Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2022/Promoted

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment | 2022
edit

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Sayf al-Dawla

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Sayf al-Dawla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The subject of this article is one of the most famous medieval Arab warriors, a figure both illustrious and tragic. Growing up during the collapse of the Abbasid empire in the early 10th century, Sayf al-Dawla carved out for himself a principality in northern Syria and Upper Mesopotamia, challenged a resurgent Byzantium for over twenty years, established a splendid court that gathered some of the foremost scholars of his time, and finally ended his days in illness and defeat. This article is of some significance for me since it is in the process of researching this fascinating figure that I got seriously involved with early Islamic history, which now takes up most of my time on Wikipedia. It became a GA back in 2012, and I have kept working on it since. I now feel it is ready for A-class and a FA nomination after that. I hope reviewers will enjoy it and help improve it further. Constantine ✍ 19:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Al Ameer

edit

A very thorough and well-written piece, and one that motivated me to work on Sayf's Mirdasid successors in Aleppo. Glad to see it finally moving to this stage. Some queries and suggestions:

  • Are we going with "the Jazira" or just "Jazira"? No guidance on which should be used, other than it should be consistent.
    • "the Jazira". The few cases where the article was omitted were probably because at one point it had been 'Upper Mesopotamia' instead.
  • Is it necessary to introduce his brother in lead as al-Hasan (better known as Nasir al-Dawla) or could this be simplified to just the common name?
    • Good point, simplified.
  • "Arab Bedouin tribes" Is Bedouin a term most readers would understand? If not, recommend modifying to "Bedouin (nomadic Arab) tribes" for first mention.
    • Rephrased and clarified.
      • In this case, it may be better to write it with parentheses as "Bedouin (nomadic Arab)" since Bedouin in this context means nomadic Arab. After that, you could use just "Bedouin" without the "Arab" qualifier as well as in place of "Arab" throughout the article in cases where Arab is meant to be nomadic Arab (as opposed to settled/semi-nomadic Arabs or Arab as an ethnic descriptor such as when describing the Hamdanid state). Al Ameer (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "managed to score a few successes" → "scored a few successes"
    • Changed
  • "Shi'ism" → "Shia Islam"
    • Changed.
  • "the Taghlibs", assume this is a typo for "Taghlibis" but just "the Taghlib" works good too.
    • "the Taghlib" it is. Thanks, changed.
  • "a fact which would" → "which would"
    • Removed.
  • "managed to secure the family's" → "secured the family's"
    • Changed.
  • "It was this strong local base which allowed" → "This strong local support base allowed"
    • Changed.
  • Might be out of scope to introduce them fully, but the locations of the Kharijites and Tulunids or where Husayn fought them might warrant a mention for context, i.e. "in the Jazira" for the Kharijites and "Egypt-based" or "of Egypt" for the Tulunids.
    • Done
  • "usurpation by Ibn al-Mu'tazz" → "usurpation of the throne by the Abbasid prince Ibn al-Mu'tazz" or similar contextual language.
    • Excellent point, done.
  • "His younger brother" → specify "Sayf al-Dawla's" or "Ali's younger brother"
    • Clarified.
  • Introduce Mu'nis as strongman, commander-in-chief or similar.
    • Changed.
  • Just for clarity, introduce al-Muqtadir as "Caliph al-Muqtadir"
    • Done.
  • Inconsistent spellings of "Al-Hasan" and "Hasan"
    • Fixed.
  • Should introduce Qaysi tribes as Bedouin (all the Qays, in this context, were Bedouin).
    • Done.
  • Since al-Muqtadir should be introduced as "Caliph" in the first mention, per above, remove "Caliph" from his second mention in the "Early career" section.
    • Done.
  • Sayf al-Dawla is mostly referred to by his birth name Ali ibn Abdallah until the point in his bio where he gains his better known epithet. Should the birth name be shortened to just "Ali" after first mention?
    • The reason was a possible confusion with Ali ibn Ja'far, but I think the possibility is slim. Apart from the first reference, shortened to 'Ali' now.
  • "The Egyptian" should be replaced or modified for clarity. Also to avoid confusion, either "the Egyptian leader" or "the Ikshidid leader" should be used instead of both, or replaced altogether with al-Ikhshid.
    • Chose the latter, as calling al-Ikhshid and Ikhshidid is, while correct, somehow weird.
  • Should mention that the Banu Kilab were Bedouin or nomadic and, in keeping consistent with the other tribes, mention them only as "Kilab" after first intro.
    • Done.
  • Would remove "originally Yemeni" from Tanukh, as this tribe had been in Syria since the 4th century and their Yemeni origins are not certain. Also, irrelevant since this article does not discuss the old Qaysi–Yemeni rivalry.
    • Good point, removed.
  • Hugh Kennedy → Kennedy after first mention
    • Changed.
  • Briefly define "sharifs"
    • Done.
  • Any information on the Halba's future; is it extant, or was it destroyed, etc. (if enough info maybe an article could be started on it).
    • Added. Not much info on it for an article, AFAIK.
  • Maybe rephrase or modify "it would become the bone of contention between the Byzantines and a new Muslim power, the Egypt-based Fatimid Caliphate" to avoid repetition from last passage in the "Illness and death" section
  • Mark Whittow is linked and introduced twice.
    • Changed.
  • What's the chances those redlinked viziers will have their own articles? If chances low, I would remove the redlinks.
    • Don't know, to be honest. If I ever get my hands on Canard's work on the Hamdanids, I guess the articles will be written. Otherwise, perhaps if some other source or another editor comes along...
  • Other than these generally minor points, another line or two describing the political condition of Syria, especially the north, before Sayf al-Dawla entered the picture may be beneficial for context. Namely, the deterioration of government (Abbasid) authority in the late 9th century, the invasions of the Qarmatians at the start of the 10th, and with them the explosion of Bedouin (Qaysi) tribal migration and devastation. Not a requirement, but could explain the relative vacuum of authority that Sayf al-Dawla entered and Nasir al-Dawla's "Syria lies before you ..." invitation. —Al Ameer (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent suggestion, will work on it the next couple of days.
      • Unfortunately I lost a quite extensive addition I had written due to a PC problem, but maybe it was for the best, as it was quite extensive. I have added some details that provide some additional context, but would prefer to leave it at that. I don't have access to much info about the Arab tribes during that time, can you suggest a sources? Constantine ✍ 16:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for providing the extra context. I'll work in a line about the mass Bedouin migration (and consequent devastation/destabilization) that shortly preceded Sayf's entry onto the Syro–Jaziran scene at some point, hopefully before an FAC. Al Ameer (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify "Arab sources" to "Arabic sources": the writers may or may not have been ethnic Arabs, but the language of the sources was Arabic. Also better than the alternative "early Muslim/Islamic sources" in this case, since some of the Arabic writers of this historical period were Christians.
  • Since you have started articles on many of the Hamdanid dynasts, suggest converting the family tree into an interactive one. Al Ameer (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the thorough review, Al Ameer son! Have addressed most of the issues above. Is there anything else that you feel might be missing, or that should/could be mentioned in the context of this article? Constantine ✍ 17:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure reading through it again. Thanks for addressing the above. Added a couple more suggestions, but other than that all set. Al Ameer (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Al Ameer son, sorry for the delay, it was a hectic month. I've made some of the additions promised above, and will convert the family tree to a template as soon as I can. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 16:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Cplakidas:. I'm satisfied with the further additions and tweaks. Happy to support and looking forward to FAC. —Al Ameer (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

HF

edit

I have no familiarity with this topic, but will take a look over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 20:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it would be useful to briefly state the role of the Caliph in the political sphere of the times
    • Some relevant context had been added in the 'Origin and family' section, it is there again. Is it enough?
  • Would the short religion section be better off consolidated with the paragraph about religion in the cultural activity section?
    • Was already done, following the revert, this is again the case.

Support from me; I'm not seeing anything that's a major sticking point for me. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, thanks for your time, have responded to your comments above. Could you please have another look? Constantine ✍ 15:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still at support here. Good work. Hog Farm Talk 20:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

edit

Will take a look at this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sayf al-Dawla was born on 22 June 916 (although some sources give 914) might consider moving this to a footnote.
  • The agreement of 945 was reiterated, with the difference that the Ikhshidids ceased paying tribute for Damascus slightly awkward, suggest The agreement of 945 was reiterated, except that the Ikhshidids were no longer obligated to pay tribute for Damascus
  • the various cities tended to look out only for themselves suggest the various cities tended to become self-interested
  • @Cplakidas: That is all of my suggestions, happy to Support now though. Hope to see the article at FAC sometime. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:36, 30 December 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Helena

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

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

Toolbox

Pretty much everything in Arkansas ended badly for the Confederate except for the Camden Expedition, but this was even worse than normal. Despite having a substantial numerical advantage, the Confederate both pretty much everything and lose roughly 7 times as many men as the Union. Hog Farm Talk 00:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Some of harrias's comments come to mind.

  • "In late May, with Union troops heavily pressuring Vicksburg, Confederate authorities suggested to General Joseph E. Johnston, who was tasked with relieving the Confederate forces under siege at Vicksburg, that forces from the Trans-Mississippi Department also be used to relieve the pressure on Vicksburg, suggesting an attack on Helena." A long sentence, which also has "suggested ... suggesting".
    • I've removed some of the background to Johnston's role, split off the very end section, and have gotten it down to one suggest
  • "On June 9, Holmes learned that the strength of the Union forces in Helena was about 3,000 or 4,000 men, and Holmes decided against an attack.[8] Holmes thought the attack ..." Perhaps one, or even two, mentions of "Holmes" could be replaced with 'he'?
    • edited out two of them
  • "Holmes began moving towards Jacksonport to meet with Major General Sterling Price and Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke; the three generals met on June 18." Perhaps 'Holmes began moving towards Jacksonport met with Major General Sterling Price and Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke on June 18.' would suffice?
    • Done
  • "and made an agreement with the more popular Price that would support the propriety of the attack in the case of failure." I don't understand what this means.
    • Rephrased to make this clearer. Essentially Holmes was an unpopular incompetent, while Price was barely more competent but was well-liked. Holmes wanted Price to back him up in case of failure
  • "Once formed the plans" → 'The plan'?
    • Fixed
  • "Prentiss' men had superior firepower over the Confederates." Any chance of some elaboration as to how or why this was?
    • Elaborated a bit
  • "he would accept any blame from the assault himself". i am not sure this works. Do you mean something like 'he would take personal responsibility for the results of the assault if they were later criticised'?
    • Went with something similar
  • "The Confederate plans ..." Maybe 'Their plans ...'?
    • Done
  • "McRae was then given the order to attack. McRae sent about 200 men to attack the battery, but they were unsuccessful. Price then ordered Parsons to attack Battery D, but was then informed that McRae". Could we reduce the use of "then"?
    • Removed two of the uses
  • I could live with one use of the rather flamboyant "shredded", but two?
    • Reduced to one usage

And that is all I have. Another nicely told tale. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. You have stayed admirably neutral. Although I wouldn't have minded a bit of editorialising leaking through!

Support by simongraham

edit

Please be kind; this is my first attempt at an A-Class review.

  • Is "but carried on with the attack anyway" encyclopaedic language? Would it be better as "but nonetheless decided to carry on the attack"?
    • I think it's fine in AmEng
      • I am happy with that.
  • I believe "ordered Tilden's Missouri Battery and Marshall's Arkansas Battery begin to come up." should be "ordered Tilden's Missouri Battery and Marshall's Arkansas Battery to begin to come up".
    • Corrected. I may attempt to write an article on Tilden's battery sometime. I'm currently working on a draft for the 9th Mo. Sharpshooters.
      • I think that would be of interest.
  • There are a number of references to large numbers of Confederate soldiers being taken prisoner and desserting but I cannot see any figures. Is there any information on the actual numbers?
    • There don't seem to be numbers for deserting, which I guess makes sense given the sorry state of the Confederate forces after the fight. Don't have great overall prisoner counts, but have noted that 350 were taken on Graveyard Hill when Price withdrew and a further 250 were captured during Fagan's withdrawal.
      • That seems reasonable. The fog of war seems a perpetual problem for the historian.

