistic motivations of crusaders challenging." 1. "The secular and religious were considered fundamentally different" - from the 17th century; prior to it; or both? And by whom? 2. Are "secular and religious" meant to align with "idealistic and the materialistic" If so, it may make easier reading if only one pair of words is used. (And in the same order.) If not, I don't understand the sentence.
From 17th century, by enlightement thinkers & yes. Does it make more sense now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enlightenment thinkers considered the crusaders culturally inferior and Protestants considered them morally so." To what? It doesn't seem to make sense to set up a comparison with no comparator.
themselves  Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the early 20th century this became a focus on the Crusades as drivers of conquest and economics." It is unclear if this is suggesting that the Crusades were drivers of conquest and economics in the 20th Century; while they were taking place; both; or during some other period or periods.
medieval  Y done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was reinforced by the establishment of Israel in 1948 which prompted the historical parallelism that still reverberates today." Unless a reader already understands this point, I am not sure that this communicates much. (And, eg, can one prompt historical parallelism, or is it 'prompted efforts to draw historical parallels'?)
It is the latter Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crusading historiography continues to develop using the latest techniques" Which seems to beg the question of what these techniques are.
I have just removed the latest techniques, wouldn't be sensible to use out of date techniques! :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish: Apologies if the above seems over critical. I had thought myself passingly familiar with the topic - in a broad and superficial way - but having read the lead several times - but not, yet, any of the article - I can't say that I actually understand what it is trying to communicate. I have tried to break this down into actionable comments, but it may be that you are attempting to cram too much information on a technical subject into the confines of the lead.

I will take a break and come back at the main article later. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem with the the criticism Gog the Mild, as ever it is appreciated. It is a dense and difficult subject (for me anyway) and I think you may be right and I have over summarised technical detail in the lead. Will work through your comments. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology
  • "in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries" "and" → 'or'.
  • "for the Holy Land" Should "for" be 'to'? If not, something is missing.
  • "The conflicts to which the term is applied extended to include" Possibly 'The conflicts to which the term was applied were later extended to include'?
  • "against pagans, heretics and for alleged religious ends." These three bundle poorly. Suggest 'against pagans or heretics and for other alleged religious ends' or similar.
  • "From the very beginning and the only surviving copy of the first papal decree" Delete "the very beginning and the only surviving copy of".
  • "were used for the campaign" Maybe 'were used to describe the campaign'? Or 'were used to describe participation in the campaign'?
  • "the modern English word "crusade" is derived Spanish, French and Latin" Is there a missing 'from'?
  • "was used for a religious war of Muslims against unbelievers" Optional: "of" → 'by'.
  • "often taught as a duty by the Quran and traditions" Maybe 'and Islamic traditions'?
  • "By the mid 13th century the cross became the major descriptor of the crusades with crux transmarina—"the cross overseas"—used for crusades in the eastern Mediterranean" By this definition the Eighth Crusade was not crux transmarina. Is that intentional?
Background
  • "the Palestine, Syria and Egypt" Delete "the".
  • "Western-ruled" This needs expanding or recasting.
  • "The East–West Schism" Suggest adding 'between the Roman Catholic Church of Western Europe and the Greek Orthodox Church of the Near and Middle East'.
  • "church protections for property and family" 1. Why is "protections" plural? 2. Maybe 'for a crusader's property and family'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval & Reformation
  • "most notably Gesta Francorum" Should there be a 'the'?
Now, my knowledge of Latin is virtually non-existent, but I think the answer is no. I take this from the practice of not putting a the in front of {{lang|la|Magna Carta, I assume that the the is embedded in the Latin. I have added the language tag though.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for "Papalist"?
Popery and Papism is where Papalist links to.  Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Papacy continued to authorise crusades in the 16th century such as in the 1520s for the defence of Central Europe, in 1536 in England for the Pilgrimage of Grace, in 1568 for the granting of indulgences for killing Huguenots, in 1571 the Battle of Lepanto and in 1588 for the Spanish Armada." Issues with the bit "The Papacy continued to authorise crusades in the 16th century such as ... in 1568 for the granting of indulgences for killing Huguenots" which doesn't really work.
  • "reached a peak in the legal writing of Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius" It would be good to add approximately when this was.
  • "Just War concepts replaced those of Holy War" I don't think that should be an upper case Ws.
  • "He also condemned the use of the Crusades against" Optional: "the Crusades" → 'crusades'.
  • "Pasquier highlighted the failures of the crusades" Is the lower case "c" deliberate?
  • "Pasquier highlighted ... he highlights" The tense used should be consistent.
Enlightenment
  • "The sole positive effect of crusading was the increasing liberty that municipalities were able to purchase from feudal lords, which had enabled towns to become the source of a new civilised rationality." I think that you have missed a "in their view" or similar.
  • "opinionions"?  
  • "The cultural consequences of growth in trade, the rise of the Italian cities and progress are elaborated in his work." The "and progress" sits a bit oddly. Just progress generally?
  • "Much of the popular understanding" This needs dating; eg, 'in the 19th century' or 'today'.
  • Link Romantics.
  • Link Ancien Régime. I am doubtful of its plural use; is it commonly applied to anywhere other than France?
  • "touring the Near East in 1831" Just the Near East?
  • "commissioned by king Louis-Philippe" Upper case K.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16
  • 51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "and two Armenian volumes including related miscellania" Why no publication date(s) for these volumes?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern
  • Link polemic.
  • "even at the time" I think that this is redundant; when else would a reader assume was meant?
  • "Greek specialist George Finlay" → 'the Greek specialist George Finlay' per false title.
  • "Not much reflection was given to the inclusion from the Early Modern Period of other theatres of war" Optional: → 'Not much reflection was given to the inclusion of other theatres of war from the Early Modern Period'.
  • "The German historian Carl Erdmann presented a significant challenge" I am not quite following this. A challenge to who or what?
  • "By 1977 Riley-Smith, who was a dominant influential figure in academic crusade studies, proposed a wider definition." "By" → 'In'.
  • "The key to definition rested with papal authority" This reads as if the pope had the authority to decide the definition.
  • "into four areas with differing definitions" Maybe 'into four areas each with differing definitions'?
  • "His view was that Traditionalists such as" Why an upper case T?
  • "with where the crusades were aimed" I am not sure here if you mean at what the crusades were physically aimed; 'at what they were aimed at achieving; or at where they geographically took place.
  • "Latin holy wars". I think this needs defining.
  • "Historical parallelism": is there a more accessible way of phrasing this?
  • "even if only for propaganda purposes" Delete "even".
  • "a struggle against a religious enemy" Optional: → 'a struggle against a perceived religious enemy'.
Colonialism and nationalism
  • "espoused propaganda of the country's Mediterranean colonies" I don't think that this is grammatical. (And I am not sure what it is meant to convey.)
  • "and provided a source of popular models that were criticised and dismantled when empires ceased to hold academic approval" This is grammatical, but needs unpacking a little more in order to communicate comprehensively.
  • "and Francisco Franco-era Spain" Delete "Francisco" and link to Francoist Spain.
  • "Early modern period and Francisco Franco-era Spain presented a special case where nationalism and national identity could be projected onto the crusades." I agree that this needs saying, but I think that it needs overtly tying to the Reconquista.
  • "the crsuades.
  • "with ostentatious tour" Insert 'an'.
Islam
  • "The Muslim world exhibited little interest in the crusades as they were not considered significant events until the middle of the 19th century." → 'The Muslim world exhibited little interest in the crusades until the middle of the 19th century, as they were not considered significant events.' maybe?
  • "a more marginal issue compared to" Delete "more".
  • "the collapse of the Caliphate through the Mongol invasions" Optional: "through" → 'caused by'.
  • "who suppressed Arab nationalism" "who" → 'which'.
  • "Arabic-speaking Syrian Christians began translating French histories into Arabic" Since when?
  • "the Egyptian Sayyid Ali al-Hariri producing the first Arabic history of the crusades" When? And what was it called?
  • "Muslim forces' triumph over their enemies" This is very broad. Do you mean something like 'Medieval Muslim forces' triumph over the crusaders'?
  • "Saladin's Western reputation for chivalry was not reflected in the Muslim world" I don't think that "reflected" works. Something like 'the Muslim world did not consider Saladin to possess a reputation for chivalry in the way that was popularly assumed in the west' maybe?
  • "He had had been largely forgotten and eclipsed" Delete "forgotten and"'
  • "The visit and anti-imperialist sentiment" "The visit" → 'Wilhelm's'.
Primary Sources
  • Why is each entry in the last three sections dated, but not those in the first?

Phew! I am going to take a breather. If I have not started responding to your responses in two or three days, feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild— how is it looking now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take two
edit

You will want to check my copy editing.

  • "subsequent debates that followed" One of "subsequent" or "that followed" is redundant.
  • "debates that followed often remained controversial" Do you mean 'were controversial'?
  • "examined the Crusades as the origins of nation building, government, commerce, and modern civilisation" I get "origins of nation building", but are you really saying that there was no functional government, commerce nor modern civilisation before them?
  • "Crusades themselves as a nationalistic ideal" Suggest "ideal" → 'endeavour'.
  • Left this as is, itention was to use ideal as in Existing as an idea or archetype Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • "in 1571 the Battle of Lepanto" The church didn't authorise the battle, it authorised a series of maritime campaigns, one of which involved the battle.
  • "History of the crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land" Upper case C when in title case.
  • "Scott's description of an inferior culture attacking a more sophisticated one mixed with Michaud's proto-colonialist conviction." Optional: ad 'in the popular imagination or similar.
  • Constable's four types: three have upper case initial letters, "traditionalists" doesn't. Is there a reason?
  • Constable should include the page numbers for the article.

There is a heavy reliance on one source. Not that there is anything wrong with the source per se. I shall leave the issue for whoever does the source review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now a very tidy little article which covers the A class criteria so I am supporting. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Robinvp11

edit
This is an A-class review so I'll be brutally honest, because I think you've ignored most of the points I made. I'm interested in the topic, but I found the article in general incomprehensible, over-written (ie never misses the opportunity to use a three syllable word, and if possible, several), and really hard to read. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; in its current state, I can't see a general user reading it.
There are many statements in this article I would challenge eg The near constant stream of military campaigns from Europe to Palestine, Syria and Egypt make it virtually impossible to differentiate separate campaigns; or what does 'crusade enthusiasts' even mean? However, that would be re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, while ignoring the gaping hole below the waterline.
  • The Lead is confusing and needs to be tighter and shorter, eg I've read this several times, and still don't understand what it means. It also makes a series of really sweeping statements.

From the 17th century historians began rejecting religious interpretations and instead examined the Crusades as the origins of nation building. From this period they began considering that secular and religious motivations were fundamentally different and it was found that agreeing a consensus reconciling the idealistic and the materialistic was challenging. Enlightenment thinkers considered the crusaders culturally inferior to themselves and Protestants considered them morally so.

Maybe you missed this but as before, I have no idea what this means, and it contains a number of very debatable statements that aren't adequately supported by the article. In fact, I've read the entire Lead several times and I'm genuinely unsure what I should be taking away.
The whole article needs simplification, much greater attention to grammar, and elimination of long, run-on sentences is eg His view was that traditionalists such as Hans Eberhard Mayer are concerned with the crusades geopgraphical objectives i.e. Jerusalem and the Holy Land, pluralists such as Riley-Smith concentrate on how the crusades were organised, popularists including Paul Alphandery and Etienne Delaruelle focus on the popular groundswells of religious fervour and generalists such as Ernst-Dieter Hehl focus on all wars fought by members of the Latin Church for religious reasons.
The structure bounces all over the place, eg the section on Colonialism starts with France, Francoist Spain, then reverts to Kaiser Wilhelm, before Allenby. Plus, since it ignores the Reconquista, referring to Franco makes zero sense.
Or The German historian Carl Erdmann theorised that crusading was a political ideology within Western society rather than a glamourised frontier conflict. In 1977 Riley-Smith, who was a dominant and influential figure in academic crusade studies, proposed a wider definition. For him the key determinent of whether a campaign was a crusade was whether it was undertaken on papal authority. The connection between Erdmann and Riley-Smith escapes me, 'crusading' is not the same as 'campaigning', and it looks as if this is trying to tie two references together. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed and focussed on the Holy Land Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention other Crusades in the Lead, then ignore them. Arguably more people died in the Albigensian Crusade than any of the ones to Jerusalem, the Teutonic Knights built Poland, the Knights of Malta ended up as Papal privateers - so either be specific (ie Holy Land), or expand.
Edited these out of the lead Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you also need to change the name of the article, because its not about the Crusades, but Western intervention in the Holy Land. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the popular understanding of the crusades today derives from the 19th century novels of Scott Really? although I'm happy to blame Scott for many things, as an Alfred Duggan fan, I beg to differ.
That does appear to be the consensus among crusade historians. I have read and enjoyed Knight with Armour and Three's Company but for popular understanding Duggan is not really comparable, is he? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably clarify; I don't believe Scott is a major influence on how we see the Crusades, and the article doesn't explain why you think he is. The Duggan reference was tongue in cheek, but he wrote considerably more (Lady for Ransom, Count Bohemund, Lord Geoffery's Fancy etc), plus his 'History of the Crusades' was a school text book.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the humour. You don't believe Scott was a major influence but a number of modern British historians do, including Tyerman to whom this is sourced. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could usefully expand on 19th century Russian and German attitudes towards the Crusading past, particularly how it drove political conflict in the 19th century Balkans. You mention Kaiser Wilhelm's Protestant reactionary posturing, but not why German archaeologists were so keen on that specific past, or the direct links between the crusading Teutonic knights, and 19th century German nationalism.
Maybe for FAC? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not if this an A-class article on the Historiography of the Crusades; I think you've written an article on a very specific aspect. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignores impact on French colonial thinking eg support for the Maronites prior to 1914, annexation of Syria post 1918.
Colonialism is mentioned, I think this may give undue weight Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I cannot see how you can have an A-class article which doesn't consider the impact of Western thinking on the post 1918 redrawing of the Islamic world, or why Bush referring to a Crusade had such impact. How can that be undue weight? You mention the foundation of Israel - what do you think is behind the Trump administration's recognition of Jersusalem as its capital? Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over reliant on one Source, and very much a Western one. There is tons of material on this eg Modern Historiography: The Relevance of the Crusades in Islamic Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Winter 2007), pp. 527-558; worth reading, as it critiques Tyerman's approach and compares it to others.
Let me repeat; it is over reliant on one Source. I have found tons of free online articles on this topic without even trying hard.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More pictures or maps would be nice.
If we were talking about FAC I would agree, but still think this is servicable at ACR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are written for users; why is so hard to persuade people to include graphics that make it easier and more attractive for them to access it? Robinvp11 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Srnec

edit
  • The medieval section is pathetic. If this article is supposed to cover all historiography from contemporary to 21st-century, then it falls way short. The only way to remedy this short of a huge infusion of content is to refocus and probably retitle the article to about modern historiography of the Crusades.
Not convinced this is constructive criticism? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of primary sources is oddly selective. Twelve Latin chronicles of the first crusade, plus some Armenian, Muslim and Jewish sources. Michael the Syrian isn't Armenian and is the only Syriac writer listed. No Greek works. No Latin works about any crusade after 1100. No vernacular European works.
True, rather than include an arbitrary list I have deleted the section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • areas of interest to the Catholic Church Unlink Catholic Church is by MOS:OVERLINK too common to link.
  • I don't think centuries should be linked like days, weeks and years by WP:DATELINK.
  • by the Roman Catholic Church against pagans Unlink Roman Catholic Church.
  • "Outremer" from the French outre-mer Unlink French which is a major language per MOS:OVERLINK.
  • campaigns from Europe to Palestine, Syria and Egypt Maybe switch the links about both countries with the regions?
  • and 1099 with a second wave 1101–1102, the Second (1146–1149), the Third (1187–1192), Fourth (1198–1204), and the Fifth (1217–1221) --> "and 1099 with a second wave 1101–1102, the Second (1146–1149), the Third (1187–1192), Fourth (1198–1204), and the Fifth (1217–1221)"
  • in the Sixth Crusade (1228-1229), as did Louis IX of France in the Seventh (1248-1254) --> "in the Sixth Crusade (1228–1229), as did Louis IX of France in the Seventh (1248–1254)"
  • follwed between 1844-1895; five collections of French translations of eastern texts between 1872-1906 --> "follwed between 1844–1895; five collections of French translations of eastern texts between 1872–1906"
  • Roman Catholic Church is overlinked by the Latin Church.
  • and the replacement of Arab rule by the By MOS:OVERLINK Arab should be not linked.
  • In the "Primary Sources" section all the "c", "d" and "fl" should have their own templates.
Removed these as they are a bit inconsistent. Don't necessarily think a long list of possible sources adds values here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Done—I have addressed all the above, thank you CPA-5 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammer

  • was one of the first to make an attempt Remove "make an".
  • Greek Orthodox Church of the Near and Middle East became irrevocable An article before the Middle East is needed.
  • become the source of a new civilised rationality Remove the second article.
  • abuse of papal authority, irresponsibilty A typo of irresponsibility?
  • Six volumes by western historians follwed Typo of followed?
  • and 1906 that included related miscellania You mean miscellanea?
  • Western society rather than a glamourised frontier conflict Per Ngram glamorised is more common.
  • For him the key determinent of whether You mean determinant?
  • with the crusades geopgraphical objectives You mean geographical?
  • encouraging ideas of a modern jihad and a long struggle; Remove the first article.
  • he was very conscious of possible offence Maybe add an article between "of" and "possible"?
  • He had had been largely eclipsed by more successful Two "had"s?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Done—thanks CPA-5 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Grampinator

edit

I have to agree with Srnec and Robinvp11. The article is both incomplete and incomprehensible. I realize that this is not constructive, so here are some observations:

  • The first paragraph conveys nothing about what is in the article. The first two sentences are incorrect factually and grammatically. The second and third paragraphs are indecipherable. The lead section needs to be “a concise summary of the article.”
  • Why is there a picture of Peter the Hermit? Why not one of William of Tyre who is curiously missing from the article.
  • Since Tyerman’s work dominates the article with 27 citations, why not read and reference his article on historiography in Murray’s Encyclopedia of the Crusades?
  • It is a rare Wikipedia article that is much more obtuse than the source material. Giles Constable’s article and Tyerman’s entry referenced above provide clear and understandable introductions to the material.
  • Since historiography is concerned with methods of historical analysis, why are there no discussions on charters, archaeology, numismatics, and historical geography in addition to chronicles and letters?
  • The medieval section and sections on original sources needs to be updated and categorized (e.g., by Latin, Greek, Arabic,…., and period covered). In addition to Murray and Wisconsin, the sources sections of Runciman’s three volumes are good. Also, the Fordham University Medieval Source Book on Crusader Sources is excellent. As a glaring example, the article doesn’t reference the Alexiad. Really?
  • The modern (i.e., post-medieval) sections the article are fixable but are unclear, incomplete and in many cases biased. For example, why the attack on Runciman’s work? This reads like a Yelp review left for a bad meal. If his work is so bad, why is it referenced in virtually every Wikipedia article? Riley-Smith’s quote is inappropriate for this article. What about Tyerman’s quote for balance. Whoever wrote this is clearly biased against what many people think is regarded as seminal.
  • Why no reference to the Wisconsin collaborative History of the Crusades? Seems to be pretty relevant. Also, read the bibliography section of Volume VI. It’s very enlightening.
  • A couple of other comments. The disclaimer says: ”This article is about the historiography of the Roman Catholic religous wars.” No it’s not. And religious is spelled wrong. Why is this even there? If a casual reader thought it was about the History of the Crusades they would know they were in the wrong article if the introduction said what the article was about. The first line talks about “popular memories of them”. None are later identified. Are these to be part of historiography?
  • Section on Islam: I don’t know a lot about this, but I would change it to something like Modern Islamic Histories of the Crusades. Maybe include reference to works by some actual Islamic history scholars like Aziz Suryal Atiya and Farhad Daftary.

I basically have comments on every sentence I read, many of which I can't immediately tell what the sentence is trying to say. I think it needs to have a major rewrite.

@Hawkeye7 and Gog the Mild: this has been here for three months, and despite your supports there are three reviewers who have serious reservations about the article. I am of the view that there isn't likely to be consensus for promotion in the near future and am thinking of archiving it. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Srnec, Robinvp11 and Grampinator all have good points. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I agree as well. After passing GAR, I was interested to see what feedback an ACR would give and how far away the article was. Answer seems to be some way. Dr. Grampinator might pick this up when everyone moves on. This is as far as my time, sources and inclination can take it Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly hasn't achieved consensus and it doesn't look as if it will. I think that archiving is the correct decision. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2020 (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 - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Cape Hermaeum

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Cape Hermaeum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A major battle of the First Punic War: Rome's biggest naval victory of the war; swiftly followed by its worst ever maritime disaster. Yet the primary sources say very little about either. I have, I think, extracted everything there is about it and offer it for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Gog,

  • infobox - other spelling (Hermaea) intentional?
No. Typo. Thanks. Fixed.
  • "Cape Bon" and "Cape Bon Peninsula" - link same, I felt cheated
Oops. Fixed.
  • Battle of the Aegates, the final battle of the war, fought fourteen years later - thirteen?
I never could count backwards. Corrected.
  • The Romans had had little naval experience - is this a case where 1 x "had" says same thing?
Amended.
  • previously felt the need - "felt" a bit iffy, maybe 'considered'
Changed to a simple 'needed'.
  • of being rammed oneself. - itself?
"oneself" (I think), because the sentence starts "Ideally one would attack ..." I could rephrase as 'Ideally a galley would attack an enemy ship from its side or rear, thus avoiding the possibility of being rammed itself'?
  • grapple - wlink Grappling hook? (pity that page doesn't mention the corvus, hint, hint.)
You have lost me Jenny. "grapple" here has nothing to do with grappling hooks. I am explaining, as briefly as I can get away with, but am happy to go into as much detail as you wish, how the corvus works: and it is by allowing a Roman ship to grapple an opposing one. As in Wiktionary's first definition - "To seize something and hold it firmly".
  • approximately 26,000 picked legionaries - wlink
Done.
  • Hanno the Great - wlink?
D'oh! Again. Done.
  • superior ship handling skills - hyphen
Inserted
  • only 16 km (10 mi) from Carthage - the other conversions spell out the metric
The MoS says to give in full at first use and abbreviate thereafter.
  • They proceeded directly to Sicily, making landfall at its south-west corner, then proceeded along the south coast. - proceeded x2, maybe 'They sailed direcly...'
Good thinking. Done.
  • The Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and - need to mention year 254 BC somewhere in this para to match map?
Added.
  • city of Kararina - is that another spelling of Kamarina or a typo?
No two of my sources agree on the spelling, and none use Kamarina. But I have gone with the version already in use in Wikipedia.
  • the friendly city of Kararina and Capo Passero - was Cape Passero not friendly too?
It's a geographical feature, so I doubt it had any views on the subject.
  • 384 warships were sunk - hmm starting a sentence with 384? Maybe 'From their total of 464 of warships, 384 were sunk, ...'
Good point. Done.
  • Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and poor seamanship displayed - 2 x poor, "and poor" could go?
Second "poor" removed.
  • mostly on Sicily or the nearby waters - "the" unnecessary
Not in my opinion. Removing it suggests "on ... nearby waters", which, to me, is an odd construction. I would say 'on the nearby waters', hence the use of the "the".
  • Sources, Casson/Champion/Casson - alpha order
Good spot. Done.
  • File map caption, Apsis x2 - Aspis
Indeed. I am not sure if I wrote the caption or not, but I certainly missed that.
All done.

That'll do for now, regards, JennyOz (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny, your usual sterling stuff. Your points addressed above. Does this also count as a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

All images free, appropriately sourced, etc. buidhe 04:34, 14 June 2020 (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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Manuel Noriega

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk)

Manuel Noriega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Manuel Noriega was a military strongman in Panama for a while, and a large player in Central American politics of the time. This is my second nomination of this article; the first nomination received some helpful comments on the sources (from Buidhe) and content (from Peacemaker67), but I found myself without the time to address their comments, and asked the nomination to be withdrawn. I have done my best to address their comments before renominating this; where I have not, it's usually because the sources do not provide the necessary information. Before that, the article underwent a thorough GA review from Midnightblueowl. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit

Most of my concerns from the prior review were addressed but the Gilboa article is 23 pages long and really needs page numbers for verifiability. There is a discussion ongoing on WT:FAC which suggests that for verifiability around 10 pages or less may be acceptable but not for longer papers.