I will leave the rest to more capable people than me. simongraham (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit
  • The lead doesn't include the "Background" section.
    • I've added a little to the lead
  • "Lieutenant General Theophilus Holmes, the Confederate commander of the District of Arkansas" Is there an article for the District of Arkansas?
  • " when Confederate cavalry reported on June 14" --> " when Confederate cavalry reported on June 14,"?
    • A comma there just feels really unnatural to me - it would break the clause of what the cavalry was reported
  • "Holmes began moving towards Jacksonport" --> "He began moving towards Jacksonport" due the name Holmes was mentioned the sentence before?
    • Done
  • "still nervous about the proposed attack" Why exactly?
    • He was afraid it would fail - clarified
  • "gathered together and on July 3 began" --> "gathered together and on July 3, began"
    • Done. Doesn't quite feel right to have a comma there to me, but I'm not very good with comma placement
  • "but four new batteries, named with the letters A, B, C, and D" This is a really long link. Maybe make it a bit shorter?
    • The piped link only covers "four new batteries" now
  • "also cancelled a planned celebration of the Fourth of July" Why en was there some resistance against his cancellation? Something like the Christmas truce in WWI?
    • I've noted this was cancelled as a precaution, but I'm not seeing anything that goes into much detail on this subject.
  • "Holmes ordered the 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Burns') to attack Fort Curtis" Maybe change it to "he"? Also is there an article about Fort Curtis?
  • "who took 32% of their attacking forces as casualties" --> "who took 32 percent of their attacking forces as casualties"
    • Done
  • As with my comments in 9th Missouri Sharpshooter Battalion. Bearss's and Shalhope's sources are older than 50 years and might need a recent source. Of course, that doesn't make them not reliable, but, after so many years there are probably recent sources who might agree or disagree with these sources.
    • @CPA-5: - I think Shalhope is probably fine. Aside from an attributed opinion and a couple non-controversial statements that Shalhope makes more plainly that other authors, I'm really only citing Shalhope for details about the specific movements of Price's command. Shalhope and Castel (the cited Castel source is a reprint of an older work) are the only "modern" full-length bios of Price. I've got a somewhat newer work by Bearss (who has an excellent reputation) that includes a chapter on Helena, so I'll try to work in some newer cites this weekend. There isn't really any change in the historiography from the 60s and 70s sources to the newer stuff like Christ and Cutrer that I've noticed. Hog Farm Talk 22:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work here are some comments from me. I hopefully they will improve the article. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately due to some RL stuff for me this is probably gonna be slow-going for awhile. Bearss 1961 is basically identical to Bearss's 1986 work, so I think that's fine (unless someone thinks its necessary to switch all the cites over to the newer one for appearance's sake). I'm beginning the slow work of working in Schlieffer's 2017 PhD thesis, and have gotten through the prelude section with it. (it's several hundred pages long but the first 200 pages aren't relevant to this article). Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I'm going to be AWOL for about a week, but these are mostly addressed and I should be able to finish soon once I return. Hog Farm Talk 05:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: - Sorry for such a long delay - I've finally gone through Schlieffer and I think it's in a good enough spot for this to be revisited.

Pinging prior reviewers @Gog the Mild and Simongraham: as the article content has changed somewhat since their reviews. Hog Farm Talk 04:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Only three images.

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • All sources are of high quality
  • Mixture of ISBN-10s and ISBN-13s - I have reformatted the ISBN-10s as ISBN-13s
  • Schieffler (2018) was lacking ISSN and JSTOR - added.
  • Spot checks: 14, 68, 77, 85, 89 -all okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:38, 7 December 2022 (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) 12:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Constantine (son of Basil I)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Constantine (son of Basil I) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my work to bring up all the Roman and Byzantine emperors, and I belive it meets the criteria. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA

edit
  • "Constantine (died 3 September 879) was a junior Byzantine emperor" Maybe add his birth as well?
  •   Done
  • "to c. 865, based upon the timeline of Pseudo-Symeon;[2][3][4][5]" Maybe trim one citation per WP:CITETRIM?
  •   Done
  • "that not only Leo, but also Stephen" I think this is MOS:EGG.
  •   Done
  • There are seven howevers maybe trim some?
  •   Done
  • "her investigation of the rumors of infidelity" Isn't it rumours?
    "Rumors" is the US spelling, I believe "rumours" is the British (and possibly other Anglosphere) spelling; I tend to write all my articles in American English as they are too far removed from now to really deserve one or the other. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Louis II" Maybe add here reign?
  •   Done
  • "leaving Leo as the primary heir.[2][22][24][33]" Per WP:CITETRIM.
  •   Done
  • Is there a link or code like OCLC or ISBN for Nilsson?
    Unfortunately, no, not that I could find. The best that can be found is the Lund University Press id, which doesn't really mesh with the template.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I am hoping to get to this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "born between 855 and 865" - but the phrasing in the body doesn't directly rule out a birth after 865
    It technically does, although I'm not certain how to make that more clear; mainline historians tend to follow the 865 dating, although some place it earlier. It really is a factor of several moving parts, including if Maria existed, when Eudokia and Basil married, if Constantine was Maria's son or Eudokias, etc etc... I've added c. for understandability's sake in the lede and infobox.
  • "for which he shared a triumph." - recommend linking triumph as a baseline knowledge of Roman/Byzantine history is required to know that a specific practice is being referred to here w/o the link
  •   Done
  • "born in the purple.[14] further reinforced by the fact that Alexander " - weird sentence break, can this be cleaned up somehow?
  •   Done, I'm assuming I accidentally deleted something while working in my userspace.
  • Are Basil and Michael III related? It isn't quite clear unless I missed it
    No, Basil was just a dude that Michael liked, and chose to make emperor. One might notice that the Byzantines didn't try the whole "make an unrelated guy your co-emperor" thing again... I've clarified it in the body
  • "Pro-Macedonian sources such as Leo VI, Constantine VII" - link Constantine and indicate that he's Leo's son?
  •   Done
  • Just a thought, but would it be worthwhile to consider indicating when they're first mentioned which of the ancient sources are contemporary and which are modern? For instance, Symeon Logothete is stated to be of the 10th century, but not until his last mention
      Done

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine

edit

Will have a look over the following days. Constantine ✍ 16:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, Gog the Mild. Constantine ✍ 18:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • was a junior Byzantine emperor from January 868 to 3 September 879 the reader might wonder what a 'junior emperor' is. Perhaps something like ' was a junior Byzantine emperor, alongside Basil I as the senior emperor, from January 868 to 3 September 879'?
  •   Done
Parentage
  • the parentage of Constantine is heavily disputed, as Byzantine Emperor Basil I (r. 867–886), generally accepted as his father, had two wives, Maria and Eudokia Ingerina (r. 866–882), according to some sources in the tradition of the 10th-century Symeon Logothete a bit convoluted and tries to cover too many things. I would suggest to introduce here the issue in summary, and leave out the reference to 'sources in the tradition of the 10th-century Symeon Logothete' as this is unimportant to the average reader: e.g. 'the parentage of Constantine is heavily disputed. Byzantine emperor Basil I (r. 867–886) is generally accepted as his father, but he had two wives, Maria and Eudokia Ingerina. Furthermore, Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Basil's predecessor, Michael III, while married to Basil.'
  •   Done
  • The 'Historiography' section does a very good job of summing up the primary sources, and should IMO be drawn into this section.
    Do you mean summarized above, or entirely moved?
    Entirely moved. Constantine ✍ 11:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Done
  • Maria, a Macedonian, since 'Macedonian' is unclear here (the label is geographic more than ethnic), I suggest removing it.
    Done; the thought did occur to me that, if she exists, this is about a third of all known facts preserved by history. A fairly depressing thought to have at 7 am...
    I know that feeling :(. Constantine ✍ 11:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • marry Eudokia, which he did I think this is the proper place to introduce the sources about Eudokia being Michael's mistress and that the marriage with Basil was a way to bring her to the palace.
    Not sure how best to introduce this at the juncture you suggest, put into an awkward position by the primary sources themselves; according to them, either Maria exists and Basil was cuckolded (Symeon), or Maria didn't exist and it was all Eudokia (Leo/Constantine). Both sides agree there was a marriage to Eudokia in 865, which does not preclude either option. While Leo has a firm birthdate of September the following year, this doesn't preclude Eudokia from having been the mother of Constantine (on the right side of wedlock even). Would appreciate suggestions on how to explain that while everyone agrees there was a wedding, the whole cuckolding thing is a Symeon deal. Lacking that I have left it out to let the next paragraph explain the whole deal.
    Still thinking over the best way to go about this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    'Eudokia is reported by some sources to have been the mistress of Basil's predecessor, Michael III (r. 842–867), while married to Basil' suffices for me. Constantine ✍ 16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • hostile to the Macedonian dynasty, relevance is unclear to the uninitiated; add here that this was the dynasty founded by Basil.
  •   Done
  • George Hamartolos, a contemporary source, argues that the future Emperor Alexander (r. 912–913), was legitimately Basil's son. I assume this is intended to mean that only Alexander was Basil's son according to Hamartolos?
      Done, rephrased to "was Basil's only legitimate son."
  • Karlin-Hayter in her investigation of the rumors of infidelity... 'In her investigation of the rumors of infidelity, Karlin-Hayter...'
  •   Done
  • Historian Arnold J. Toynbee ... preferred Constantine to Leo. The text until this point does not mention that Basil preferred Constantine, or that this has been used as an argument by historians on Leo's parentage. This is done later on, at In his 1994 work, he points out...consider Constantine his true son
  •   Done
  • In general, the entire section Some sources hostile...why Basil preferred Constantine to Leo could IMO be summarized per WP:SS; it deals with the parentage of Leo (and Stephen), which touches upon Constantine, but is not the subject here. Simply stating that doubts about the parentage of Leo and Stephen exist, and that many medieval and modern historians consider Leo at least a child of Michael, would be enough. Only the parts that impact the theories on Constantine's parentage should be retained.
    Not sure how best to cut down this section, would appreciate suggestions on what you think needs to go, and what should stay. IMO I could cut back on some of the details, but leave the general structure, but I'm not sure if that goes far enough. Thoughts?
    Not going to insist on this, although I do recommend it. Here is a rough draft: 'Some sources hostile to the Macedonian dynasty, which was founded by Basil, have suggested that other sons of Basil were not his own. These sources claim that Eudokia was Michael's mistress, and that the marriage between Basil and Eudokia was intended to be purely nominal. Accordingly, the parentage of both Emperor Leo VI (r. 886–912) and Stephen I of Constantinople, has been questioned, leaving Emperor Alexander (r. 912–913) as Basil's only legitimate son. Most modern scholars doubt the accuracy of such claims, considering Leo as the legitimate son of Basil and Eudokia.' This would leave the detailed explanations for the article on Leo, where they are more relevant...
  • by way of arguing that he would therefore have been too young to campaign with his father in 878; wherefore? the argument here is unclear.
  •   Done
  • On the table, this is a very nice piece of work. Can I suggest the following: a) make it into a template, so it can be reused in the relevant articles and b) add another header line to distinguish medieval sources from modern ones.
  •   Done
Later life
  • Basil had been born into a peasant family,[19] before gaining the notice of Emperor Michael, and subsequently became his confidant and Parakoimomenos.[20 this belongs to the first introduction of Basil, above. Also, please add a gloss for parakoimomenos (e.g. head chamberlain).
    Moved and added.
  • the patrician Basiliskianos pipe or replace with patrikios
  •   Done
  • Link 'coronation' to Coronation of the Byzantine emperor
  •   Done
  • Link 'Holy Roman Emperor Louis II' and add regnal dates
    This is done in the parentage section above; do you suggest doing it twice? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't notice it, withdrawn. Constantine ✍ 16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • historians Charles Previté-Orton and Werner Ohnsorge start a new sentence at 'historians...'
  •   Done
  • campaigned in Germanicia since Germanicia is a city, 'in' is not right; perhaps 'in the region of Germanicia', or 'against Germanicia'
  •   Done
  • What was Santabarenos' role/position?
  •   Done
  • Is not Constantine is mentioned as Emperor in The Acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council part of his life?
    Moved.