Okay, fair enough. I'll work on this when I get back online in some hours. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gilboa says that "on and off the CIA payroll as early as 1971", not that "The CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971." It does not support the previous sentence either as far as I can tell.
    Due apologies; the bit about previous payments, and the regularization, are both supported by Dinges 49-52, which I had cited in the previously nominated version; I guess the citation got lost in the reorganization. I have replaced it. I have also reorganized the section a tiny bit to make it clear that the specific agency making previous payments is unknown.
  • Gilboa says that Secretary of State attended Barletta's inauguration and that it recognized the flaws in the election. But I can't tell if it supports the second part of the sentence: "The U.S. accepted Barletta's election, and signaled a willingness to cooperate with him, despite recognizing the flaws in the election process." Where is cooperation mentioned?
    Cooperation between Barletta's government and the US is discussed extensively in Dinges 198-199, which is the other source cited there; specifically, he discusses state department papers suggested Barletta would be an important ally; the meeting between Barletta and Secretary of State Shultz, in which Shultz asked for Barletta's diplomatic assistance; and describes the outcome of this meeting as a "quid-pro-quo".
  • "Noriega's rule of Panama has frequently been described as a dictatorship," I was unable to verify this because a search for "dictatorship" in Gilboa did not return results. Is this just his own opinion or is he reporting that it is a common opinion? buidhe 04:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gilboa is fairly explicit in describing Noriega as a dictator; there's "Despite the end of the cold war, dictators such as Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Serbian leaders Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic will continue to exist and to challenge the international order" on the first page, for instance, and several other equivalent statements. You are correct in suggesting more citations here would be helpful, though. I have added three others; any number more are available, and it's quite evident that it reflects scholarly consensus.
      • For "frequently been described as a dictatorship" you really need a secondary source reporting that it's a commonly held opinion. I don't doubt it, but it does have to be verifiable. Otherwise, all that you can do is say is something to the effect of "Gilboa, Galván, Kempe, Koster & Sánchez describe Noriega as a dictator" (each is WP:PRIMARY for the opinion held by the author). See WP:RS/AC.
        • @Buidhe: I appreciate that that's what our policy says, but when you move out of the anglosphere, the number of people writing syntheses declines drastically; I'm unaware of a literature review related to Norieaga. In this case, if a source does not call Noriega a dictator it will call him an authoritarian ruler or a strongman, and being unable to convey that seems problematic (I don't imagine you want me to list three dozen historians using these descriptors). In large part that's because, unlike some other leaders whose legacy is contested, Noriega's isn't. I can think of a couple of alternatives to the current wording; 1) I could cite an encyclopedia, which is generally considered a tertiary source, but doesn't seem to be mentioned as such at WP:RS/AC; 2) I could stick to the present sources, and write something like "Historians studying Noriega's rule in Panama, including [...], have referred to him as a dictator." 3) I could use the sources I've cited (and several dozen others) for the statement "Noriega was a dictator [refs] and a strongman[refs]". I didn't do 3) because qualifying it seemed more circumspect than stating it baldly, but the sources would actually explictly support (3). (2) seems like us being wishy-washy because scholars don't bother analyzing a question when the answer is widely accepted. How would you like to proceed here? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Buidhe: I've addressed your page range concern above; also, I really would appreciate more discussion of the question here. A fourth option, to add to those above, would be to say "Noriega has been described as a dictator[refs], strongman[refs], and authoritarian ruler[refs]. I would have the same concern as with (2) above, but it's an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think option 4 is probably best, although I would not object to 3. Note that "Generally described as a military dictatorship" in the lead also should be changed to match the body. Page ranges are OK now, thanks. buidhe 02:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I may be too close to this, as I've already reviewed earlier this year in some detail, and some points I raised have not been addressed:

@Peacemaker67: I'm not sure you are too close to this, given that I asked for a procedural close last time, and it's not as though we had a conflict over your comments. I did make an effort to address your comments from that review in the interim. I'm happy to work through any comments I missed, or anything additional that crops up; I do want to note though, that in most cases where I did not act on your comments, it's because the relevant information doesn't exist in the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest expanding the infobox with relevant parameters such as nickname, criminal_charges and criminal_penalty
    Is it a deal-breaker if I don't? The nickname was fairly clearly a derogatory term, obviously not used in his presence; the charges, and penalties, are extensive; in the US, alone, he was charged with ten crimes, and convicted of eight of them. It seems a bit much for the infobox.
  • is anything available on the foreign or domestic awards he received other than the French LoH?
    Afraid not. I dug a fair bit.
  • when mentioning Arias for the first time, include that he was a candidate of the Panameñista Party
    Added, though the party was called something else at the time, so rephrased a little.
  • when mentioning Chiari, mention that he was from the National Liberal Party
    Added.

Down to Rise to power. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • do we known when Noriega was promoted to captain?
    We do not. I have dug fairly deep. I suspect that to find this information one would need to go through stacks of paperwork belonging to the Panamanian military.
  • "Bush, now US Vvice Ppresident"
    Fixed.
  • what was the reason for deleting the information about BCCI, Bush and the Dukakis campaign statement?
    As Buidhe pointed out in their source review, that needed a better source than the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis was running against Bush, and had an incentive to show him in a bad light. I tried to see if independent sources had given it any weight, but found no evidence for it. For the record, the material predated my involvement with the article, but I should have caught it regardless.
  • "and announced his intent to return to Panama to oppose him" but we have already learned he returned to Panama in 1981? The timeline here isn't clear, did Spadafora return to Panama, leave and come back? If so, when was he killed?
    I can see why this is confusing, but to me it simply reflects the fact that a) travel between the small central american countries was commonplace, and b) the writers are probably using that phrasing because Spadafora may not have been in Panama when he made the 1985 announcement. However, it's the substance of the announcement that matters, so I'm just dropping the "return" piece of that; we simply do not have a detailed account of Spadafora's movements over four years. It's a good guess that he left the country a dozen or more times. In the same vein, there's little I can do about the travel to Costa Rica; we know he was returning when murdered, but have no idea where else he had been and for how long.
  • suggest "His decapitated body was later found wrapped in a United States Postal Service mail bag and showing signs of brutal torture."
    Done.
  • "While Noriega was out of the country"? Where was he?
    Dinges doesn't say. I've rephrased to make it clear it was his absence that mattered, and that it's not a reference to previous travel
  • Spadafora was murded
    Fixed.

Down to 1989 election. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "other intelligence services"? Cuba, but any others?
    I saw this comment earlier, but I don't quite see the issue; it could mean multiple countries, but also multiple agencies, or really "anything besides the CIA".
  • Defense Forces→PDF
    Done.
  • add a main template linking to United States invasion of Panama at the top of the Invasion section
    It's already at the top of the section; does it need to be over the subsection too?
  • the number of US casualties during the invasion is clearly stated as 23 killed and more than 300 wounded in the NYT per [3], and the LA Times said 23 killed and 324 wounded per [4]. I reckon you should just go with the LA Times figures, and perhaps include the number of friendly fire casualties from that article as well.
    Not too happy scrubbing the scholarly source, but the 23 figure is repeated everywhere and the 60 is not, so okay.
  • Panama city→Panama City
    Done.
  • With regards to the local civilian casualties, Physicians for Human Rights said that there was no evidence of several thousand civilian deaths. See the NYT article [5]
    We've already added a bunch of lower death tolls, and I think the higher number comes from enough people that it needs mentioned...
  • link land mine
  • The Guardian says his nickname was due to his heavily pockmarked features as the result of a childhood illness, per [6].
    Added.

That's the redux of my first ACR, I'll reread when you're finished with the above and see if anything else jumps out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks; I've replied. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peacemaker67, not to be a bother, but I was wondering if there were other concerns you had, and if not, whether you would consider supporting promotion? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, will look it over again in the next day or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Not to be a bother, just another gentle nudge...also wondering if you have any thoughts on the lack of attention here. I've been a bit remiss with respect to reviewing myself, admittedly. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor additional points:

Apologies for having missed this. Addressing now. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noriega himself has provided varying dates of birth
    Done.
  • "he was given a [[officer (armed forces)|commissioned]] as a second lieutenant"
    Done.
  • for 1968 Panamanian Ppresidential election, link 1968 Panamanian general election
    Done.
  • Arias was a member of the National Revolutionary Party that represented the National Revolutionary Party.?
    Should have been "represented the Panamenista movement", with the link going to the movement rather than the party.
  • The sitting Ppresident,
    Done.
  • suggest "he continued to pass intelligence about the plantation workers' activities to the U.S. during this period."
    This, I think, I don't like; the continuation is in passing intelligence, not with respect to plantation workers specifically.
  • suggest "Later, Noriega maintained a close relationship"
    Done.
  • I don't get the sense of "partly due to the latter's Panamanian outpost." what is "the latter"? Panama or the School?
    Fixed; the school had an outpost in Panama.
  • Torrijos' "dirty work" possessive
    Done.
  • U.S. pPresident Richard Nixon
    Done.
  • US$100,000 per MOS:CURRENCY
    Done.
  • director of Central Intelligence is linked to the comedy film, you've already introduced CIA, use that
    Well, the position was Director of Central Intelligence; I've used that link instead (incidentally, before I saw your comment...)
  • stand for Ppresident
    Done
  • link nationalism in the lead and body?
    Done
  • link Defense Intelligence Agency
    Done
  • an ally of Torrijos
    Done
  • Panama Canal Zone, Panameñista Party, Oliver North, Psychological warfare, and cocaine are duplinked in the body
    Removed four of those; I'm going to invoke IAR with respect to the canal zone, because I think the second link is in a helpful place.
  • First Lieutenant Robert Paz
    Done
  • "A total of 23 U.S. soldiers" you shouldn't start sentences with arabic numerals. Alternatively "Twenty-three U.S. soldiers"
    Done
  • link CBS
    Done
  • add (DEA) when Drug Enforcement Administration is introduced
    Done
  • In the game, the fictional character Frank Woods refers to Noriega as "Old Pineapple Face", a nickname originally applied to the President by Panamanians as this has now been added earlier
    Done

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: All done now; apologies for not noticing this set of comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is in great shape, Vanamonde. Very happy to support. I've noticed over the years that politico-military leaders (like Roman Emperors, Muslim caliphs etc) can struggle to attract enough attention at Milhist ACR. Let's see if my comment on the Milhist talk page attracts any more reviewers, but as far as I am concerned, this is a potential FAC candidate as it stands now, and if we have to archive it that shouldn't dissuade you from taking it to FAC. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, and I genuinely appreciate the thorough review. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Eddie891

edit

Will comment shortly. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was the de facto ruler of Panama" worth piping to List of heads of state of Panama?
    Done.
  • You don't seem to mention "February 11, 1934" as his DOB in the body, despite mentioning it definitively in both the lede and the infobox. Suggest adding "February 11" in the body, and maybe a note for infobox and lede about the uncertainty of his birth.
    I've added a note to the lead and infobox, and clarified in the body. It's a funny situation, wherein the Feb 11 remains consistent, but the year does not.
  • "has been variously described as a cook or a laundress" I'd say "has been variously described as a cook and a laundress" or "was a cook or a laundress", though I'm not sure about the linguistic nuance here.
    Gone with the first.
  • "Neither had a lengthy presence in his life:" Not a fan of how this sounds, especially that you don't really mention what happened to his father, suggest removing it and rephrasing the next two sentences to "His mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child and Noriega was brought up by a godmother in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén." or "His mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child. As a result, Noriega was brought up by a godmother in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén" or something like that...
    Reworded.
  • I'd link domestic worker because it seems like a particularly relevant topic in its context
    Done
  • "Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was in fact " I'd cut "in fact"
    Done
  • "and later at the Instituto Nacional" worth a red-link (or perhaps there's a blue one)?
    added.
  • " He was described as an "oddly serious child,"" Ideally there'd be attribution for this quote, who described him that way?
    It's Frederick Kempe, the journalist who wrote the cited source. I don't know that it's a contentious enough passage to name the source, though...
  • "by his punctilious godmother" I'd consider punctilious a rather unknown term, certainly less known than 'espouse' (the latter is linked in the lede) and perhaps worth a wikt link. However, is it really needed at all?
    Not necessarily...outlooks differ on how plain encyclopedic prose ought to be, but I'm not wedded to it.
  • "He continued to work with the U.S. intelligence services at various points till the 1980s [...] was the first of many payments he would receive from the U.S. for his activities." is this really needed? It's largely been mentioned in the lede and seems a bit like foreshadowing which imo should generally be avoided in the article body. I'd replace with "His first payment from the US was $10.70 in 1955" or something like that
    Fair point, trimmed.
  • "Noriega harbored intentions of becoming a doctor" a bit clunky to me, maybe "Noriega intended to become a doctor" or something like that, not a big deal either way
    Trimmed.
  • The para beginning "Noriega harbored intentions of becoming a doctor," has no dates at all. I'd love to see one or two for the reader to anchor on
    Added one; dates are hard to come by in Noriega's early life
  • "made the acquaintance of Roberto Díaz Herrera" might be worth mentioning why Herrera was in peru?
    Added.
  • "Noriega married Felicidad Sieiro" date?
    Nothing more precise than "late 1960s"
  • "and Noriega a member of the National Guard" I don't think it's worth mentioning that here, if only because it would be more relevant to link Panama National Guard in it's section-- not a big deal either way. Also, should it be 'Panamanian National Guard'? I note that we have a standing redirect at Panamanian National Guard, but not at Panama National Guard
    Well Panamanian is implied here, and the info is here because there's otherwise little to contextualize the marriage, and also because the source considers it relevant to the disapproval from her family.
  • ", protecting him when he ran into trouble" what does this add to the article? Personally I'd cut it.
    Fair enough.
  • " In 1966, Noriega was again involved in a violent incident, allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl and beating her brother. After this Torrijos transferred Noriega to a remote posting." I'd favor putting this after the 1964 paragraph, because they are all violent incidents. In that same vein, if you switch this it's no longer necessary to say "prior to some of these incidents"
    switched
  • When you first mention Dinges, I'd suggest mentioning that he wrote a book (something like John Dinges, in his YEAR book Title), because by introducing him as a journalist, it seems that you are just citing news articles, which isn't the case, I don't think.
    Added
  • "During the various times he spent there" why not just "while at the school,"?
    No good reason...tweaked

That's comments from me through'National Guard career', more to come. These comments are relatively subjective and I'm more than happy to discuss any further, please don't feel that they are 'required'-- indeed, quite a few of them are nothing more then personal preference. Best Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know it's not necessarily an uncommon word, but I'd recommend linking coup on it's first mention given how central the topic is to this guy
    Added
  • You caption an image "Carter shaking hands with Torrijos after signing the Panama Canal Treaty" but don't mention a Panama Canal Treaty in the article body
    It's one of the Torrijos-Carter treaties, which are mentioned
  • " Noriega would provide intelligence, and carry out covert operations" I don't think that comma is needed
    Removed
  • " He also kept files on several officials within the military, the government, and the judiciary, allowing him to blackmail them later. He also held the positions of head of the political police, and head of immigration." Is the last comma needed? Is there any way you can avoid starting two sentences with "He also" in a row?
    Removed, and tweaked
  • "of the diplomatic consequences involved." perhaps "of potential diplomatic consequences" as nobody could really know for sure what diplomatic consequences would be involved
    Fair. added.
  • " and the U.S. began to see him as the real problem" what does 'real problem' mean here? There's no indication that anybody else was seen as a problem, and we haven't seen a lot of evidence that Noriega was heavily involved in drug trafficing, other than that the US could have indicted him on 'drug charges' (also, it's not clear to an un-discerning reader what 'drug charges' might be-- you can be arrested for a lot of drug-related charges
    I've dropped bit about the charges, and stuck to indictment. Dinges makes it clear that the evidence was that of drug smuggling, but only implies that that's what the charge would have been; so I'd rather keep it simple. Also, reworded the rest.
  • "may have been tried in the early 1970s," does that mean that Dinges thinks there were plots tried or the government considered trying them, or something else?
    He writes that some of the other options "appear to have been tried", but doesn't say which or when. I think this is as much detail as we're going to get.
  • "During the same period of the " I'd cut "the same period of the", imo it's unnecessary here, maybe could be replaced with "Also during the"
    Trimmed
  • I think there are a lot of extraneous commas in this section, i.e. "He was placed on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while he held his position as head of Panamanian intelligence." though I'm awful with commas, so cannot be sure
    I've removed a couple. I do think it's a matter of preference, in those instances.
  • "During the same period of the early 1970s, Noriega's relationship with the U.S. intelligence services was regularized. He was placed on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while he held his position as head of Panamanian intelligence. The CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971; he had previously been paid by U.S. intelligence services on a case-by-case basis." IMO you basically say the same thing in all of these three sentences. I'd reckon you could condense into one or two that convey 1) he used to be paid a on case-by-case basis 2) his relationship and pay were regularized-- because in this case aren't they virtually synonymous? (beginning in 1971). It's unnecessary to say that the relationship was regularized three different ways three times.
    I don't know that it's entirely redundant, but I've trimmed slightly.
  • "On some occasions, the Panamanian embassy in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, would be used by U.S. intelligence agents" how, exactly, does this relate to Noriega?
    I checked the source, and it says Noriega used the embassy to collect intel for the US. It's possible I was using a different source when writing it, or that I misread. As that stands, though, it's not very useful because intelligence on the Sandinistas has already been mentioned. Removed.
  • "Noriega also served as the U.S. emissary to Cuba during negotiations following the Johnny Express incident" could benefit from a date?
    December 1971. Added.
  • "The payments were as high" his payments, the contingency funds, or both?
    The contingency funds. Clarified.
  • " selling intelligence on the U.S. to Cuba at the same time" it's unclear to me what it was at the same time as
    Same time as he was working for the CIA; clarified
  • "he declined to do so, because that would have exposed Noriega's role in the matter." who is 'he' here?
    Bush; I'm confused as to why that's ambiguous; he's the only person named there...
  • Were any US intelligence services involved besides the CIA?
    Occasionally, yes; US Army intelligence, for instance. The specifics are not usually discussed, though; the sources often just say "US Intelligence agencies".
  • After the Nicaraguan Revolution was launched against" It's worth immediately mentioning who launched the rebellion, imo
    Added. Already mentioned above, so not linked.
  • "newly appointed a general" link general?
    Done.

That's through 'rise to power'. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by either buying a controlling stake in them, or by forcing them to shut down" why not "by either buying a controlling stake in them or forcing them to shut down"?
    Done
  • "ivil wars broke out in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua" worth linking to them?
    Added
  • "A report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency" worth a date?
    Not obviously available, I'm afraid; Hersh says "recent" but that could mean anything
  • "Noriega's new image" I'm a little unclear on what his new image was, exactly?
    It's a complex set of things, but most prominent among them was that he was perceived as being anti-trafficking. Added that; the rest is possibly a little too much detail, Dinges devotes three whole pages to very subtle things.
  • "before an attack on Colombia's west coast" perhaps "before launching an attack"?
    Added.
  • "5,000 Panamanian passports to the Cuban government for use by its intelligence services" date?
    Not in the source, I'm afraid.
  • "Noriega's direct involvement in moving weapons and drugs declined in the early 1980s" didn't you already talk about this in the above paragraph? I think those two (para beginning "Many of the operations Noriega benefited from were run by associates" and "'Noriega began supplying weapons to the M-19 rebel group in Colombia in 1981") could be integrated better to make it more chronological
    Partially integrated with previous paragraph, where it appeared to flow better; I think paras 3 and 4 there are distinct, as the former is about drugs and the latter, weapons.
  • " including funds and weapons" what about them? Was he conduiting American support by purchasing the weapons and sending funds or was he getting funds to purchase weapons or giving his own funds as a manifestation of American support, or something else?
    As a conduit for both those things...reworded
  • It might be worth replacing some of the U.S.'s with 'American' for variation
    This was actually quite intentional; using "American" to refer to the USA is a colloquialism that's generally okay when referring to regions outside the americas, but in regions where "America" has many meanings, I'd rather not
  • "Bush, now US vice president" you use U.S. everywhere else
    Fixed.
  • " These payments included $76,039" a year or a one-time thing?
    Total, at least according to the source; clarified
  • " At Noriega's trial in 1991–1992, the U.S. government stipulated that it had paid $322,000 to Noriega." I'd split the paragraph here to avoid confusion that the US paid him that for the Iran-Contra affair unless they did-- is there any more detail about his 'role' in the affair?
    There's some, but Dinges describes it as being unconfirmed. That he was reported as playing a role is fact, though, so I've stuck with that.
  • " with 100,000 people, approximately 25% of the population of Panama City, marching in protest on June 26, 1987" any data on protesters outside of the city, and is there a location you can add to where the protest was?
    I'm afraid the English sources do not say. I may be able to find some material if I dug through Spanish newspaper archives, but that seems a little above and beyond due diligence for a detail such as this.
  • "selling intelligence to the Cuban government of Fidel Castro" I thought the CIA was already aware of him selling this intel?
    The CIA yes, the general public not so much; Hersh's report was public.

That's through De facto leader. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After lengthy and inconclusive talks, the negotiations collapsed a few months later" I think this would be expressed smoother by " Negotiations collapsed after several months of lengthy and inconclusive talks"
    Done
  • "In a December 16 incident," was this one of the three incidents? If so, why do the other two not merit a mention
    The other two incidents are mentioned by Bush in his speech, but aren't given coverage by secondary sources. I'm a little hesitant to even mention them.
  • link US Attorney General?
    Done.
  • " Having threatened to flee to the countryside and lead guerrilla warfare if not given refuge, he instead turned over the majority of his weapons, and requested sanctuary" reads oddly to me. 1st, he demands refuge, 2nd, he turns in his weapons and 3rd begs for refuge?
    I agree it reads oddly, but that's because it's bloody odd behavior...

That's through the US invasion Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which the Miami grand jury had returned two years earlier." this is your first time mentioning Miami in the body in the relation to a court...
    It's the "US Court" mentioned above; now clarified.
  • " Noriega was reported to have undergone a full conversion" conversion from what?
    Catholicism. Added.
  • "In 1999, the Panamanian government had sought the extradition" I'd add " from the U.S." since we were just talking about france, an unaware reader might forget.
    Added.
  • " Santo Tomas hospital" you previously call it " Hospital Santo Tomás"
    Fixed

That's prosecution and death sections, last two to come in a bit-- Real life calls. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A 2017 obituary stated " maybe 'a 2017 obituary published in the BBC' or something similar?
    Added
  • "A reviewer wrote that "the hair-raising career " could use the name and publication
    Added
  • "oriega is mentioned in season 1 episode 5 of the National Geographic documentary Dictators Rulebook" is this really worth a mention?
    Probably not. Drive-by editors love to drop in popular culture mentions that secondary sources ignore.
  • I'd expect at least a mention of Sarah York in the body, given that her whole articles notability hinges on the fact that she was a pen-pal with Noriega
    I'm not certain that follows; she's notable for that one thing; he was essentially a head of state for many years; but okay. added.
  • Cite #11 wants a publication date
    Done
  • cite 86 has the error "Cite journal requires |journal= (help)"
    Fixed, I think? Someone monkeyed with the scripts I used to use to highlight ref errors, and I can't seem to spot them any more, despite trying a fix...
  • What makes IMDB (cite 131) a reliable source?
    Well, the source is the film; imdb was supplied for convenience, I suppose. I've edited the url to go a page more useful for someone looking for the film, but the url isn't going to be the source, it's the film itself.
  • I'm slightly concerned at how many further reading books there are, but the article seems comprehensive enough to me
    Well, if you look through the entries, you'll see they're very detailed explorations of specific issues that are touched on in this article but cannot really be examined in detail here (we're at ~9k words already...) such as the legal case, and the history of cocaine.