@Iazyges: Article is complete and accurate. My concerns above are mostly cosmetic and stylistic (as well as trying to avoid having the average reader overloaded trying to follow the various arguments). Once they are done, I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 18:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: a small reminder. Constantine ✍ 13:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Thanks! I'll try to get around to it this week. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was unfortunately a lie... I'll try to get it done on Friday. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Apologies for the (very) long wait, I've responded to or asked for clarification/suggestions on everything now, I believe. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iazyges! No worries, glad this is getting concluded. I've replied above on shortening the section on Constantine's brothers, but other than that, I am satisfied and ready to support at this time. Constantine ✍ 16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Hawkeye7 - pass

edit

Source review by Hawkeye7 - pass

edit

Support by Unlimitedlead

edit
  • Make sure all the circa and reign templates are formatted correctly. For example, I see "r.  867–886" instead of "r. 867–886" (go into the code to see the difference).
  •   Done
  • Link Byzantine emperor in the lead.
  •   Done
  • "Constantine was born at an unconfirmed date: Historian Nicholas Adontz...": I think "the" should be added before "historian" (see False title).
  •   Done
  • Who is Shaun Tougher? The article never really explains this, and there is no hyperlink to assist the reader.
  •   Done
  • "Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine is the son of Basil and Eudokia." => "Tougher in his 1994 Ph.D. thesis supports the theory that Constantine was the son of Basil and Eudokia."
  •   Done
  • Try adding more categories, such as Category:Sons of Byzantine emperors.
  •   Done

@Iazyges: Very nice article. I'll be happy to support once these comments have been addressed.Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead: Thanks for taking the time; all issues should now be fixed! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 5 December 2022 (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) 15:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Soviet cruiser Admiral Isachenkov

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Simongraham (talk)

Soviet cruiser Admiral Isachenkov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the standard, particularly in the light of the excellent work by Kges1901 (talk · contribs) on Marshal Voroshilov a few years ago. simongraham (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Looks fine to me. One quibble:

  • "Electronics warfare" should be "Electronic warfare"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. This is now fixed. simongraham (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • "Large Anti-submarine Ship". Why the upper case initial letters?
It is what BPK translates as in English.
The MoS states " Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources." Is that the case here?
The sources differ. Although Cullen's Encyclopedia of World Sea Power does, Polman's Guide to the Soviet Navy does not. I feel there is no consensus either way so have amended the article accordingly.
  • What was "Okean-75"?
An open-ocean naval exercise in 1975. Clarified.
  • "two quadruple URPK-3 launchers for eight 85R anti-submarine missiles". Could these be reloaded?
The sources do not say.
  • "The Ka-25 helicopter embarked on the ship was also capable of aiding in the search and destruction of submarines." Is it known what equipment and weapons the helicopter carried to this end?
Added with source.
  • "Four 30 mm (1.2 in) AK-630 close-in weapon systems." This is not a sentence.
Corrected.
Added.
  • Cite 1 has a p/pp error.
Fixed.
  • "The flag was raised". What does this signify?
The source does not say.
If it does not communicate anything meaningful to a reader, why is it in the article?
Good point. I have found out that this is equivalent to commissioning and so I have changed it to the more common term ("raising the flag" is translated from Russian). I have done the same to the lowering the flag/decommissioning later on.
  • "The ship then continued to serve in the North Atlantic". Which ship?
Clarified.
  • "upgraded with URPK-5 Rastrub (SS-N-14B) missiles." Were these additions, or did they replace any of the pre-existing weapons systems?
Clarified.

That's all from me. Nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you. That is very kind. I think I have made the changes you recommend. simongraham (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minor come backs above.
These are excellent points. Please tell me if there anything else. simongraham (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the addition of a straight-forward section on context this looks close to FA standard to my untutored eye. I am not an expert on modern-warship articles (anything pre-1850 is more my area) so it may be worth running this past an editor who is (User:Kges1901 or User:Sturmvogel 66 possibly) and/or PR and then considering nominating it for FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is very kind. simongraham (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Tuesday. Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, due to an accumulation of a number of factors in real life it looks like I'm going to be only marginally active for much of November, so I don't think I'm going to be able to get to this. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I am sorry to hear that, but can completely empathise. I hope all is OK. simongraham (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things have cleared up for me; I should be able to get to this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Total power was 91,000 kilowatts (122,033 hp)" - but this is contradicted by the infobox, which gives the shaft horsepower as 91,000 and the kilowatts as 68,000
    • The infobox is correct according to the source. Body updated.
  • Maybe I'm misreading things, but it looks like the body is saying it had 48 Shtorm missiles, but the infobox says 72?
    • The source states 48. Infobox updated.
  • "The ship was commissioned on 7 July 1974" - infobox gives 5 November 1974 as the commissioning date?
    • The source states 7 July 1974 as the the date of completion rather than commissioned. Updated.
  • "met the newly commissioned Project 1134B Berkut B (NATO reporting name 'Kara' class) ship Kerch which then took on the escort role" - maybe double-check the source to make sure "newly-commissioned" is accurate? Both our article on Kerch and on the ship class (which could well be wrong) state that Kerch was commissioned in 1974, three years before the event being described
    • Removed.
  • "Returning to the Mediterranean, the vessel then undertook manoeuvres with Kiev and the Project 1123 Kondor (NATO reporting name 'Moskva' class) helicopter cruiser Leningrad between 4 January and 18 September 1981" - source doesn't seem to support these exact dates of maneuver
    • Source added.
  • The decommissioning date is a bit contradictory - the infobox uses 3 July 1992, which is the date that it was removed from active service, while the body says the exact decommissioning happened on 23 September 1992
    • You are right. The sources talk about the ship being struck. Clarified.

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another rigorous review. I believe the changes have been made. simongraham (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright

edit

@Simongraham: I could start a review in a day or two, but I would first like to know whether the article is written using American or British English. Pendright (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Unfortunatly,Waiting for your reply has comsumed the time that I had available to do a review. Pendright (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: My apologies. RL meant I have not been on wikipedia for some days. The page was originally written in British English but may have been subsequently changed by other editors. simongraham (talk) 19:41, 28

November 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Does ths need another general review for promotion? Pendright (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pendright, good spot. No, it looks good to go to me. It was listed for closure yesterday and I have just promoted it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Contrary to what I've been believing for the last 15 years, the various volumes of Conway have chapters written by various authors and need to reflect that in the citation. You can get that info on the page across from the Contents. And Gardiner is the editorial director, not an editor, IMO.
    • Thank you. I get the impression that there a lot of pages that will need updating.
  • Berezhnoy needs a place of publication.
    • Added.
  • Pavlov's been translated into English if you struggle with Russian like I do.
    • That is interesting. I will seek it out.
  • The sources are known to me to be highly reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for this review. I have updated the reference for Conway's and updated the other biographical information. simongraham (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Eileen Collins

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Eileen Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Although I already have two articles up for A class review, as a military person I thought it best to bring it here before sending to FAC. It is part of a series on women astronauts. It is part of a series about women astronauts. Collins was first woman to pilot the Space Shuttle and the first to command a Space Shuttle mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CPA

edit

Just a comment here.

Great I'll take a look into when Hog's comments are adressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 - Looks like it's your turn now. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going down to the body. Sorry that it took that long I was a bit busy for school. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have everything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good changed it to support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Will review. Ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Wednesday. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed - Support

edit

This is in excellent order, minor nitpicks only:

Early life

  • but her father was adamantly opposed.: Any indication why? Was it because she was female or was he anti-the USAF or a role in the military?
    Source doesn't say. "I told him I wanted to join the Air Force. He was livid. The vehemence of his reaction surprised me. 'You are not joining the Air Force!' He objected so emphatically that I dared not argue with him." (p. 19) Probably just wanted her to go to college.
  • on the history of USAF: "the USAF"?
     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut career

Awards and honors

That's all I can pick up at this stage. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Reviewing in response to a request from Hawkeye.

Source check

edit
  • Move the bibliography after the notes section
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 Indy beetle (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Robert Nimmo

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Robert Nimmo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Robert Nimmo served in WWI as a light horse officer, in WWII commanding several brigades, with the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan commanding the Australian infantry brigade, and then Northern Command back in Australia as a major general. He had virtually reached retirement age when he was picked as the chief military observer with the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, a position he held from 1950 until his death in 1966. He was described as "by far the most successful United Nations observer ever", was the first Australian to command a multinational peacekeeping force, and his command of UNMOGIP remains the longest ever command of a UN mission. This year marks the 75th anniversary of Australia's first involvement in peacekeeping operations, and as a peacekeeper myself I thought I'd bring this one up to scratch as a way of commemorating that milestone. It just underwent a GAN by Hawkeye7. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

I reviewed this article at GA and believe that it is of the appropriate standard for A-class. A couple of points:

  • After nearly a year in this role, on 17 May 1944 he was posted to the same role at Second Army in the eastern states. While Second Army was responsible for units in the south eastern states, its headquarters where Nimmo was stationed was in Parramatta, New South Wales.
  • Upon arrival he took command of the 4th Base Sub Area To me this is where I first encountered Nimmo; but casual readers may not know that the 4th Base Sub Area was the logistical unit supporting the fighting in the Bougainville campaign.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • All sources are high quality
  • Spot checks: 7, 16, 22, 23, 25 - okay
  • Melbourne University Press is the only publisher linked - suggest unlinking.
  • Link Lachlan Chisholm Wilson, David Horner
  • You can link Bean Volume II to [1]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and then an armoured brigade in Australia. He was then posted as a senior staff officer at corps and then at". Optional at ACR, but a lot of then's.
Sure, broken up/reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having held the position of the senior cadet in his class". Is it known either how many cadets were in the class or what the criteria for becoming senior cadet were?
Added, and also added a couple of references about his award of the 1915 Sword of Honour after the war ended. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "In the second week of June" is a tad long.
Addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through extreme heat they forced their way". Can one actually force a way through intense heat? Would one use a machete?
LOL. Waxing a bit lyrical there. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He returned to his former temporary rank". A picky point, but do we need both "He returned" and "former".
No, reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a reader be correct in assuming that Nimmo didn't see any WWI action after Gallipoli?
Well, no. He was mainly in unit and brigade staff jobs for the rest of the war, but was a squadron commander in the 5th Light Horse Regiment from 14 July 1917 to June 1918, and he would definitely have seen some action. I will correct this deficit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when World War II broke out in September 1939." I don't think we need the "1939".
Definitely not. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1 June".
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nimmo also calmly and deftly handled". Rather than use Wikipedia's voice, could we ascribe this to someone?
Done, and reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following the death of the previous chief military observer in an aircraft crash." Might it be worth naming them?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More personal interest than for the article, but what's an honorary lieutenant general? I assume it is not similar to an honorary colonel.
Yes, usually an honorary promotion made on retirement or thereafter. Generally, honorary rank is treated as if it were substantive (ie you wear the honorary rank if in uniform after retirement, but usually does not grant a corresponding wage or pension increase. In Nimmo's case, most likely to recognise his exemplary service to Australia via the UN after his formal retirement from the Army. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Should sail through FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Gog. I'll ping you when I've added the detail about his time as a squadron commander. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all done now Gog. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I'll try to get to this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 19:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this took so long, had a bunch of stuff come up.