That's it from me, really great article and just a fascinating topic. Please ping me once you've responded to all-- it will make me far more likely to remember to come back. Apologies if this review is a bit much, I got excited when reading through! Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I think that's everything. Your review certainly gave me a lot of work to do, but I do appreciate the attention to detail; you've really helped tighten the prose. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Woody

edit

A good read with a few comments from me:

  • "who at one point expressed a desire for a divorce, though she changed her mind later." This seems a bit woolly/vague to me. Are there any specifics?
    Kempe has a very colorful story about this, but it's very detail makes it suspect, and I'd rather stick to the bare bones
    Should it be in there at all if it is suspect? I'm not sure it adds much.
    I think it's the appropriate level of detail; we don't need three pages of how Sieiro's brother and Noriega had a Mexican standoff in a bar after the brother found out Noriega had been making his sister sad, but his unfaithfulness, and her evident frustration, seem worth documenting, and if those are false then Kempe is completely making stuff up, rather than simply relying on a single interview, which would explain the rest.
  • "Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was the illegitimate son of his father and his father's domestic worker, whose family name was Moreno." Same here as well as seeming a bit tabloidy. This is essentially gossip. You could make it more specific ie Kempe and Galvan have stated...etc
    This isn't actually gossip; that Noriega's mother was the domestic worker is accepted; the uncertainty is over whether his parents were married, I think, with some sources (Galvan and Kempe) stating they were not, and others (Dinges) saying that it's uncertain. I've added a snippet from Dinges about this.
    I don't like the phrase "authors and journalists" here, to me they appear to be weasel words: I would state which authors and journalists.
    I've reworded slightly; I don't like naming the authors every time, as it makes the text less accessible to the lay person (I think) and also adds length
  • "Torrijos helped Noriega avoid legal trouble after a prostitute accused Noriega of beating and raping her." I think such a claim needs a direct citation. (I would probably just move the next citation to here and leave the next sentence being cited by the one at the end of the para.
    Done.
  • "Several prisoners said that they had been tortured; others stated they had been raped in prison" So what? Do the sources link this to Noriega. If not, why is it relevant to Noriega? If they do, we need to state that.
    It happened under his command, and he was held responsible, as the next sentence says.
    The next sentence says "The brutality of Noriega's activities" This could just be me but it could relate to something else other than this immediate incident. Was he suspended solely for his treatment of these specific prisoners or was it more general?
    It was the entire "suppress the opposition" episode; I've reworded to clarify
  • "in just a year and a half," 18 months would be more concise.
    Done.
  • "During his flight Noriega reportedly took shelter with several supportive politicians, including Balbina Herrera, the mayor of San Miguelito.[137] The last two days of his flight were spent partly with his ally Jorge Krupnick." Who reported it? The second sentence here is redundant without explanation. Who is Jorge Krupnick?
    Krupnick isn't very well known. Kempe describes him as an arms dealer, which I've added.
  • "Psychological warfare specialists were brought in to attempt to dislodge Noriega, including blaring rock music, and turning a nearby field into a helicopter landing zone." Psychological warfare specialists turned a field into a helicopter landing zone?
    I've added some detail here; the specialists seem to have stuck to the music, but the landing zone was actually built, presumably to make it even noisier.

That's about it from me. Woody (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Woody: Thanks for the review; I think I've addressed everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good for A-Class and is a good read. It certainly enlightened me on a period I didn't know much about. I've responded to a couple of your comments but they don't preclude it passing. Woody (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've made a couple further tweaks. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 26 July 2020 (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 - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of the Aegates

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

Toolbox


The battle that finally drove Carthage to sue for peace and end the First Punic war after 23 years. Fresh from GAN it welcomes any and all suggestions for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit

Good range of sources used. Everything looks like a RS to me. No source checks done. buidhe 03:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments
Thanks for picking this up Buidhe. you never seem to stop. The building on the left is an opera house built in 1741. I believe the other buildings to be of similar age, but cannot find anything to prove it. So I have cropped as you suggested. Interestingly, while searching I discovered that the same, uncropped, image is used in this article in the Italian Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Gog, just a few minor questions/suggestions...

  • First Punic War - wlinked twice in first para of lede
Fixed.
  • include a now lost manual - hyphen?
Done.
  • debated over the past 150 years, - 150 will age, not sure how to fix
It's Wikipedia. It's good for a decade or so, and by then some Wikignome will tweak it.
  • classicist Adrian Goldsworthy - wlink?
Done.
Done.
  • Coates has suggested that - remove has?
Done.
  • blades weighing up to 270 kilograms - each or collectively?
Ah. Clarified that each ship had one ram, singular.
  • western Mediterranean v. Western Mediterranean
Fixed.
  • When Hamilcar Barca [note 3] took - remove space before note
Done.
  • Aegates Islands, which lie 15–40 kilometres (9–25 mi) to the east of Sicily - west?
Indeed. Done.
  • approach to Lilybaeum with earth and timber camps and walls and now made repeated - needs an Oxford comma (after walls)?
It does, it does.
  • the Senate v. the senate
Fixed
  • Battles of Agrigentum - wlink? (Ecnomus already wlinked)
Done.
  • wait for a following wind - better link? Following sea ("since the wind direction is generally the same as the sea direction")
The GAN reviewer preferred a Wiktionary link, but I'm with you. Done
  • join the actual battle because of injuries suffered in an earlier engagement, so in the actual battle the ships - remove an "actual"?
Done.
  • caption: Remains of the Temple of Juturna at Largo di Torre Argentina, built by Gaius Lutatius Catulus to celebrate his victory. - wlink Temple of Juturna (currently a redirect but may have article one day)
Done.
  • Elements of this building survived to the present day. - just 'survive'?
Done.
  • would run out of supplies and request terms - what does request terms mean in this context?
I have linked it to Suing for peace.
  • his subordinate commander Gesco - is not Hannibal Gisco? If not, maybe add (Gisco) after name per File:Aegades241a.png
I am a little confused. Hannibal Gisco died 17 years before the Battle of the Aegates. (Crucified by his own men!)
  • Hanno, son of Hannibal is only linked in ibox not prose
Apologies. It is the infobox which is wrong. I inherited it and forgot to check the link.
  • The Treaty of Lutatius was signed - add year?
I have gone with "The Treaty of Lutatius was signed in the same year as the Battle of the Aegates and ..."
  • Roman-built vessels had been captured by the Cartaginians - typo h
Fixed.
  • Polybius' v. Polybius's
Standardised. Except in the quote.
  • citation 73 Smith 1870, pp. 135, 1358. - 2nd page no. 138?
Indeed.
  • off Hiera in early March 241 BC.[75][66] - ref order
Done. I assume that you are aware that there is no Wiki policy requiring or even suggesting this?
Well, well, you assume correctly... and I had not! They 'look' better though so I'll prob still mention but not mind if ignored:)
  • supplemented from Hamilcar's soldiers.[81][80] - ref order
Done.
  • captured along with up to 10,000 men.[82][66] - ref order
Done.
  • warships involved being quinqueremes.[100][92] - ref order
Done.
  • The Ship Classes of the Egadi Rams and Polybius’ Account of the First Punic War - straighten curly apostrophe
Done.
  • caption: Carthage's foothold in western Sicily, 248–241, in - add BC?
Done.

That's it from me, regards JennyOz (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, and thank you very much. You are remarkably good. Is there any chance of getting you on a permanent retainer to review my ACR and FAC nominations? Your points above all responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, thanks for tweaks. Retainer, you say? Your flattery has earned you a dozen! I am ready to support though have not accessed any sources. Thanks for another interesting read. JennyOz (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

edit

Because I'm a fan of Romans and their timeline, I cannot wait to review this article. However I'll wait until Jenny's comments are addressed here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage A circa template is needed here and link Greek to Ancient Greece.
Done.
  • Carthaginian written records were destroyed along with their city Maybe replace city with capital. Because there were probably more Carthaginian cities build during their reign.
Done.
  • is based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin and re-pipe Greek to Ancient Greek.
Why? Surely either both or neither. (If I had to pick one, I would guess that Latin is less well known.)
  • Isn't Latin way more popular than you might think? Isn't Latin the language of the Catholic Church, archaeology, biology, medical stuff and at animals too. we also use Latin letters, words and royals still use their numbers in their names and sometimes Western names are from the Roman too. I do not think Latin should be linked if we all know these came from the Romans and their language. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Writing as someone who studied Latin at school, I had always thought it less well known by the general public than Klingon or Saterlandic. I imagine that an average Wikipedia consulter would assume that the Romans spoke Roman, or Romanish. Notwithstanding, done.
  • into account the later histories of Diodorus and Dio Cassius --> "into account the later histories of Diodorus Siculus and Dio Cassius"
Done.
  • "Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts".[note 2][9] Switch the note and the citation.
Why?
  • Your FA-class Battle of Bergerac uses note after the citation but your other FA Gascon campaign of 1345 uses it before the citation?
There is no Wikipedia policy for editor consistency between articles. I really don't mind - I was hoping that you would point us towards a policy or guideline. There are quite a few thinks that editors can do differently in each separate article, so long as they are consistent within them. However, now flipped.
  • Since 2010 a number of artefacts have been recovered from the battle site, and their analysis and the recovery of further items are ongoing Okay first of all are warship rams also described as artefacts? If they are then you should change 2010 to 2004 because that's the year they found the first warship ram.
Yes.
The first artefact was recovered in 2010.
  • How about the add "The first warship ram was founded in 2004"? If you need a source I will give you one this evening.
I think that you are referring to what is mentioned at the top of page 11 of this. A ram was seized from a private collection in 2004. "It was reportedly collected" ... Ie, it is not actually known from when or even from where it was dredged. If you have a source which says something different, I would be keen to see it. Cheers.

I just started my moves here the rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was a galley, c. 45 metres (150 ft) long, c. 5 metres (16 ft) wide at water level} My source says it's 8 m wide in general. p. 24
Whereabouts? The article specifies "at water level". And the source is a specialist one - "The Naval Architecture and Oar Systems of Ancient Galleys" by the naval architect who designed the only modern replica of a galley.
  • The galley expert John Coates suggested that they could maintain 7 knots (8 mph; 13 km/h) for extended periods My source says the top speed was 8 knots. p. 24 (and was second time mentioned in p. 26)
Does your source specify "for extended periods"? (Coates agrees that the maximum speed is higher, but that - obviously - it can't be sustained.)
  • My source tells me that other galleys were involved too. They were maximum 30 m wide and 4.5 m long and archaeologists think they were a type of trireme. p. 27
I would be interested in more details. This may be a reference the sentence in the article "Based on the dimensions of the recovered rams, the archaeologists who have studied them believe that they all came from triremes, contrary to Polybius's account of all of the warships involved being quinqueremes."
  • It's possible that it came from Gardiner's book "The Age of the Galley" however it's relative old so I'm not sure there is an updated version of this information. I do not have the source so I'm not sure which page this is kind of information is in.
  • A quinquereme carried a crew of 300: 280 oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers; I got 280 oarsmen and 70 others in my source. p. 24
My sources, which I have included, give 340, which could be increased at need up to 420: "A quinquereme carried a crew of 300: 280 oarsmen and 20 deck crew and officers;[1] it would also normally carry a complement of 40 marines;[2] if battle was thought to be imminent this would be increased to as many as 120.[3][4]" Goldsworthy also gives 40 marines for a total crew of 340.
  • Maybe add these pieces of information?
  • I've used Ramaker, Ernie (2018) "Historia: De Grootste Historische Gebeurtenissen [Historia: The Greatest Historical events] (Dutch) Bonnier Publications International AS, Amsterdam, the Netherlands number: 6, ISSN: 2535-3438 Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind WP:NONENG: " ... English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones ... "
  • @Gog the Mild: I do, I do but my source is linked to Goldsworthy book called "Carthago" from 2010 (or 2008, I saw some sources say that) which means that his own book from 2006 can have outdated information. My source is also linked to R. Gardiner's book "The Age of the Galley" from 2004 (or 2000); these sources are written in English which would change the whole game here. :) Also it doesn't mention which page numbers in those books. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great stuff CPA-5. See what you think of my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: I'm not trying to be awkward, but you haven't answered the questions above which I need to come back to you. I have high lighted them in green. And it is difficult to discuss your sources when you are citing entire books, and not even specific editions. Carthago is a Dutch language book, first published in 2008 and is a translation of Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage : the Punic Wars 265-146 BC which I use extensively. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Largely because of the Romans' use of the corvus Link corvus.
Already linked, two paragraphs above.
  • The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, to lose another 150 ships to a storm in 253 BC --> "The Romans rapidly rebuilt their fleet, to lose another 150 ships to another storm in 253 BC"?
Done.
  • base on Sicily of Lilybaeum with 200 ships What kinda ships?
I have changed to "200 warships".
  • at the expense of the Libyans and the Numidians Don't understand this one; you're linking Libyans to Berbers but the Numidians were also Berbers?
Good point. They are indeed. Tweaked. Does "at the expense of the Libyans, especially the Numidians" make more sense?
  • Hanno the Great had been in charge of operations Which Hanno, 'cause there were three Hanno the Greats?
There were, there were. Linked more precisely.
  • either 10,000 or 4,000 according to different ancient sources Maybe switch the big and the small numbers?
Good thinking. Done.
  • The Carthaginian fleet was led by a commander named Hanno Hanno who?
Gah! Added.
  • these would be supplemented from Hamilcar's soldiers.[80][81][80] Two of the same citations.
Oops.
  • were captured along with up to 10,000 men.[66][82][66] Same as above.
Strange. Fixed.
  • Elements of this building survive to the present day Missing a hyphen here.
Inserted.
  • The Carthaginian Senate was reluctant to allocate the resources necessary Maybe link its Senate?
If there were an article on it, I would, It is not even listed as a deceased senate at the bottom of senate. I could link to senate or red link to Carthaginian Senate if you would prefer?
  • which he left up to his subordinate commander Gesco No link for Gesco?
  Just a couple of hours ago I added create an article for him some day to my to do list. I have red linked him.
  • I don't understand why this article uses kg in bigger numbers like 82,000 or 52,000? And also by MOS:UNITNAMES long tons should be written fully.
There is a reason. Possibly a bit personal preference, Can we leave the explanation to the FAC? LT now long tons.
  • Unlink Latin in the notes.
Done.
  • The Carthaginians were commanded by Hanno Which Hanno in the lead?
Fixed.