  • " so he quickly gathered a dozen men, explained the situation and ordered them to engage the exposed Ottoman troops with five rounds of rapid rifle fire" - unclear if this is Nimmo or the sergeant
Nimmo, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 12 December Nimmo was temporarily detached to the 3rd Light Horse Brigade," - do we know for what purpose?
Not clear, I'm guessing in a staff role. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1930, he was best player in the victorious Victorian team in the all-Australian hockey championship" - attribution for the description as best player, as this is a matter of opinion in most cases?
The Age newspaper, attributed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Londey, Peter (30 March 2021). "Robert Nimmo". Retrieved 10 September 2022." - needs publisher
The AWM, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to complain about, fully anticipating supporting. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm. All done I think. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 28 October 2022 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Yorck

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

After quite a long time away from formal reviews, it's probably long past time I get back into things. So I've brought this article on a German armored cruiser for your consideration. Yorck was one of the first major warships lost by the German fleet during World War I, and as such the ship's service history was fairly short. Thanks to those who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to this over the next few days. Hog Farm Talk 20:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do the sources state how many torpedoes she carried?
    • Added
  • "Yorck was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Deutschland" - With Deutschland linked to a specific ship, I just want to verify that the sources do indeed make that connectiona
    • Yes - if you look in the chapter on that Deutschland, it lists this cruiser a the "ersatzbau" (replacement build). German ships were either ordered to replace existing, worn-out or obsolete vessels, or as new builds (i.e., the fleet previously had 5 cruisers, and was now authorized to maintain 6). The former were designated "Ersatz [name of ship to be replaced]" and the latter were given single letters.

Neither of these are major issues; supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm! Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

edit
  • A footnote on the replacement ordering style of the German Navy would be nice to include here.
    • Added the standard note I've used on this
  • Like many of the late armored cruisers, Yorck was quickly rendered obsolescent by the advent of the battlecruiser; as a result, her career was limited. Outclassed though it was, I think the major limiting factor to this ship's career was the explosive mines it struck, not the existence of other ships.
    • This referred more to the fact that Yorck was laid up less than 8 years after commissioning, which is fairly brief. I've clarified this.

-Indy beetle (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Indy! Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the images look fine (expired copyright or freely licensed courtesy of the German archives) except the last one. The photo source does say "Copyright Owner: Naval History and Heritage Command". As per their disclaimer though, "Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description)." So my question is, do they note if something is in the "public domain" in the Copyright Owner parameter, or do most of these photos have their "copyright" attributed to the command? Because if this photo's copyright status is a break from the norm, I do not think we should defer to the standard disclaimer. If it is the norm, then we're probably okay. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's much else here which warrants comment. Supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

edit

Wow, if ever a ship seemed jinxed...

  • Copyedited as usual, let me know any concerns.
  • Structure and detail/comprehensiveness seem fine.
  • I might leave image review to someone else for now but...

Source review -- formatting and reliability look satisfactory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian - it sure gives Old Hoodoo a run for its money, I'd think. Your copyedit looks good as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't resist a final tweak of prose but now the image review is done I reckon we're go to go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Four images.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 23 October 2022 (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) 11:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Jack Rae

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Jack Rae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

It's been a while since I have brought an article here for an A-Class nomination but here we are, and in line with my current military aviation editing focus, it is a New Zealand flying ace of the Second World War: Jack Rae. He flew Spitfires on the Channel Front with No. 485 Squadron before serving on Malta in 1942, where he achieved a number of aerial victories before being repatriated to England. He returned to No. 485 Squadron but was shot down in 1943 and spent the rest of the war as a POW. The article a couple of years ago and went through the GA process a few months afterwards. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by to have a gander and leave feedback. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Looks good to me. Some quibbles to prove that I read it:

  • "A year after the outbreak of the Second World War" Could we have the exact year, preferably a date when he joined the RNZAF? I know September 1939 is burned into most of our brains but mundane readers may not know this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his flight training in New Zealand was completed, in March 1941" Drop the comma
  • "With the rank of sergeant pilot he was posted" Add comma after "pilot"
  • "on escort missions to France" I would say "over France"
  • "a few days later, on 12 August. He destroyed another Bf 109 less than a week later." The overuse of "later" makes it a bit ambiguous. Suggest "after that". The exact date would be better still.
  • I think I phrased it that to avoid have dates in successive sentences. I have put in exact date, plus a location from Shores & Williams to change it up a little. Zawed (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after his arrival, the airfield was raided which destroyed two of the Spitfires" Comma after "raided"
  • " a scramble to intercept raiding enemy aircraft during which his gunsight failed" Comma after "aircraft"
  • Usually we say "bail out" rather than "bale out", but I'll take your word for it that is the usual spelling in New Zealand
  • "Rae rejoined No. 485 Squadron as a flying officer in May 1943, which was now operating out of Biggin Hill." Suggest "Rae rejoined No. 485 Squadron, which was now operating out of Biggin Hill, as a flying officer in May 1943." to avoid subject/verb confusion
  • "He shared in the destruction of a Fw 190 on 27 July 1943" You don't need "1943" here.
  • "Prior to this, Rae was due to be promoted" to Flight Lieutenant? (And I don't think "Prior to this" is necessary.)
  • "Repatriated to New Zealand, he was discharged from the RNZAF in 1946" -> "Rae was discharged" since we have a new paragraph
  • "He was also involved in volunteer work, particularly for the International Red Cross which had provided aid when he was a POW in Germany." Comma after "Cross"
  • Any idea where he died or is buried?
  • Place of death added, but frustratingly I can't find where he was buried. I think he was buried in a Northland cemetery, probably in Kerikeri, but don't get any results when searching the relevant database. Zawed (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add a "ref=none" card to the Kiwi Spitfire Ace entry. Odd that you did not use it.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support Hawkeye. I have been advised that Rae's book is ready for collection. I will give you a ping once I have finished adding any new content to the article that arises out of the book. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ian

edit

Pretty well ready to support but early days yet and the article might change with others' comments...

  • Copyedited as usual but feel free to challenge if you think I've gone too far or misunderstood anything. I think I incidentally dealt with one or two of Hawkeye's concerns...
  • Structure and comprehensiveness look okay -- re. the latter:
    • Again per Hawkeye, I suppose you would get a lot more in by using the autobiography but there's a limit to what we can rely on there and his personal details seem to be covered fairly well anyway.
    • Agree with Hawkeye it would be good to get his resting place in -- Commonwealth war graves website?
    • You might also get some more details on his wartime exploits from the Osprey aces series if you have a mind or the means.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ian, thanks for the copyedit. I have getting Rae's book from the library, will look to add some content to the article from that. Note that I have not been able to pinpoint the location of his grave, other than it was in Northland. Zawed (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, Hawkeye7, thank you both for your comments. I had now added a few bits and bobs from Rae's book, see what you think. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Zawed, I'm not sure if the tidbit about swapping planes but still recovering his extra supplies is necessary but by all means leave it and see how it goes at FAC -- these little anecdotes do help humanise the subject.
One other thing I forgot to mention before, but again it might come up at FAC: in a few places you use the term 'claimed' -- obviously this is perfectly normal language in the air combat business, as all credits for destroying or damaging enemy aircraft start out as claims by the pilot involved, but for non-military people it can sound loaded or equivocal; perhaps it might be worth double-checking how the sources put it and if they're definite then say "destroyed" or "shot down", and if there's any doubt (but he was still given credit) then say "credited with"... WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, just inspecting again, I realise you only use "claimed" twice. I think leave "claimed a probable Bf 109 and a damaged C.202" as is, it should be okay, but "claimed a Bf 109 shot down" should just be "shot down a Bf 109" if the source is definite about it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I tweaked that second instance of claimed, the source is quite explicit that it was destroyed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I think we're good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- tweaked some formatting for consistency but reliability of sources used looks good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Back soon - Pendright (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Lead:

  • He was officially credited with the destruction of twelve enemy aircraft, eight probally destroyed, and six damaged.
Suggest: begin the 2nd clause with "in addition to" - which seems to be the case?
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was posted to England in 1941 to serve with the Royal Air Force, and flew Supermarine Spitfires over the Channel Front with No. 485 (New Zealand) Squadron.
Suggest: begin the sentence with "Rae" and add "he" between and & flew
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was forced down over France a few months later, and became a prisoner of war.
Drop the comma after later
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second World War:

  • The Second World War had been under way for several months by the time Rae joined the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF), in September 1940.[7]
  • by the time -> Could replace with the word before
  • (RNZAF), -> why the comma?
  • On one such mission, protecting bombers targeting Gosnay on 9 August, he came close to running out of fuel and only just made the return flight to England, setting down on a grass airstrip where other aircraft were parked.
  • "while" protecting bombers?
  • Could drop only
  • He shot down his first aircraft, a Messerschmitt Bf 109, a few days later, on 12 August.
  • his first "German" aircraft
  • Why the comma after later?
  • He destroyed another Bf 109 on 19 August, over Gravelines.[14][15]
Suggest: He destroyed another Bf 109 over Gravelines on 19 August.[14][15]
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malta:

  • On 1 May, Rae was part of a group of four Spitfires scrambled to deal with an incoming Italian bombing raid.
"that" scrambled
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After recovering from his wounds, Rae was posted to No. 249 Squadron, also flying Spitfires at Malta.
Suggest: After recovering from his wounds, Rae was posted to No. 249 Squadron where he was flying (or flew) Spitfires at Malta.
This one I haven't done. The reference here is to the squadron, I have tweaked the text to make that more clear. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He damaged a Bf 109 on 12 June when scrambled along with three others to meet approaching German fighters.[22]
Change scrambled to scrambling
This is another one I haven't done, grammatically I think scrambled works better? Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several days later, he encountered Italian fighters, shooting down a Reggiane Re.2001 and damaging another.[23]
Suggest: Several days later, Rae encountered Italian fighters and he shot down a Reggiane Re.2001 and damaged another.[23
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - @Zawed: Pendright (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Pendright, I have responded above. I have also added some material I got from Jack Rae's book as well, you will able able to find this by looking for the citations and matching it to the text. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The addition is fine - Supporting! Pendright (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A strange one. Knighted for discovering the Franco-Spanish fleet before the Battle of Vigo Bay in 1702, Hardy was court-martialled for not attacking a French squadron in 1707, and then investigated three more times for the same action. Made a rear-admiral in 1711, he was given command of a squadron in the English Channel. Highlights of this command include failing to catch a French squadron and letting the Dunkirk privateers out to destroy a convoy in 1711, and failing to intercept two more French squadrons in 1712. Made second-in-command of the Baltic Fleet for the Great Northern War in 1715, he served for one season before being dismissed from the navy, possibly for Jacobitism! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Looks pretty good. I have nothing much to say, but some points to prove I did read it:

  • Done.
  • Link Vice-Admiral, Rear-Admiral, Captain, Colonel, election petition, List of governors of Plymouth#Lieutenant-Governors of Plymouth
  • Done.
  • "The fortifications of Cádiz however proved too strong" Delete "however"
  • Done.
  • "commanded by Admiral François Louis Rousselet de Châteaurenault" Vice-Admiral
  • Done.
  • "Ordered to gain intelligence on French movements, the Portuguese were unable to provide him with such" Who was ordered: Hardy or the Portuguese?
  • Oops, certainly not the Portuguese!
  • "incensing the Cabinet who saw Hardy as at fault for not stopping him" I don't think "saw" is the right word here, as he was cleared of blame. "considered"?
  • Done.
  • "As such Hardy was brought before committees" Delete "As such". Or re-phrase.
  • Done.
  • "He having already been found innocent" Suggest "Since he had already been found innocent"
  • Done.
  • "from where Hardy was sent to the court " where -> whence
  • Done.
  • "Within Dunkirk a French privateer squadron was fitting out" Within -> At
  • Done.
  • "with which to embark the princess" You haven't said that she was a princess
  • Reworded to avoid confusion
  • "He became an Elder Brother of Trinity House in 1710" This is Leake right?
  • Nope, reworded
  • " as his political career clashed with the new monarchy of George I" Not sure what is meant here.
  • Have made an attempt at rewording but very open to suggestions. (The source only unhelpfully says "Like a number of other officers with secondary political careers, he found it difficult to flourish in the circumstances which prevailed after the Hanoverian succession, and he was dismissed")
  • " and was buried with his wife" I'm guessing she was dead at the time.
  • Ooh err, would have been a little awkward if she wasn't! Reworded.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks very much for the review, have replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
  • Changed
  • Changed

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

If I haven't gotten to this by Tuesday, please ping me. Hog Farm Talk 20:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and given command of the 6-gun fireship HMS Charles" - is 6-gun just a size rating, or was the Royal Navy putting cannons on something they just intended to light on fire?
  • The ship is recorded as holding 6 guns, although the size isn't recorded. I assume fireships had guns because until they were expended they still had to serve and/or defend themselves. Charles, for example, was first commissioned in 1689 but only expended in 1695.
  • "He continued in command of Pendennis until the end of the Nine Years' War in September 1697" - I think the chronology of the Nine Years' War could be clarified a bit - wasn't La Hogue part of it?
  • Mentioned it alongside La Hogue as well
  • "With the War of the Spanish Succession ongoing [...] and the allied army successfully got ashore" - I think this would benefit from a simple sentence or clause stating who the allies are and which side the British are on
  • Done.

Rest of it looks fine, no significant issues. Hog Farm Talk 23:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Hi, thanks for the review and apologies that it's taken me this long to get back to it. I've replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA

edit
  • I don't think the "died 1732" is needed in the article's name because there isn't a Thomas Hardy who is also an officer yet. If you're about to change it please do it after the nomination will pass or otherwise the bot will be confused.
    • I added the date to ensure that the article wasn't confused with Sir Thomas Hardy, 1st Baronet, who is a much more famous Royal Navy officer. Open to suggestions if you think it inappropriate though.
I think almost any British reader would assume that a British naval officer named Thomas Hardy was the one of Trafalgar fame. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hardy became a follower of George Churchill" Add here his rank.
    • Done.
  • "Hardy was knighted for his services." Which year?
    • The same year as noted earlier in the section.
  • "who became Hardy's patron in the service.[3][1]" Re-order the refs here.
    • Done.
  • "protecting trade from French privateers.[3][1][6]" Same as above.
    • Done.
  • "of mast ships in October.[3][8][7]" Same as above.
    • Done.
  • "Anglo-Dutch army successfully got ashore.[3][12][11]" Same as above.
    • Done.
  • "had recently arrived from the West Indies and was sheltering off Vigo.[3][2][15][16]" Trim one citation here per WP:CITETRIM.
    • Done.
  • "valuable ship" sailing from Santo Domingo" Add country here.
    • Not sure if this would be useful; the answer is "Spain", but saying so might confuse people into thinking I'm talking about mainland actual Spain..
  • "three ships[Note 3] to Tangier" Add country here.
    • Done.
  • "fleet and having seventy-four casualties.[3][2][23][21]" Trim per WP:CITETRIM.
    • Done.
  • "February, again serving in Dilkes' squadron" --> "February, again serving in Dilkes's squadron" Extra s is typically British.
    • Done.
  • "to the Channel, having been unproductive off Portugal.[30][29]" Re-order the refs here.
    • Done.
  • "convoy while he was parted from it.[3][2][32]" Same as above.
    • Done.
  • "ignored the vessel, entering Brest on 13 September" Add here country there are multiple Brests in the world.
    • Done.
  • "honourable court martial should be upheld.[Note 9][39][37]" Re-order the refs here.
    • Done.
  • "investigations were widely denounced as "un-English".[3][2][40]" Same as above.
    • Done.
  • "the line HMS Albemarle.[Note 10][3][2][40]" Same as above.
    • Done.
  • "From Lisbon the fleet travelled to Barcelona" Add country after Barcelona.
    • Done.
  • "Barcelona, where she and Charles married.[45][42]" Re-order the refs here.
    • Done.
  • "to blockade Dunkirk, with his flag in Canterbury" Add country here.
    • Done.
  • There are three howevers maybe remove one here?
    • Done.
  • "command through the winter of 1711–1712" Try to avoid seasons because of MOS:SEASONS.
    • Done.
  • "In the summer of 1715 Hardy was appointed second-in-command to Admiral" Same as above.
    • Done, might be a little awkward though.
  • "no official report of such a promotion occurring.[59][57]" Re-order the refs here.
    • Done.
  • "married the politician George Chamberlayne.[2][3][60][61]" Trim per WP:CITETRIM.
    • Done.
  • Isn't it court-martial instead of court martial? Same with in depth and in-depth?
    • Fixed in-depth, but believe court martial is British spelling.
  • "The French formed line of battle" --> "The French formed a line of battle"?
    • Believe the former is correct.
  • "(died 28 April 1720) some time before 1710" --> "(died 28 April 1720) sometime before 1710"?
    • Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Hi, thanks for the review! This completely slipped me by, apologies for not getting to it sooner. Have made my responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Any chance of OCLCs for the two Clowes works?
    • Done.
  • And is there an OCLC for Campbell?
    • Done.
  • In passing, why the upper case initial letters for "Elder Brother"?
    • Re-checked the source, and that's my bad. Changed.
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) 18:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

William D. Leahy

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

William D. Leahy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

William D. Leahy was America's most senior military officer during World War II, but probably the least well known of the five-star officers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

edit

Comments:

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

edit

Finally back. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit

Going down to Government service. Will do this later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Will try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that this one already has three general supports but no image review, I'll chip that in.
Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Others look fine. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Will look at today or tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • " "Burial Detail: Leahy, William H. – ANC Explorer"." - needs formatting improvements
  • Sources look okay from a reliability standpoint
  • Limited spot checks revealed no issues
  • Checked the one source I had which I thought might be relevant (The Two-Ocean War) and noted nothing that would suggest comprehensiveness issues.

Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Corrected the ANC Explorer reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:36, 4 October 2022 (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) 22:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Harry Crerar

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Harry Crerar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Continuing the series on the senior commanders of the 21st Army Group. Here is Canada's Harry Crerar Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • " "Story: Biography courtesy R.M.C. And links to his two brothers | Lives of the First World War"." - incomplete citation, formatting needs work
  • ""Alastair John Crerar"." - unconvinced that this is RS and doesn't seem to mention part of what it's citing (the wounding)?

Beyond those two, which are a recent addition by a third party, I don't have much concerns over the sourcing. I spot-checked part of the citation to Granatstein 2020 and didn't issues. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Deleted both. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

edit

Reviewed to end of Corps commander, more to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much of the first two paragraphs of Service in Italy seems more detailed than it needs to be in a biography of Crerar. It focusse more on the Canadian forces in Italy in general, and Simonds in particular, rather than Crerar. I think it could be shortened quite significantly.
    The first paragraph explains his transfer to Italy; the second does talk about Simonds, but it focuses on the relationship between Simonds and Crerar, which is important later on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mann was appointed the its chief of staff.." Remove a word.
     Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, this whole list of people: "Mann was appointed the its chief of staff on 28 January 1944; Brigadier Alfred Ernest Walford was the Deputy Adjutant and Quartermaster General (DA&QMG), the chief administrative officer; and Colonel George Edwin (Ted) Beament, like Simonds a Kingston graduate who had served with Crerar in B Battery, was the colonel (general staff). Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Wright was GSO1 (Intelligence) and Lieutenant-Colonel C. Archibald the GSO1 (Operations). Brigadier A. T. MacLean was chief engineer, but was replaced by Brigadier Geoffrey Walsh in September." Is it really needed in a biography of Crerar?
    These people all appear later on and ultimately they form his pall bearers. Says a bit about the make-up of First Canadian Army, and the way Crerar chose his staff. I decided to introduce them all together at this point rather than individually later on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was disappointing, .." We need to say to who, otherwise it sounds like Wikipedia is expressing an opinion.
     Y Crerar. Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..of the Great War." Change to either First World War or World War I.
     Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crerar's finest hour" Attribute this quote inline.
     Y Attributed inline. Another editor liked adding quotes from Granatstein but I removed several. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..to be accorded this honour.[138] and was an.." Full-stop should be a comma, unless you want to split the sentences.
     Y Changed full stop to comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. A really interesting piece, as I've come to expect. I've quibbled about the level of details in a couple of places, but you generally get the balance right between giving enough context to understand his life with enough focus on him as a subject. Good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Georgejdorner

edit

Early years

No need to note Lillian's wedding to Adam Beck in para 1. Beck can be linked in para 3, when he is noted as a brother-in-law. Lillian is non-notable.

Was Marion Verschoyle Cronyn related to Lt. V. P. Cronyn, a pilot involved in the death of Werner Voss? (This is a curiosity question. It has no bearing on the review.)

Lieutenant Verschoyle Phillip Cronyn and Marion Verschoyle Cronyn were first cousins. He was the son of Hume Cronyn (politician) and she was the daughter of Benjamin Barton Cronyn. Both were therefore grandchildren of Verschoyle Cronyn (1833-1920). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First World War

Para 1: Are the battery manning levels actual bodies in ranks, or just theoretical?

Tables of Organisation and Equipment. Would have been close to right in 1914. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about a comment about ranks being filled to manning levels, and then giving the manning levels?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Para 2: I doubt that anyone refers to 110mm howitzers and 8.2kg guns. Do these conversions make sense?

None whatsover. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why include meaningless conversions? Indeed, why not name the guns, as in [dreadnought 110mm gun], or whatever?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it came up once before, with people demanding meaningless conversions. I've removed them, and we'll see how it goes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they do it this time, I'll tell them they are full of prunes.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Para 3: Reporting his bride by nickname is reminiscent of his adopting a pet. Here's where Lillian's name should be used.

In any formal situation, she would have been Mrs Harry Crerar. Otherwise, she was always called Verse. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Ms Crerar is best known as Verse, in the sense Wop May is not denoted by his formal name, then I can see using her nickname. However, to keep from seeming misogynistic, there should be some explanatory phrase such as, '...best known as..."
Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Para 4: Shouldn't Mentions in Despatches be listed in the info box?

Yes. Added.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corps Commander

Last para: Dieppe casualties total 5,313 for 5,000 Canadians involved. Even if every Canadian became a casualty, the numbers do not match. Para 7: Shouldn't his brothers be mentioned in the info box?

Only if they were notable (ie have their own articles)
Fair enough.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, should the brother-in-law be listed?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Listed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Wars

Last para: Again, I question the use of the nickname Verse for Lillian.

I have re-checked the sources, and they all use this name. It seems that she was always known as Verse. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above,Georgejdorner (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it reasonable to posit that if the form of her name is the same as it would be if she was notable enough for her own article, it's OK.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Military HQs, etc. Para 2: The significance of the Statute of Westminster and Visiting Forces Act is not clear.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Added some more explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That clarifies matters nicely.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Para 4: Second sentence so convoluted I do not understand it. How about a rewrite? Maybe into two or three sentences?Georgejdorner (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last para: Why was the Battle of Hong Kong disastrous?Georgejdorner (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is explained. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need a break.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and reread the remainder of the article. Amazingly, I can find no additional faults. Probably because I was the latest reviewer.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: The only unresolved item is the actual casualties suffered at Dieppe.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Y I've double-checked the figures and they are correct. I think the confusion may result from double-counting; accordingly, I resisted the urge to simplify, and expanded this bit, although it's drifting off-topic a bit, because others may be puzzled. Added a more comprehensive source while I was at it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might sharpen up that these casualty categories overlap, resulting in unintended overcounts. The new figures are appreciated.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: pass

edit

Overall, I think this is well and appropriately illustrated. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing for image check. Zawed (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2022 (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) 12:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Big Bertha (howitzer)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Big Bertha (howitzer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

At long last, I am nominating the other big, huge, and heavy WWI German siege gun for A-Class review. Although I don't think it's ready for FAC because it relies primarily on a single source (though written on the English-language expert as far as I am aware), I do think it's ready for A-Class, as it's pretty much done otherwise. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Panzerfort Loncin.jpg since this is on commons it needs German license tag
  • Vami_IV, I see the issue around the Great Dictator image has been redundant because it has been deleted from the article, perhaps this tag {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} may resolve the issue regarding the Panzerfort image? Zawed (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I'll try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 15:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "used in 1918 after all Big Berthas had been removed from service" - this tidbit from the lead isn't in the body
  • Infobox says the Austro-Hungarians used it, but not seeing that in the body?
  • "but known as the Beta-Gerät to disguise its purpose as a siege gun" - is it worth glossing what exactly "Beta Gerat" indicated?
  • " the M-Gerät weighed 42.6 metric tons (42.6 t)" - I may be about to show stupidity here, but the conversion is converting between tonnes and metric tons, which our article on the subject suggests are the same thing? (I've only ever been taught the 2000 lb one, not sure if that's a ton, a long ton, or a short ton)
  • Infobox and body appear to contradict on muzzle velocity (IB says 400m/s while body says 815m/s
  • "giving it a traverse of 360°" - but the infobox says 4 degrees?
  • "The kurze Marinekanone (KMK) Batteries that formed " - are you sure Batteries should be capital here?
  • The premature detonation seems to be a problem - do the sources state if Big Bertha had it any worse than other German guns, or was it just crap ammo?
  • Can it be directly stated that they didn't see service on the Eastern Front after the offensive in 1915?
  • "from 2011 to 2019" - both of the sources predate 2019 so that ending date isn't supported by the cites
  • Does the external link really add anything?
  • Are there no usable images of one of the original pieces in WWI?