That's it I believe well if I missed something it'll come back in the FAC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, I left a lot of faults in that. Thanks.
You probably will pick up more at FAC. It's strange how no matter how closely you study something, if you leave it for a while new flaws jump out at you.
@CPA-5: Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

edit

@Buidhe, JennyOz, and CPA-5: Many thanks for your work on this. I am impressed by your dedication and depressed at how many flaws you have been able to find in my work. Unfortunately, after six weeks this nomination has only attracted one support. This would not matter, except that I have a vacant slot at FAC and this article, thanks to the work you have put into it, is in my opinion now ready for FAC. So I am closing down the ACR in order to nominate it for FAC. Thanks again for helping to bring it up to this standard, and perhaps I will see you at FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2020 (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 - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Hull (1642)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Siege of Hull (1642) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The manoeuvrings between King Charles I and Parliament, each attempting to gain control of the large magazine housed in Hull, was the first significant military escalation in the build-up to the First English Civil War. There was little in the way of actual fighting, but Parliament's success was suggested by one historian to have been pivotal for the first year of the war, as it allowed the Parliamentarian army to be much better equipped than their Royalist opponents. As always, all input appreciated. Harrias talk 11:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free and correctly licensed. buidhe 15:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
Review by Robinvp11; Overall
  • The longer an article is, the less likely people are to read it; I do something similar for a living, and that means constantly removing stuff interesting to me but not to my audience. Whenever I do a review, I try to think as a reader because I want people to benefit from the work you've put in.
  • General comments; too detailed in some areas eg the entire section 'Charles demands entry' could be covered in six lines, not enough in others. 'Background' is far too short eg its impossible to understand its significance without some details on the fact most of the North wanted to stay neutral etc. When it appears in the Aftermath, its like 'What?'
  • The siege itself wasn't really a siege - no positions were dug, they just shut the gates. So its unbalanced.
    • Taken together, the sections on Entry and Siege contain a lot of repetition; most of the stuff about the defences is already covered in 1.1 Hull.
    • The siege is more relevant in marking a point in the war, rather than as a military action; its loss crippled the Royalist ability to support their war effort in the North. That's not clear and its what I mean by 'unbalanced'.
    • Words cost; I'm banging on about this :), but Wikipedia is an online resource - and research shows the longer an article is, the less likely people are to read it.Robinvp11 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strategic importance of Hull is not clear; the fact it was the second largest town in Yorkshire is less significant than where it sat on the shipping routes, particularly since the Royalists controlled the other major port, Newcastle. The reason it had the largest arsenal was because of that. Without London or Hull, or most of East Anglia, the Royalists could not easily import war material from the Continent. A Map would really, really help (I've put it in, feel free to remove)
  • The article says nothing about the conflicting Militia Ordinance and Commissions of Array, which essentially put people on the spot re loyalty.
  • Specific points
  • Unlike most of Yorkshire, which had a mix of MPs favouring Parliament or the King, Hull and the surrounding East Riding of Yorkshire had returned exclusively Parliament-favouring members. The area was also religiously opposed to the King, having a strong Puritan population. Having done a lot of articles on English politics and religion in the 17th century, I'd question both statements, because the position was far more complex than that. Puritan did not mean opposition to the King, but his policies, plus the Presbyterian v Independent split (like Cromwell) led to the Second War. I'd also challenge that description of Hull MPs. It suggests a monolithic Parliamentary fortress, but (as you suggest further down), there were a number of Royalist plots within the town.
  • Within Hull itself, MPs were typically chosen for their willingness to stand-up for the town, rather than any underlying political or religious beliefs, as the town's corporation was interested in maintaining its own interests in the town without external influence. I don't think that's unusual.
  • Might be worth pointing out the arms stored in Hull's magazine had been purchased with compulsory donations from the locals, so they weren't that keen on shipping them to London either.
  • ... He was taken to Hull, where he met with Hotham and admitted his true identity. Digby tried to persuade Hotham to surrender Hull to the King. The two agreed that if the King approached the town with a sufficient force, then Hotham could make a show of resisting, before honourably surrendering the town. This seems to state it as a fact when its provenance is dubious - Digby was a notoriously unreliable witness.
  • Charles rode towards Hull himself. He sent a small retinue ahead, consisting of his eight-year-old son—the Duke of York (later King James II of England)—and his nephew—the deposed Elector Palatine Charles Louis—along with some members of the nobility and fifty men. Grammar and too wordy? Too many dashes (my OCD kicking in) eg Charles set out for Hull, sending a small retinue ahead, which included his eight-year-old son, James and nephew Charles Louis, the deposed Elector Palatine.
  • and a large army from the local trained bands Really? which ones? Per Trevor Royle, at Nottingham, Charles had 1,500 horse and 1,000 infantry, described by Clarendon as the 'scum of England'.
  • That was at Nottingham; the Yorkshire trained bands (much like the Cornish) were happy to fight within the county boundaries, but were reluctant to travel beyond. That said, Manganiello has a tendency to conflate engagements; I wonder if he was referring to the army Charles brought the second time he visited. I'll look into this. Harrias talk 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This declaration from Parliament brought Hotham to national attention; as was typical during the civil war, Parliament celebrated its victory over the King by publishing propaganda. This seems to suggest this was a Parliamentary tactic, when it was used by both sides.
  • Can we have a Map of England, showing some of these places? They're easy to do and are really helpful. I've put one in :)
  • Section on Siege; for me, far too long.
  • In September 1642, Ferdinando Fairfax, Lord Fairfax signed a non-aggression pact with local Royalists in an attempt to maintain peace in Yorkshire. Hotham disagreed with the move, and after making strong declarations against the pact, he broke it by attacking Selby and Cawood Castle in early October, after which the Royalists retaliated by attacking Fairfax's headquarters in Bradford.[45] Hotham's doubts about defying the King remained: fuelled by his disagreements with Fairfax, Hotham tried to negotiation a defection with the Earl of Newcastle. I think I see where you're going, but it doesn't make sense as written ie Hotham disagrees with a neutrality pact, but then has doubts about fighting Charles.Robinvp11 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review Robinvp11; you've given me plenty to think about. I was very much learning as I went with the local situation in Hull, and it's obviously something that I need to look into a bit more. There are a few of the individual points that seem relatively simple, but by and large I would rather address the more significant issues first, as these are likely to affect some of the others anyway. Harrias talk 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not suggesting this is the only approach :) but my history tutor (and the Army) taught me to ask "Why are we fighting here, for this?" Its often a lot more interesting (for me) than the operations. Seems obvious, but until the 19th century and railways, Hull and Newcastle were closer to London than they are today (because bulk transport was via water). So campaigns follow the same patterns.
Have a look at my article on Battle of Jankau - just to show what I mean.
The BCW Project on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms are really good in providing detail and overview - plus, they're designed for a similar audience so worth a look :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I would like to withdraw this nomination. Robinvp11 has highlighted that the balance of the article is off, and I want to make sure that I take the time to address this properly, rather than try and rush a solution during an open review. Robinvp11, thanks again for your review; I might ping you for some input once I've done some work on this, prior to re-nominating if that's okay? Harrias talk 21:00, 9 March 2020 (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 - CPA-5 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Angata

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Angata was a fierce Rapa Nui leader who led her people in 1914 revolt against the Scottish owned Chilean Williamson-Balfour Company on Easter Island. Love to recognize this forgotten indigenous leader of an often forgotten people. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

±====Oppose from Harrias====

  • In general the prose doesn't flow very well, instead giving the impression of a series of bullet point statements that just happen to be laid out in paragraphs. I would suggest going through the whole thing and just working the prose together a little better.
  • One consequence of this is that reading the article it often feels like we are being presented with a string of facts, but often without much context. For example, was there a particular reason they travelled to Mangareva in 1871?
  • In contrast, other parts seem to go into excessive detail on things not directly related to Angata, such as the final paragraph of the Return to Easter Island section.

Some specifics:

  • Prior to the missionaries visiting, what religion was practised?
  • "..despite Angata and Pakomio claiming.." Should be "Pakomīo".
  • "It has been argued that he was elected mainly because of his good looks, but a significant part of his success was also due Angata's strong influence with the people." You need to define who "he" is at the start of this sentence, as the last "he" mentioned was Atamu Tekena.
  • "In 1914, Angata had a prophetic vision that Merlet was dead." All we can say is that she claimed to have a prophetic vision.
  • "This inspired her to lead an unsuccessful rebellion against the company.." Calling it unsuccessful before giving the details seems the wrong way around.
  • "..arrested four of the ringleaders.." Who? Was Angata one of them?
  • "None of the natives were punished, and three of the imprisoned leaders were released but her son-in-law Daniera was deported from the island." Although I figure that it is safe to assume that it is Angata, "her" is undefined here.
  • The fourth paragraph of 1914 rebellion, "Despite these changes..." doesn't appear to have anything to do with Angata.

In my opinion, this article is a fair way short of the A-class criteria as it stands. I have highlighted a few of the specific issues, but there are more besides, and significant work needs to be made on the prose. Harrias talk 13:32, 6 February 2020 (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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Manuel Noriega

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk)

Manuel Noriega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Manuel Noriega was a military strongman in Panama for a while, and a large player in Central American politics of the time. This is my second nomination of this article; the first nomination received some helpful comments on the sources (from Buidhe) and content (from Peacemaker67), but I found myself without the time to address their comments, and asked the nomination to be withdrawn. I have done my best to address their comments before renominating this; where I have not, it's usually because the sources do not provide the necessary information. Before that, the article underwent a thorough GA review from Midnightblueowl. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit

Most of my concerns from the prior review were addressed but the Gilboa article is 23 pages long and really needs page numbers for verifiability. There is a discussion ongoing on WT:FAC which suggests that for verifiability around 10 pages or less may be acceptable but not for longer papers.

Okay, fair enough. I'll work on this when I get back online in some hours. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gilboa says that "on and off the CIA payroll as early as 1971", not that "The CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971." It does not support the previous sentence either as far as I can tell.
    Due apologies; the bit about previous payments, and the regularization, are both supported by Dinges 49-52, which I had cited in the previously nominated version; I guess the citation got lost in the reorganization. I have replaced it. I have also reorganized the section a tiny bit to make it clear that the specific agency making previous payments is unknown.
  • Gilboa says that Secretary of State attended Barletta's inauguration and that it recognized the flaws in the election. But I can't tell if it supports the second part of the sentence: "The U.S. accepted Barletta's election, and signaled a willingness to cooperate with him, despite recognizing the flaws in the election process." Where is cooperation mentioned?
    Cooperation between Barletta's government and the US is discussed extensively in Dinges 198-199, which is the other source cited there; specifically, he discusses state department papers suggested Barletta would be an important ally; the meeting between Barletta and Secretary of State Shultz, in which Shultz asked for Barletta's diplomatic assistance; and describes the outcome of this meeting as a "quid-pro-quo".
  • "Noriega's rule of Panama has frequently been described as a dictatorship," I was unable to verify this because a search for "dictatorship" in Gilboa did not return results. Is this just his own opinion or is he reporting that it is a common opinion? buidhe 04:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gilboa is fairly explicit in describing Noriega as a dictator; there's "Despite the end of the cold war, dictators such as Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Serbian leaders Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic will continue to exist and to challenge the international order" on the first page, for instance, and several other equivalent statements. You are correct in suggesting more citations here would be helpful, though. I have added three others; any number more are available, and it's quite evident that it reflects scholarly consensus.
      • For "frequently been described as a dictatorship" you really need a secondary source reporting that it's a commonly held opinion. I don't doubt it, but it does have to be verifiable. Otherwise, all that you can do is say is something to the effect of "Gilboa, Galván, Kempe, Koster & Sánchez describe Noriega as a dictator" (each is WP:PRIMARY for the opinion held by the author). See WP:RS/AC.
        • @Buidhe: I appreciate that that's what our policy says, but when you move out of the anglosphere, the number of people writing syntheses declines drastically; I'm unaware of a literature review related to Norieaga. In this case, if a source does not call Noriega a dictator it will call him an authoritarian ruler or a strongman, and being unable to convey that seems problematic (I don't imagine you want me to list three dozen historians using these descriptors). In large part that's because, unlike some other leaders whose legacy is contested, Noriega's isn't. I can think of a couple of alternatives to the current wording; 1) I could cite an encyclopedia, which is generally considered a tertiary source, but doesn't seem to be mentioned as such at WP:RS/AC; 2) I could stick to the present sources, and write something like "Historians studying Noriega's rule in Panama, including [...], have referred to him as a dictator." 3) I could use the sources I've cited (and several dozen others) for the statement "Noriega was a dictator [refs] and a strongman[refs]". I didn't do 3) because qualifying it seemed more circumspect than stating it baldly, but the sources would actually explictly support (3). (2) seems like us being wishy-washy because scholars don't bother analyzing a question when the answer is widely accepted. How would you like to proceed here? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Buidhe: I've addressed your page range concern above; also, I really would appreciate more discussion of the question here. A fourth option, to add to those above, would be to say "Noriega has been described as a dictator[refs], strongman[refs], and authoritarian ruler[refs]. I would have the same concern as with (2) above, but it's an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think option 4 is probably best, although I would not object to 3. Note that "Generally described as a military dictatorship" in the lead also should be changed to match the body. Page ranges are OK now, thanks. buidhe 02:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I may be too close to this, as I've already reviewed earlier this year in some detail, and some points I raised have not been addressed:

@Peacemaker67: I'm not sure you are too close to this, given that I asked for a procedural close last time, and it's not as though we had a conflict over your comments. I did make an effort to address your comments from that review in the interim. I'm happy to work through any comments I missed, or anything additional that crops up; I do want to note though, that in most cases where I did not act on your comments, it's because the relevant information doesn't exist in the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest expanding the infobox with relevant parameters such as nickname, criminal_charges and criminal_penalty
    Is it a deal-breaker if I don't? The nickname was fairly clearly a derogatory term, obviously not used in his presence; the charges, and penalties, are extensive; in the US, alone, he was charged with ten crimes, and convicted of eight of them. It seems a bit much for the infobox.
  • is anything available on the foreign or domestic awards he received other than the French LoH?
    Afraid not. I dug a fair bit.
  • when mentioning Arias for the first time, include that he was a candidate of the Panameñista Party
    Added, though the party was called something else at the time, so rephrased a little.
  • when mentioning Chiari, mention that he was from the National Liberal Party
    Added.

Down to Rise to power. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • do we known when Noriega was promoted to captain?
    We do not. I have dug fairly deep. I suspect that to find this information one would need to go through stacks of paperwork belonging to the Panamanian military.
  • "Bush, now US Vvice Ppresident"
    Fixed.
  • what was the reason for deleting the information about BCCI, Bush and the Dukakis campaign statement?
    As Buidhe pointed out in their source review, that needed a better source than the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis was running against Bush, and had an incentive to show him in a bad light. I tried to see if independent sources had given it any weight, but found no evidence for it. For the record, the material predated my involvement with the article, but I should have caught it regardless.
  • "and announced his intent to return to Panama to oppose him" but we have already learned he returned to Panama in 1981? The timeline here isn't clear, did Spadafora return to Panama, leave and come back? If so, when was he killed?
    I can see why this is confusing, but to me it simply reflects the fact that a) travel between the small central american countries was commonplace, and b) the writers are probably using that phrasing because Spadafora may not have been in Panama when he made the 1985 announcement. However, it's the substance of the announcement that matters, so I'm just dropping the "return" piece of that; we simply do not have a detailed account of Spadafora's movements over four years. It's a good guess that he left the country a dozen or more times. In the same vein, there's little I can do about the travel to Costa Rica; we know he was returning when murdered, but have no idea where else he had been and for how long.
  • suggest "His decapitated body was later found wrapped in a United States Postal Service mail bag and showing signs of brutal torture."
    Done.
  • "While Noriega was out of the country"? Where was he?
    Dinges doesn't say. I've rephrased to make it clear it was his absence that mattered, and that it's not a reference to previous travel
  • Spadafora was murded
    Fixed.

Down to 1989 election. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "other intelligence services"? Cuba, but any others?
    I saw this comment earlier, but I don't quite see the issue; it could mean multiple countries, but also multiple agencies, or really "anything besides the CIA".
  • Defense Forces→PDF
    Done.
  • add a main template linking to United States invasion of Panama at the top of the Invasion section
    It's already at the top of the section; does it need to be over the subsection too?
  • the number of US casualties during the invasion is clearly stated as 23 killed and more than 300 wounded in the NYT per [7], and the LA Times said 23 killed and 324 wounded per [8]. I reckon you should just go with the LA Times figures, and perhaps include the number of friendly fire casualties from that article as well.
    Not too happy scrubbing the scholarly source, but the 23 figure is repeated everywhere and the 60 is not, so okay.
  • Panama city→Panama City
    Done.
  • With regards to the local civilian casualties, Physicians for Human Rights said that there was no evidence of several thousand civilian deaths. See the NYT article [9]
    We've already added a bunch of lower death tolls, and I think the higher number comes from enough people that it needs mentioned...
  • link land mine
  • The Guardian says his nickname was due to his heavily pockmarked features as the result of a childhood illness, per [10].
    Added.

That's the redux of my first ACR, I'll reread when you're finished with the above and see if anything else jumps out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks; I've replied. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peacemaker67, not to be a bother, but I was wondering if there were other concerns you had, and if not, whether you would consider supporting promotion? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, will look it over again in the next day or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Not to be a bother, just another gentle nudge...also wondering if you have any thoughts on the lack of attention here. I've been a bit remiss with respect to reviewing myself, admittedly. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor additional points:

Apologies for having missed this. Addressing now. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noriega himself has provided varying dates of birth
    Done.
  • "he was given a [[officer (armed forces)|commissioned]] as a second lieutenant"
    Done.
  • for 1968 Panamanian Ppresidential election, link 1968 Panamanian general election
    Done.
  • Arias was a member of the National Revolutionary Party that represented the National Revolutionary Party.?
    Should have been "represented the Panamenista movement", with the link going to the movement rather than the party.
  • The sitting Ppresident,
    Done.
  • suggest "he continued to pass intelligence about the plantation workers' activities to the U.S. during this period."
    This, I think, I don't like; the continuation is in passing intelligence, not with respect to plantation workers specifically.
  • suggest "Later, Noriega maintained a close relationship"
    Done.
  • I don't get the sense of "partly due to the latter's Panamanian outpost." what is "the latter"? Panama or the School?
    Fixed; the school had an outpost in Panama.
  • Torrijos' "dirty work" possessive
    Done.
  • U.S. pPresident Richard Nixon
    Done.
  • US$100,000 per MOS:CURRENCY
    Done.
  • director of Central Intelligence is linked to the comedy film, you've already introduced CIA, use that
    Well, the position was Director of Central Intelligence; I've used that link instead (incidentally, before I saw your comment...)
  • stand for Ppresident
    Done
  • link nationalism in the lead and body?
    Done
  • link Defense Intelligence Agency
    Done
  • an ally of Torrijos
    Done
  • Panama Canal Zone, Panameñista Party, Oliver North, Psychological warfare, and cocaine are duplinked in the body
    Removed four of those; I'm going to invoke IAR with respect to the canal zone, because I think the second link is in a helpful place.
  • First Lieutenant Robert Paz
    Done
  • "A total of 23 U.S. soldiers" you shouldn't start sentences with arabic numerals. Alternatively "Twenty-three U.S. soldiers"
    Done
  • link CBS
    Done
  • add (DEA) when Drug Enforcement Administration is introduced
    Done
  • In the game, the fictional character Frank Woods refers to Noriega as "Old Pineapple Face", a nickname originally applied to the President by Panamanians as this has now been added earlier
    Done

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: All done now; apologies for not noticing this set of comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is in great shape, Vanamonde. Very happy to support. I've noticed over the years that politico-military leaders (like Roman Emperors, Muslim caliphs etc) can struggle to attract enough attention at Milhist ACR. Let's see if my comment on the Milhist talk page attracts any more reviewers, but as far as I am concerned, this is a potential FAC candidate as it stands now, and if we have to archive it that shouldn't dissuade you from taking it to FAC. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, and I genuinely appreciate the thorough review. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Eddie891

edit

Will comment shortly. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was the de facto ruler of Panama" worth piping to List of heads of state of Panama?
    Done.
  • You don't seem to mention "February 11, 1934" as his DOB in the body, despite mentioning it definitively in both the lede and the infobox. Suggest adding "February 11" in the body, and maybe a note for infobox and lede about the uncertainty of his birth.
    I've added a note to the lead and infobox, and clarified in the body. It's a funny situation, wherein the Feb 11 remains consistent, but the year does not.
  • "has been variously described as a cook or a laundress" I'd say "has been variously described as a cook and a laundress" or "was a cook or a laundress", though I'm not sure about the linguistic nuance here.
    Gone with the first.
  • "Neither had a lengthy presence in his life:" Not a fan of how this sounds, especially that you don't really mention what happened to his father, suggest removing it and rephrasing the next two sentences to "His mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child and Noriega was brought up by a godmother in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén." or "His mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child. As a result, Noriega was brought up by a godmother in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén" or something like that...
    Reworded.
  • I'd link domestic worker because it seems like a particularly relevant topic in its context
    Done
  • "Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was in fact " I'd cut "in fact"
    Done
  • "and later at the Instituto Nacional" worth a red-link (or perhaps there's a blue one)?
    added.
  • " He was described as an "oddly serious child,"" Ideally there'd be attribution for this quote, who described him that way?
    It's Frederick Kempe, the journalist who wrote the cited source. I don't know that it's a contentious enough passage to name the source, though...
  • "by his punctilious godmother" I'd consider punctilious a rather unknown term, certainly less known than 'espouse' (the latter is linked in the lede) and perhaps worth a wikt link. However, is it really needed at all?
    Not necessarily...outlooks differ on how plain encyclopedic prose ought to be, but I'm not wedded to it.
  • "He continued to work with the U.S. intelligence services at various points till the 1980s [...] was the first of many payments he would receive from the U.S. for his activities." is this really needed? It's largely been mentioned in the lede and seems a bit like foreshadowing which imo should generally be avoided in the article body. I'd replace with "His first payment from the US was $10.70 in 1955" or something like that
    Fair point, trimmed.
  • "Noriega harbored intentions of becoming a doctor" a bit clunky to me, maybe "Noriega intended to become a doctor" or something like that, not a big deal either way
    Trimmed.
  • The para beginning "Noriega harbored intentions of becoming a doctor," has no dates at all. I'd love to see one or two for the reader to anchor on
    Added one; dates are hard to come by in Noriega's early life
  • "made the acquaintance of Roberto Díaz Herrera" might be worth mentioning why Herrera was in peru?
    Added.
  • "Noriega married Felicidad Sieiro" date?
    Nothing more precise than "late 1960s"
  • "and Noriega a member of the National Guard" I don't think it's worth mentioning that here, if only because it would be more relevant to link Panama National Guard in it's section-- not a big deal either way. Also, should it be 'Panamanian National Guard'? I note that we have a standing redirect at Panamanian National Guard, but not at Panama National Guard
    Well Panamanian is implied here, and the info is here because there's otherwise little to contextualize the marriage, and also because the source considers it relevant to the disapproval from her family.
  • ", protecting him when he ran into trouble" what does this add to the article? Personally I'd cut it.
    Fair enough.
  • " In 1966, Noriega was again involved in a violent incident, allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl and beating her brother. After this Torrijos transferred Noriega to a remote posting." I'd favor putting this after the 1964 paragraph, because they are all violent incidents. In that same vein, if you switch this it's no longer necessary to say "prior to some of these incidents"
    switched
  • When you first mention Dinges, I'd suggest mentioning that he wrote a book (something like John Dinges, in his YEAR book Title), because by introducing him as a journalist, it seems that you are just citing news articles, which isn't the case, I don't think.
    Added
  • "During the various times he spent there" why not just "while at the school,"?
    No good reason...tweaked