Hog Farm Talk 04:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vami, any comment on the one remaining point? I'd be okay with just removing the not fully-supported date range, as it's fairly incidental. Hog Farm Talk 19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I missed that point and was out of internet for a couple days. It's addressed now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 - Support

edit
  • "It had a longer and heavier barrel that was mated to the M-Gerät's carriage, but was found to be less effective than the base gun. " Delete comma
  • "breechloaded" should be "breech loaded"?
  • "The armour-piercing shell was designed to smash through concrete and metal armour, but was largely ineffective against reinforced concrete." Delete comma
  • Does 11th Army have a link?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, thanks for reviewing~! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA-5

edit
  • "a German siege howitzer built by Krupp AG in Essen, Germany" Pipe Germany to the German Empire.
  • "When World War I broke out, the two available" I assume you use British English if so then change WWI to "the First World War".
  • "still prototypes, were sent to Liège and" Maybe add here "in Belgium"?
  • "a smaller-calibre (30.5-centimetre (12.0 in))" Is it possible to remove the nought here?
  • Development and design section isn't mentioned in the lead?
  • "partnership was a 30.5 cm (12.0 in) mortar" --> "partnership was a 30.5-centimetre (12.0 in) mortar" This is a compound adjective, also remove the nought here.
  • "opted for a 30.5 cm howitzer, the Beta-Gerät 09, and a 42 cm (17 in) gun" Same as above.
  • In the "General guidelines on use of units" table bellow UNITSYMBOLS it states "To form a value and a unit name into a compound adjective use a hyphen or hyphens ..." and uses "a five-day holiday", "a five-cubic-foot box" and "a 10-centimeter blade" as examples. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a 28 cm (11 in) howitzer transportable" Same as above.
  • "Finally, in Autumn 1911, Krupp and the APK" Per MOS:SEASONS we should try to avoid seasons.
  • "the M-Gerät weighed 42.6 metric tons (41.9 long tons; 47.0 short tons)" If you use British English then use tonne instead of metric tons.
  • "and had a 5.04 m (16 ft 6 in) barrel" --> "and had a 5.04-metre (16 ft 6 in) barrel"
  • I see a lot of metres maybe per MOS:UNITNAMES abbreviated them?
  • "wagons could move at 7 km/h (4.3 mph)" Overlink here per MOS:OVERLINK.
  • "The 30.5 cm Beta-M-Gerät" --> "The 30.5-centimetre Beta-M-Gerät"
  • I see a lot of conversions of tons which isn't needed if they're too small to see a difference.
  • "Shells for the 42 cm guns" --> "Shells for the 42-centrimetre guns"
  • "arrived near Liège" Maye add the country here?
  • I'm not sure what the meaning is of the "de" in the name of the fort? Isn't it just the preposition "of"?
  • "The 42 cm guns" --> "The 42-centimetre guns"
  • "A single 42 cm shell struck" Another compound adjective here.
  • Unlink the units metres, feet, m/s and ft/s.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit
  • Sources look to be good quality
  • Check source titles for title case as there is some inconsistency there
  • No publisher location for any references
  • Note a needs a cite
  • Couldn't find one; note removed.
  • Something is up with cite 47, it isn't linked like all the others
  • Spot checks done on the webcite links, and these are OK. I couldn't access the Economist article as it is behind a paywall. Happy to AGF on the print sources given nominator's history.
  • In the further reading, ISBNs are given with dashes but not in the references section. I would suggest putting all of the further reading titles into the cite book template for consistency with those in the references section.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Witold Pilecki

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Piotrus (talk)

Witold Pilecki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently passed a detailed GA review, and I think it is ready for the next step. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by

edit

Well, firstly, some of those missing page numbers need to be resolved. Secondly, why are there all those citations in the lede? See MOS:LEADCITE. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit

Article repeats debunked myths about the subject. (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Buidhe: Could you elaborate for our benefit? I'm only mildly familiar with the subject. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, what do you mean Buidhe, please elaborate. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Indy beetle A key issue is that the article says as a fact that "In 1940 Pilecki volunteered to allow himself to be captured by the occupying Germans in order to infiltrate the Auschwitz concentration camp". This narrative (at a minimum) is contested in Reliable Sources (including two cited in the article: Fleming and Cuber-Strutyńska; the latter states that "the commonly used expression [volunteer] only partially corresponds with the facts", especially considering "the form and circumstances in which Pilecki was assigned the task did not give him many possibilities of refusal"), so it should be rephrased or presented as disputed. The legacy section mostly just lists a bunch of works about him, without going into other issues that should be covered, such as myths and falsehoods promoted by admirers, how he became famous, etc. (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This claim raised earlier by a sock-puppet of a banned user has been discussed and debunked [4]. Anything else? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Indy beetle A single scholar (Cuber-Strutyńska, cited in the article) questioned whether Pilecki can be called a volunteer (it is a description of him widely used in 99% of RS), later, IIRC, a similar question was raised in the book review (Fleming). It's a valid question to what degree he was pressured to volunteer, actually, which is why this is already discussed in the article ("Pilecki had been nominated to infiltrate the Auschwitz concentration camp... Włodarkiewicz said it was not an order but an invitation to volunteer, although Pilecki saw it as a punishment for refusing to back Włodarkiewicz's ideology. Nevertheless, he agreed, which subsequently, years later, led to Pilecki's being described in numerous sources as having volunteered to infiltrate Auschwitz."). As GCB pointed out, this was discussed before, on article's talk page (Talk:Witold_Pilecki/Archive_2#After_discussion,_WP:APLRS, note that the discussion was significantly tainted by involvement of said sock of, sigh, Icewhiz). The consensus, per vast majority of the RS, is that it is common to describe him as a volunteer. I mean, several of the monographs dedicated by him are even explicitly titled The Auschwitz Volunteer, The Volunteer (book), Il volontario, and Ochotnik do Auschwitz. It's a pretty fringe POV to say that he didn't volunteer, and to claim that a POV of a single, academic article 'debunks a myth' is quite unfair, to say the least. We have dozens of academic sources which call him a volunteer, and two minor ones which discuss if this is correct (only one in depth, IIRC). As for "myths and falsehoods promoted by admirers, how he became famous", I think we do discuss the latter (Garliński's work and subsequent, even summarized in th lead and discussed in the Legacy section in more detail), and don't think the former is discussed in depth in any reliable sources I've seen, but if they exist, anyone is welcome to link to them and preferably improve the article using them. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Indy beetle - the article does not repeat any "debunked myths" GizzyCatBella🍁 13:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the current reputation of the Institute of National Remembrance in the scholarly community? I remember some kerfuffle from a few years ago about it being politicized. Can we trust it as a source? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you can. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indy beetle I think the article on the Institute is up to date and discusses the 'keruffles'. It has been politicized and received some criticism, it was IIRC discussed at RSN too, and the current consensus is that it is still reliable. Realistically, most criticism is related not to what it does but what it doesn't do (i.e. that it is not doing much investigation of the crimes committed by Poles on the Polish Jews). That's unfortunate, but as to research it does there is not much criticism I am aware of (again, outside of people saying 'but you should research more important topics like x'). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the article is stable and has been stable for months (it was disrupted few month ago by a now-banned sock). If it had big problems, it wouldn't be stable enough to pass the recent good GA review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Buidhe, just checking to see if your oppose still stands? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard for putting something in wikivoice is not "it is common to describe him as a volunteer". The standard is "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." The assertion is clearly a seriously contested one and to put into wikivoice means the article does not comply with wp:npov. Buidhe public (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:UNDUE, if 99% sources (ok, by count used, maybe 95%, I'll go as low as 90% even) call him volunteer, and one or two at most dissent and question this - no, I still do not see a problem. The minority viewpoint is not ignored, it is mentioned in the article body. To give it more weight would violate NPOV. In particular, since you quoted policy, this is very much NOT a "seriously contested assertion". Not a single work has been dedicated to disputing this; two scholars made a passing (few sentences a paragraph or two, at best) comments along the lines of "calling him a volunteer is not exactly correct" (IMHO, a fair point, I agree), but their point hasn't generated much traction. This minor critique does not warrant going against a very common, estabilished and generally not questioned way of describing him. What you are suggesting would very much violate NPOV, giving UNDUE weight to a very minor viewpoint. Again: we have entire books, plural, calling him a volunteer, vs. a few sentences of "maybe not". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The majority of RS's call him a volunteer - I don't see any issue here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You literally cite multiple sources in the article that explicitly disagree with said proposition, so I don't see how you can argue that it's not seriously contested. Unless your argument is that Michael Fleming is not serious? Why do you expect a source that is written explicitly to debunk this particular claim (ignoring the fact that two of the cited sources make this a major aspect of their argument)? That's a strange standard I've never heard before, what backing for it is there in the P&G? If you think it's the majority view, find a source for that or simply write "often considered to be" to avoid having Wikipedia take a side in this dispute.
      GCB the standard for wikivoice is not "majority", it's "seriously contested". If you don't like that you need to petition to change the NPOV policy.
      Local consensus cannot override a fundamental Wikipedia policy. Buidhe public (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Having read Cuber-Strutyńska, am I correct is saying that the issue here is not that he volunteered for the mission (in the sense that the old sergeant major used to use the word), but that the nature of the mission was not appreciated at the time? Which is to say that the readers will know what the participants could not in 1940, namely that Auschwitz was to become an extermination camp, and that this was little better than a suicide mission? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's part of it. The second part is that volunteering in the military often has some strings attached (superiors "volunteering" subordinates, peer pressure). We do touch upon this in the article, to the extent that sources cover this very minor issue. Vast majority of sources don't really discuss this, and just call him a volunteer, with no qualifications. I honestly don't see what else we can do, given UNDUE, which is very much a fundamental Wikipedia policy. PS. I'll note that Buidhe accuses the article of repeating "debunked myths"; first, they never provided evidence of more than one myth (the issue of volunteering), second, it's hardly debnked (two scholars made passing remarks suggesting this term might not be fully correct in their papers), third, we don't ignore them and in the article body, we do acknowledge their critique. Trying to give their critique UNDUE weight would be, well, UNDUE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Kges1901

edit

I'll start reviewing this one.