That's comments from me through'National Guard career', more to come. These comments are relatively subjective and I'm more than happy to discuss any further, please don't feel that they are 'required'-- indeed, quite a few of them are nothing more then personal preference. Best Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know it's not necessarily an uncommon word, but I'd recommend linking coup on it's first mention given how central the topic is to this guy
    Added
  • You caption an image "Carter shaking hands with Torrijos after signing the Panama Canal Treaty" but don't mention a Panama Canal Treaty in the article body
    It's one of the Torrijos-Carter treaties, which are mentioned
  • " Noriega would provide intelligence, and carry out covert operations" I don't think that comma is needed
    Removed
  • " He also kept files on several officials within the military, the government, and the judiciary, allowing him to blackmail them later. He also held the positions of head of the political police, and head of immigration." Is the last comma needed? Is there any way you can avoid starting two sentences with "He also" in a row?
    Removed, and tweaked
  • "of the diplomatic consequences involved." perhaps "of potential diplomatic consequences" as nobody could really know for sure what diplomatic consequences would be involved
    Fair. added.
  • " and the U.S. began to see him as the real problem" what does 'real problem' mean here? There's no indication that anybody else was seen as a problem, and we haven't seen a lot of evidence that Noriega was heavily involved in drug trafficing, other than that the US could have indicted him on 'drug charges' (also, it's not clear to an un-discerning reader what 'drug charges' might be-- you can be arrested for a lot of drug-related charges
    I've dropped bit about the charges, and stuck to indictment. Dinges makes it clear that the evidence was that of drug smuggling, but only implies that that's what the charge would have been; so I'd rather keep it simple. Also, reworded the rest.
  • "may have been tried in the early 1970s," does that mean that Dinges thinks there were plots tried or the government considered trying them, or something else?
    He writes that some of the other options "appear to have been tried", but doesn't say which or when. I think this is as much detail as we're going to get.
  • "During the same period of the " I'd cut "the same period of the", imo it's unnecessary here, maybe could be replaced with "Also during the"
    Trimmed
  • I think there are a lot of extraneous commas in this section, i.e. "He was placed on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while he held his position as head of Panamanian intelligence." though I'm awful with commas, so cannot be sure
    I've removed a couple. I do think it's a matter of preference, in those instances.
  • "During the same period of the early 1970s, Noriega's relationship with the U.S. intelligence services was regularized. He was placed on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while he held his position as head of Panamanian intelligence. The CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971; he had previously been paid by U.S. intelligence services on a case-by-case basis." IMO you basically say the same thing in all of these three sentences. I'd reckon you could condense into one or two that convey 1) he used to be paid a on case-by-case basis 2) his relationship and pay were regularized-- because in this case aren't they virtually synonymous? (beginning in 1971). It's unnecessary to say that the relationship was regularized three different ways three times.
    I don't know that it's entirely redundant, but I've trimmed slightly.
  • "On some occasions, the Panamanian embassy in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, would be used by U.S. intelligence agents" how, exactly, does this relate to Noriega?
    I checked the source, and it says Noriega used the embassy to collect intel for the US. It's possible I was using a different source when writing it, or that I misread. As that stands, though, it's not very useful because intelligence on the Sandinistas has already been mentioned. Removed.
  • "Noriega also served as the U.S. emissary to Cuba during negotiations following the Johnny Express incident" could benefit from a date?
    December 1971. Added.
  • "The payments were as high" his payments, the contingency funds, or both?
    The contingency funds. Clarified.
  • " selling intelligence on the U.S. to Cuba at the same time" it's unclear to me what it was at the same time as
    Same time as he was working for the CIA; clarified
  • "he declined to do so, because that would have exposed Noriega's role in the matter." who is 'he' here?
    Bush; I'm confused as to why that's ambiguous; he's the only person named there...
  • Were any US intelligence services involved besides the CIA?
    Occasionally, yes; US Army intelligence, for instance. The specifics are not usually discussed, though; the sources often just say "US Intelligence agencies".
  • After the Nicaraguan Revolution was launched against" It's worth immediately mentioning who launched the rebellion, imo
    Added. Already mentioned above, so not linked.
  • "newly appointed a general" link general?
    Done.

That's through 'rise to power'. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by either buying a controlling stake in them, or by forcing them to shut down" why not "by either buying a controlling stake in them or forcing them to shut down"?
    Done
  • "ivil wars broke out in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua" worth linking to them?
    Added
  • "A report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency" worth a date?
    Not obviously available, I'm afraid; Hersh says "recent" but that could mean anything
  • "Noriega's new image" I'm a little unclear on what his new image was, exactly?
    It's a complex set of things, but most prominent among them was that he was perceived as being anti-trafficking. Added that; the rest is possibly a little too much detail, Dinges devotes three whole pages to very subtle things.
  • "before an attack on Colombia's west coast" perhaps "before launching an attack"?
    Added.
  • "5,000 Panamanian passports to the Cuban government for use by its intelligence services" date?
    Not in the source, I'm afraid.
  • "Noriega's direct involvement in moving weapons and drugs declined in the early 1980s" didn't you already talk about this in the above paragraph? I think those two (para beginning "Many of the operations Noriega benefited from were run by associates" and "'Noriega began supplying weapons to the M-19 rebel group in Colombia in 1981") could be integrated better to make it more chronological
    Partially integrated with previous paragraph, where it appeared to flow better; I think paras 3 and 4 there are distinct, as the former is about drugs and the latter, weapons.
  • " including funds and weapons" what about them? Was he conduiting American support by purchasing the weapons and sending funds or was he getting funds to purchase weapons or giving his own funds as a manifestation of American support, or something else?
    As a conduit for both those things...reworded
  • It might be worth replacing some of the U.S.'s with 'American' for variation
    This was actually quite intentional; using "American" to refer to the USA is a colloquialism that's generally okay when referring to regions outside the americas, but in regions where "America" has many meanings, I'd rather not
  • "Bush, now US vice president" you use U.S. everywhere else
    Fixed.
  • " These payments included $76,039" a year or a one-time thing?
    Total, at least according to the source; clarified
  • " At Noriega's trial in 1991–1992, the U.S. government stipulated that it had paid $322,000 to Noriega." I'd split the paragraph here to avoid confusion that the US paid him that for the Iran-Contra affair unless they did-- is there any more detail about his 'role' in the affair?
    There's some, but Dinges describes it as being unconfirmed. That he was reported as playing a role is fact, though, so I've stuck with that.
  • " with 100,000 people, approximately 25% of the population of Panama City, marching in protest on June 26, 1987" any data on protesters outside of the city, and is there a location you can add to where the protest was?
    I'm afraid the English sources do not say. I may be able to find some material if I dug through Spanish newspaper archives, but that seems a little above and beyond due diligence for a detail such as this.
  • "selling intelligence to the Cuban government of Fidel Castro" I thought the CIA was already aware of him selling this intel?
    The CIA yes, the general public not so much; Hersh's report was public.

That's through De facto leader. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After lengthy and inconclusive talks, the negotiations collapsed a few months later" I think this would be expressed smoother by " Negotiations collapsed after several months of lengthy and inconclusive talks"
    Done
  • "In a December 16 incident," was this one of the three incidents? If so, why do the other two not merit a mention
    The other two incidents are mentioned by Bush in his speech, but aren't given coverage by secondary sources. I'm a little hesitant to even mention them.
  • link US Attorney General?
    Done.
  • " Having threatened to flee to the countryside and lead guerrilla warfare if not given refuge, he instead turned over the majority of his weapons, and requested sanctuary" reads oddly to me. 1st, he demands refuge, 2nd, he turns in his weapons and 3rd begs for refuge?
    I agree it reads oddly, but that's because it's bloody odd behavior...

That's through the US invasion Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which the Miami grand jury had returned two years earlier." this is your first time mentioning Miami in the body in the relation to a court...
    It's the "US Court" mentioned above; now clarified.
  • " Noriega was reported to have undergone a full conversion" conversion from what?
    Catholicism. Added.
  • "In 1999, the Panamanian government had sought the extradition" I'd add " from the U.S." since we were just talking about france, an unaware reader might forget.
    Added.
  • " Santo Tomas hospital" you previously call it " Hospital Santo Tomás"
    Fixed

That's prosecution and death sections, last two to come in a bit-- Real life calls. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A 2017 obituary stated " maybe 'a 2017 obituary published in the BBC' or something similar?
    Added
  • "A reviewer wrote that "the hair-raising career " could use the name and publication
    Added
  • "oriega is mentioned in season 1 episode 5 of the National Geographic documentary Dictators Rulebook" is this really worth a mention?
    Probably not. Drive-by editors love to drop in popular culture mentions that secondary sources ignore.
  • I'd expect at least a mention of Sarah York in the body, given that her whole articles notability hinges on the fact that she was a pen-pal with Noriega
    I'm not certain that follows; she's notable for that one thing; he was essentially a head of state for many years; but okay. added.
  • Cite #11 wants a publication date
    Done
  • cite 86 has the error "Cite journal requires |journal= (help)"
    Fixed, I think? Someone monkeyed with the scripts I used to use to highlight ref errors, and I can't seem to spot them any more, despite trying a fix...
  • What makes IMDB (cite 131) a reliable source?
    Well, the source is the film; imdb was supplied for convenience, I suppose. I've edited the url to go a page more useful for someone looking for the film, but the url isn't going to be the source, it's the film itself.
  • I'm slightly concerned at how many further reading books there are, but the article seems comprehensive enough to me
    Well, if you look through the entries, you'll see they're very detailed explorations of specific issues that are touched on in this article but cannot really be examined in detail here (we're at ~9k words already...) such as the legal case, and the history of cocaine.

That's it from me, really great article and just a fascinating topic. Please ping me once you've responded to all-- it will make me far more likely to remember to come back. Apologies if this review is a bit much, I got excited when reading through! Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I think that's everything. Your review certainly gave me a lot of work to do, but I do appreciate the attention to detail; you've really helped tighten the prose. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Woody

edit

A good read with a few comments from me:

  • "who at one point expressed a desire for a divorce, though she changed her mind later." This seems a bit woolly/vague to me. Are there any specifics?
    Kempe has a very colorful story about this, but it's very detail makes it suspect, and I'd rather stick to the bare bones
    Should it be in there at all if it is suspect? I'm not sure it adds much.
    I think it's the appropriate level of detail; we don't need three pages of how Sieiro's brother and Noriega had a Mexican standoff in a bar after the brother found out Noriega had been making his sister sad, but his unfaithfulness, and her evident frustration, seem worth documenting, and if those are false then Kempe is completely making stuff up, rather than simply relying on a single interview, which would explain the rest.
  • "Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was the illegitimate son of his father and his father's domestic worker, whose family name was Moreno." Same here as well as seeming a bit tabloidy. This is essentially gossip. You could make it more specific ie Kempe and Galvan have stated...etc
    This isn't actually gossip; that Noriega's mother was the domestic worker is accepted; the uncertainty is over whether his parents were married, I think, with some sources (Galvan and Kempe) stating they were not, and others (Dinges) saying that it's uncertain. I've added a snippet from Dinges about this.
    I don't like the phrase "authors and journalists" here, to me they appear to be weasel words: I would state which authors and journalists.
    I've reworded slightly; I don't like naming the authors every time, as it makes the text less accessible to the lay person (I think) and also adds length
  • "Torrijos helped Noriega avoid legal trouble after a prostitute accused Noriega of beating and raping her." I think such a claim needs a direct citation. (I would probably just move the next citation to here and leave the next sentence being cited by the one at the end of the para.
    Done.
  • "Several prisoners said that they had been tortured; others stated they had been raped in prison" So what? Do the sources link this to Noriega. If not, why is it relevant to Noriega? If they do, we need to state that.
    It happened under his command, and he was held responsible, as the next sentence says.
    The next sentence says "The brutality of Noriega's activities" This could just be me but it could relate to something else other than this immediate incident. Was he suspended solely for his treatment of these specific prisoners or was it more general?
    It was the entire "suppress the opposition" episode; I've reworded to clarify
  • "in just a year and a half," 18 months would be more concise.
    Done.
  • "During his flight Noriega reportedly took shelter with several supportive politicians, including Balbina Herrera, the mayor of San Miguelito.[137] The last two days of his flight were spent partly with his ally Jorge Krupnick." Who reported it? The second sentence here is redundant without explanation. Who is Jorge Krupnick?
    Krupnick isn't very well known. Kempe describes him as an arms dealer, which I've added.
  • "Psychological warfare specialists were brought in to attempt to dislodge Noriega, including blaring rock music, and turning a nearby field into a helicopter landing zone." Psychological warfare specialists turned a field into a helicopter landing zone?
    I've added some detail here; the specialists seem to have stuck to the music, but the landing zone was actually built, presumably to make it even noisier.

That's about it from me. Woody (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Woody: Thanks for the review; I think I've addressed everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good for A-Class and is a good read. It certainly enlightened me on a period I didn't know much about. I've responded to a couple of your comments but they don't preclude it passing. Woody (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've made a couple further tweaks. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 26 July 2020 (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.
  1. ^ Goldsworthy 2006, p. 100.
  2. ^ Tipps 1985, p. 435.
  3. ^ Casson 1995, p. 121.
  4. ^ Goldsworthy 2006, pp. 102–103.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2020/Failed&oldid=993455091"