  • In the Early life section, suggest mentioning that his being sent to Orel was a result of the war, and that the move from Olonets to Wilno was due to parental desire to preserve Polish culture as this is mentioned in the sources
  • Was the Self-Defense militia actually aligned with the Whites more so than being Polish nationalist? AFAIK the Whites didn't have much of a cooperative relationship with the Poles because of conflicting nationalism.
  • Krakus seems like it was more of a training program or movement than a training school, Paliwoda describes it as a program
  • Received the Silver Cross of Merit for his activism - Not sure activism is the best word in English to describe his activities. The sources mention his management of a dairy and landowning activities or work with the reservists during this period, could this be phrased more specifically since it seems that the award was for his contributions to either the reserves or farming activities?
  • 'First's, Last's and Only's' is a trivia book. Why is this necessary or reliable as a reference?
  • Could the origins of the different versions of how he got arrested be elaborated on? Kges1901 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901 1) Done (content added). 2) Removed claim about aligned to the Whites, not in sources. 3) changed "school" to program, added ref to Paliwoda, nice find 4) changed activism to activities 5) No objection to removing First... It's probably there b/c it may be more easily accessible for the English reader than the other cited source (a Polish book). 6). Sadly, I didn't find any more in-depth treatment of the arrest (I assume you mean the WWII era event), then what's discussed in [5]. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Pilecki gave Mrs. Newerly - Change to Barbara Newerly, sounds archaic to refer to women only by their husband's last name
  • it has been said that "it is likely that Witold arranged for his execution - does Fairweather or any Polish source give more details on who reported this, or does it need qualification
  • Kedyw's Chrobry II Battalion, Warszawianka Company - Could sound better as the Warszawianka Company of Kedyw's Chrobry II Battalion
  • Was the company he commanded the 1st Warszawianka Company or just Warszawianka Company?
  • Are there more details on his activities during the Warsaw Uprising?
  • Pilecki was reassigned Cuber-Strutynska says that he joined the II Polish Corps rather than being assigned there. I'm guessing that he wasn't under any command structure since the Home Army had been suppressed by then?
  • relations between the government-in-exile and the Soviet-backed regime of Boleslaw Bierut deteriorated AFAIK the government in exile never had a good relationship with the Lublin Committee
  • Pilecki's diary was translated into - Clarify that it was his Auschwitz diary or report
  • Could the Legacy section be expanded to include Polish works and assessments on his legacy?
  • Has the Pilecki House Museum opened yet, that section should be updated
  • Are there other key details in the Polish books cited in the further reading? I'd suggest using those more than the English works since I assume that the English-language authors might not speak Polish and are relying on more detailed Polish accounts or previously published accounts such as Garlinski Kges1901 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901 Done (see c/e). Regarding Warszawianka Company, the sources I see do not give it a numeral. Regarding additional details, nothing substantial in the sources I have access too. We do cite the recent English works, the Polish works are a bit older. I doubt there'll be much in them, although probably a few tidbits could be found. Regarding expanding the Legacy, I think this is already discussed there? Regarding the museum, seems like its opening has been delayed (source: local radio, is this worth adding? Their official website states they are "in preparation for opening", but do invite people to see a temporary exhibition in the garden...). Presumably when it is opened there'll be more coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

edit

Disclaimer: I usually stay far away from anything to do with Eastern Europe.

  • Early life: I get a bit confused here. His family was Polish speaking? (You also later mention a family estate in Belarus.)
  • General Władysław Wejtko -> Major General Władysław Wejtko. Same for Józef Kwaciszewski. Władysław Anders should be a Lieutenant General
  • "retreating German troops" I wouldn't describe them that way. Since the war was over, they were returning to Germany?
  • "By the end of the conclusion" Suggest simply "By the conclusion"
  • "Following the war's end," We already said this. Suggest deleting this phrase.
  • Wilno is linked twice, as is World War I. So too is Polish II Corps, which is also called Polish 2md Corps. Recommend standardising on the Roman numeral form.
  • "promoted to the rank of plutonowy (corporal) and was designated as a non-commissioned officer" Aren't all corporals non-coms?
  • He is not listed in the Polish Underground Navbox
  • "how the Germans ran the then-new camp, which was thought to be an internment camp or large prison rather than a death camp" And they were correct; it would not be a death camp for another year.
  • "the Germans were inciting Polish hatred against the Jews as a diversion from their own crimes" I think the motive was to encourage cooperation.
  • Link Gestapo, SS-Untersturmführer, fall of communism in Poland
  • " Pilecki was ordered by General Anders" Drop "General" after first mention.
  • lieutenant colonel Jan Hryckowian. Captalised "lieutenant colonel"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 Good point re early life, I've added a source and some more details. His origins are a classic EE confusion story (Polish or Polonized nobility, living in what was then called Lithuania, now Belarus, see Grand Duchy of Lithuania for context, deported to Russia as a punishment for opposing the Russian occupation).
Anyway, all done, outside your comment about "being correct" (not sure how to act on that). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CPA

edit
  • Due he was born in the Russian Empire far away from Poland I think the Eastern Slavic naming customs should apply here.
  • Citations in the lead are mostly unnecessary due the info is mostly mentioned in the body.
  • "He was a descendant of a Polish-speaking noble family (szlachta)" So is he then Polish or was he a Lithuanian who spoke Polish?
  • "January 1863–64 Uprising, for which a major part of their estate was confiscated.[10][1][11]" Re-order the refs here.
  • There's a clear MOS:SANDWICH here.
  • There are four howevers maybe reduce them?
  • "ancestral estate, Sukurcze, in the Lida district" District needs an upper case.
  • "Pilecki received the Silver Cross of Merit for his activities." I assume you mean that he got it because he organised the Krakus Military Horsemen Training program?
  • Per MOS:DATETOPRES use "German forces on the night of 5/6 September".
  • "sources as having volunteered to infiltrate Auschwitz.[2]: 66 [3][4][5][7][14]: 85" Reduce the citations here per Wikipedia:Citation overkill
  • "liberated on 29 April 1945.[7][9] [20]: 213" There's an unnecessary space between the citations.
  • "one of their recipients was Polish prime minister Józef Cyrankiewicz" Prime minister needs upper cases.
  • There are sentences where there are more than three citations maybe reduce them per Wikipedia:Citation overkill
  • There are a lot of sources which have a Polish title maybe translate them?

As a Pole I'm happy to see another Polish nomination however I think there are some issues here to be addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5 I am unsure which parts of the article do you think should follow Eastern Slavic naming customs, could you elaborate?
Due he was born in a country where Eastern Slavic naming customs are used i.e Russia, we should use his patronymic name instead of a middle name since that's what official documents would tell us.
That is never done for Polish people, nor by any sources cited. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations in the lead are there due to some editors in the past seeing some claims as controversial and requesting them there.
Sources universally call him Polish, as I believe we do in the article. But see also my reply to Hawkeye7 above, and the sentence you mention was expanded due to his comment.
I am sorry, I do not understand the concept of MOS:SANDWICH. If you have any suggestion show to fix it, please say so. I don't think we should be removing any images and they are in correct sections. We could remove the 'Location of Białystok in the borders of 1920 Poland' map, which admittedly is not very relevant. would that help?
Both File:Drużyna harcerska z Orła n. Oką 1917 Witold Pilecki Witold Ferchmin.png and File:1920 Bialystok map Poland by Henryk Arctowski BPL 10105.png are MOS:SANDWICH issues because we should try to avoid sandwiching tekst between images and images or infobox. Personally I'm not sure how to fix this to be honest. @Gog the Mild: do you have an idea?
Nobody came up with a solution so I suggest leaving things s they are. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced howevers by one, as one was not needed.
Fixed District.
Regarding the medal, I think the sources do not provide specific reason outside something like "extra activity/activism in the field related to civic and military responsibilities" etc.
Changed to 5/6 although frankly I don't think MOS version is more clear. But meh.
Citations for volunteering are important as this part was heavily contested in the past and edit warred over, so numerous citations are there to prevent someone claiming this not the dominant, established narrative.
Capitalized Prime Minister (should we linked it to Polish Prime Minister?).
Good point let's link that.
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I counted two places with 4 citations (aside of the volunteer case mentioned above) and reduced the number to 3 or less.
I will add translated titles to references soon.
Thank you for your review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5, not sure if you sam my final replies - is there anything you'd like me to address or are we GTG? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Some issues to resolve. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 I corrected the first image licence to PD, and I removed the last one as mostly unnecessary and yeas, possibly a copyvio issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Source quality looks fine
  • All sources are correctly formatted.
  • Spot checks: 3, 6, 9, 14, 24, 30 - all good.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article meets our standards. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:12, 23 August 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Fort Southerland

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Fort Southerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

What I believe to be a comprehensive article on a minor ACW fortification in southern Arkansas. Built by the Confederates, it was then strengthened by Union forces during the brief occupation of Camden, and later again by the Confederates. It's now a city park and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but there is some doubt as to if the named used on the historic register is historically accurate. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kges1901

edit
  • It emplaced three cannons In the article you wrote that it could emplace that many cannons. Did Sterling Price ever have artillery actually manning the Camden defenses?
    • Shea says that it "held only three artillery pieces" so I guess so. Have taken out the "could" language based on Shea
  • Hundreds of soldier and slave labor were used to build the positions - This isn't grammatically correct as written
    • Rejigged
  • Confederate artilleryman William Jeffrey Bull served in the Camden fortifications in 1865, and provides details as to the fate of the fort in his edited diary. This also provides the detail that soldiers at the time called it Fort Southland, which makes sense as to the name
    • I'm a bit hesitant to use that - I'm not seeing a connection between Fort Southerland there and Redoubt E, and the modern sources note that the Fort Southerland name may have been Redoubt D so there's no guaranty that the diary and this article are referring to the same redoubt
  • The city's defenses were not occupied at this time - Wasn't the reason for this that Price decided to defend Washington instead of Camden?
    • Yes, added (and sourced to Castel's bio of PricE)
  • The Union forces withdrew - the context that this was due to Steele's inability to supply his troops from the devastated region is missing
    • Added from Castel
  • Christ speculates that the post-Camden Expedition Confederate work on the defenses was a make-work project, which seems relevant
    • Added
  • I feel like some of the information in the description section might be better covered in the construction section, like the details about how it was defended by a ditch. The details on the modern park seem like they could be adequately summarized under the paragraph describing the NHL listing
    • I've moved much of the information into the history section, to the extent that I'm now wondering if there's even a need for the separate description section
  • Out of curiosity, is there a period map of the Camden defenses available? Kges1901 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only one I've seen was made by Shea for his article, and would be copyrighted

@Kges1901: - preliminary responses above, sorry it took so long for me to get to this. Hog Farm Talk 23:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

Support Comments from Iazyges

edit

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CPA

edit
  • "Fort Southerland, also known as Redoubt E" --> "The Fort Southerland, also known as Redoubt E"?
    • That doesn't really work in AmEng
  • "Slave labor and hundreds of soldiers" What kind of slave labour was this?
  • "It emplaced three cannon, although the" --> "It emplaced three cannons, although the"
    • Done

That's anything I could find. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901 and Hog Farm:: Where is this nomination at? Have Kges1901's concerns been met? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - I think they've been met, although I'm waiting on Kges to be able to get around to it. They've been busy IRL I believe and have only been editing sporadically since July. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

CSS Missouri

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): User:Sturmvogel 66, Hog Farm (talk)

CSS Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Sturmvogel 66 and I bring you a co-nom for another Confederate ironclad. This one was trapped on the Red River by low water and never saw combat; it was sold for scrap after the war. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass, no images (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It did have File:C.S. Ram MISSOURI.jpg but I removed it because the licensing needed work and wasn't bulletproof anyway. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I've re-added the image with proper licensing, so it should be checked again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this image, what is the original publication before 1927? (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the fellow's sketchbook; I'm not sure that it was ever published within his lifetime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the details of authorship in Bisbee, it's apparently this guy, who died in 1913. Hog Farm Talk 22:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • Link poppet valve.
  • "although a speed of twice as fast had been promised". Suggest → 'which was twice as fast had been promised'
  • "Link t-rail.
  • "leaked like a sieve". Graphic, but not very encyclopedic.
    • Spoilsport!
  • "One ship was placed with riverboat captains Thomas Moore and John Smoker for one ironclad"? Should "ship" read 'contract'?
    • It's really a tossup, IMO, since both contract and ship were used in the previous sentence.
  • "with the being awarded to George Fitch for the other". :-)
  • "is known to still survive". Delete "still".
  • "The keel of the first ship was laid the following month". Suggestion: give the actual date. A lot has happened since you mentioned October 1862.
    • I'd like to, but nobody knows exactly when.
  • "The low water prevented". Suggest deleting "The".
  • I assume nothing is known of what happened to her after she was sold?
    • Not that I've ever been able to find.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments. See if my changes are acceptable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kges1901

edit
  • Link 'green timber' to green wood, Bisbee connects the leakiness of the ship specifically to the timber
  • wreck of the Union ironclad USS Indianola, the 32-pounder piece Needs a conjunction or a semicolon
  • Might be better to specifically mention that Fauntleroy wanted a blue water command of a blockade runner rather than being with the brown water navy to provide a better explanation for why he didn't want to command the Missouri
  • Mention that Carter was the experienced former commander of the General Polk and that Confederate Secretary of the Navy Mallory specifically tasked him with overseeing the construction of the Missouri
  • Potentially more useful to note that the guns were delayed because Pemberton took the cannons slated for the ship to use them for the Vicksburg defenses (Chatelain, p. 263)
    • Added
  • her Missouri after the state and her erstwhile Confederate government. Seems anachronistic to refer to states as female
  • Bisbee mentions that the most important difficulty that Missouri faced was getting fuel to even operate due to lack of coal and shortage of the alternative power source, wood. Chatelain notes that the ship's voyage to Alexandria relied in requisitioning wood from local plantations.
  • Chatelain mentions that crew desertion became a problem in the final months of the war and the Confederates had to impress soldiers from the army to make up for this. This seems pretty relevant to the ship's operations and potential combat effectiveness
  • Bisbee mentions specifically that she was sold for scrap (p. 168)
  • The article doesn't mention the ship's complement which is usually in other ship articles. Chatelain includes that Carter surrendered 41 officers and men at Alexandria (p. 288). Kges1901 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how relevant the 41 officers and men figure really is, since part of her crew had been pulled for Webb's run. Hog Farm Talk 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's an interesting [6] article by Katherine Brash Jeter in the Louisiana History journal, that shines a light on the problems of the manning of the Missouri, most importantly that the Confederates lacked seamen and had to resort to soldiers, but this worsened the desertion problem due to the harsh conditions of ironclad life. The article includes the detail that Carter requested 72 men for his crew from Kirby Smith in late 1863. The ORN might have more information on her designed complement. Kges1901 (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

edit
  • The sources are high quality RS, with Chatelain and Bisbee having multiple positive academic reviews.
  • The primary source ORN is used appropriately
  • A suggested source for expansion prior to FA would be A Man and His Boat on Carter's career for additional details, published by the University of Southwestern Louisiana in 1996[7]. There is also a nine page article about the Missouri by William Still in the academic journal Louisiana Studies, vol. 4 (1965). Kges1901 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've incorporated the Jeter source. I'll try to hunt down Still's article. The Carter book appears to be at least partially just primary-source writings by Carter himself, and the editor (Jeter) is already used as a source. There's apparently no publicly-held copy in Missouri, but I can try to talk UArk Fayetteville into letting me ILL their copy if this ever goes to FAC. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA

edit
Hi CPA-5, will you be doing a full review on this? Just a query, not a nag. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog. I've been on holiday to Italy and it was fun (even though the weather was hot) I might do a review if this comment is adressed. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I missed this! I'll get that lead expanded soon. Hog Farm Talk 12:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - sorry for the delay on this! I've gotten the lead expanded out a bit. Hog Farm Talk 20:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Hey Hog no problem got used to it. The lead looks much better, I think we only need info about the Description section and then we're done there. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Little reminder here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Sorry about the delay. I've had a really busy last couple weeks and forgot about this. I've added another couple sentences from the description section, so there's now three sentences summarizing that. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Hog Farm: I've made my review. If you can address them then we might pass this nom. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2022 (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) 18:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Duckport Canal

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Duckport Canal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Grant's other canal. Not as well documented as Grant's Canal, but thanks to two sources I didn't have available for that earlier article (Winters and Jones), this one's in a spot for A-class, although I'm still debating if it has enough meat for an eventual FAC. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass. Are there really no illustrations or photographs from the time? (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: - I've turned up one from Harper's Weekly - verified publication in 1863. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

edit

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
edit
  • made available by the same falling water levels that doomed the canal. perhaps made more accessible by the same falling water levels that doomed the canal.?
    • Done
Background
edit
  • which would cut the Confederacy into two halves and provide an outlet for American goods to be exported. perhaps change and provide to as well as provide to be more clear that these are not related to each other, just the river.
    • Done
  • but were unable to bring it into submission perhaps change bring it to force it
    • Done
  • as Grant focused on other plans suggest as Grant shifted his focus to other plans
    • Done
Canal
edit
  • while historians John D. Winters and Terry L. Jones state that the path would go from the Mississippi River into Big Bayou, then Willow Bayou, then Roundaway Bayou, and then Bayou Vidal before re-entering the Mississippi River at New Carthage. might be helpful to see a visual representation of this difference, maybe ask Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop if someone is willing; hardly a requirement, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • long and was then connected via 3 miles (4.8 km) of obscure streams to Walnut Bayou what does obscure streams mean here? That no one knows which stream was going to be used? Would elaborate if so.
    • The exact quote in the source is ... to a back swamp about a half mile inland. The nameless, meandering streams in the swamp flowed into Walnut Bayou .... I'm open to ways of rephrasing this, but the creative juices are not flowing for me tonight. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps just unnamed streams?
  • However, the region was inhabited by large numbers of poisonous snakes I presume this should be venomous snakes, unless the workers got really hungry mid-shift.
    • Yes, it should be venomous. I can never keep these two straight.
      I once ate the leaves from a tree at my school in Kindergarten, and was summarily dragged off to poison control. I will never mix up poison with anything else after the lecture I got.
Aftermath
edit

Comments Support from Indy beetle

edit
  • A close-up view of the canal route that is explicitly labeled would be nice. Really had to squint for it and cross-reference another source to find it on the provided map. Alternative maps are available here.
    the NPS pamphlet clearly marks works from other sources so I'd say you're definitely in the clear on that one. (t · c) buidhe 03:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winters' book has more info on the surveying of the canal route, apparently conducted by Captain John W. Cornyn and 300 men, which could be reflected in the article.
    • Added
  • The workers were plagued by fewer insects than expected Could we use a word other than "plagued"? That implies the insects were a major problem, but the rest of the sentence suggests not.
    • Is "disturbed" any better?
      • Yes.
  • However, the region was inhabited by large numbers of poisonous snakes. I wonder, did the troops have any standard method for dealing with pests such as snakes, insects, and rats?
    • Nothing I've seen says.
  • The historian Michael B. Ballard suggests that, in addition to the falling water levels, the knowledge that enough additional boats would become available to him to make a general supply line also contributed to the decision to abandon the Duckport project. Would become available to Grant? Also, by what means, the Mississippi river?
    • Ballard is truly cryptic here - Grant's thinking changed when he learned that enough boats were available in St. Louis to provide transportation and establish a supply line. He therefore abandoned the Duckport project; declining water levels made it unworkable anyway. I'm open to any alternative phrasings here.
  • It seems Grant inspected the canal himself on April 18, which would be worth a mention.
    • Added
  • Is it known what happened to the remains of the canal? (I ask since part of Grant's Canal has survived and is maintained as a national park). This mentions a historical highway marker.
    • I've added from that source that little remains and the marker. None of the other sources I've seen mention a fate of the canal. This which may or may not be RS discusses the fates of Grant's Canal and the Lake Providence Canal (which I'll probably get to eventually) but while it mentions Duckport says nothing of what happened to it. Hog Farm Talk 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

Taking this up as a source review as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bastian, David F. (1995) From what I could find of Burd Street Press, many of their offerings appear to be pop history, however David Bastian himself appears to be a very qualified person in the field, and published a number of technical papers, so waive issues with publisher. No issue.
  • Bearss, Edwin C. (2007) [2006]. Per WorldCat, it wants to associate the ISBN with a 2009 and a 2007 [2006] edition; for the 2007 [2006] edition it gives James M McPherson as a second author, and some other editions do as well. Defer to whatever the copy you used said.
    • I'm definitely using the (2007) [2006] edition. McPherson wrote a four page preface (pp. xi - xiv); the rest of the content is from Bearss (the information in my copy clearly notes "Introduction by James McPherson"). I don't see a need to list McPherson as an author given that I'm not citing any of the preface he wrote (which is just a bio of Bearss)
  • Kennedy, Frances H., ed. (1998). Per WorldCat, the associated ISBN of the right date gives the location as just Boston; there is one edition that gives it as just New York. Possibly the double publishing is an unreflected reality, defer to whichever copy you used.
    • The print copy I have says "Houghton Mifflin Company * Boston * New York" for the publisher info
  • Shea, William L.; Winschel, Terrence J. (2003). WorldCat does not want to associate the given ISBN (978-0-8032-9344-1) with the 2003 date, but rather with a 2006 and 2010 edition; double check and defer to whichever you used.
    • The only date given in the publishing information of my print copy is 2003. It lists two isbns - 978-0-8032-9344-1 for the paperback edition and 0-8032-4254-9 for the clothbound edition. I'm using the paperback edition, so I used that ISBN. Maybe the clothbound is the original, and the paperback is a later printing that just isn't reflected in the publishing information for some reason?
      Very possible.
  • You may wish to archive the links from the four websites, on the off chance they get moved from their current urls.
    • Done, as the NPS does purge their webpage sometimes. So many perma-deadlinks in ACW articles from them ...
  • @Hog Farm: That's all from me. No objection to any of the included sources as failing to meet standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA

edit
  • "length of the cut was 0.5 miles (0.80 km)" Is it possible to remove the nought here?
    • I'm assuming you're referring to the trailing zero after the 0.8, which I've removed
  • "deep and 40 feet (12 m) wide.[23][22][14]" Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • "37 miles (60 km) according to Bastian and Winters[23][15]" Same as above.
    • Done

That's anything I could find. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries happy to help! Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Winchelsea

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

Toolbox

One from my archives. An interesting little episode - well, I think so - which may be up to A claas standard. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kges1901

edit
  • I would suggest mentioning that the battle was part of the Hundred Years' War in the first sentence, something like 'a naval battle that took place on 29 August 1350 during the hundred years war between England and France' since that is more important for the lede than the total number of ships involved, which should be the second sentence.
Done.
Done.
  • I would suggest describing Edward III consistently as Edward III to be consistent rather than simply as 'The King'
Done.
Done.
  • peril of La Salle du Roi, - rephrase as near capture of La Salle du Roi
Done.
  • You mention how the name battle of Winchelsea was applied, but not the origins of calling it the battle of Les Espagnols sur Mer. Is the latter the French name for the battle or used by French chroniclers?
No. Everyone wrote, and largely spoke, French - the language of the court. It was another generation before Chaucer scandalised society by writing extensively in English. ORing, different chroniclers gave it different names and Wincelsea is the one which has stuck. There may have been a national bias, as Wincelsea won't have meant much outside of England, but there is no mention of this in the sources.
  • Link Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 and Treaty of Bretigny in aftermath
Done.
  • The attribution to Britannica template is still used, but is it necessary if there are no longer sections of text copied verbatim from the article? If the latter, the template is no longer necessary ::Done. Kges1901 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.
D'oh! I was having a bad day. Done.
Hi Kges1901, thanks for that. I have gone with all of your suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kges1901, how embarrassing. I'm glad that one of us is awake. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HF

If I haven't gotten around to this by Saturday, please ping me. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I read through it and didn't find anything problematic for A-Class. Good work as always. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

Solid article as I would expect, just minor issues.

  • on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris: The year is established in the previous so its usage here could be dropped.
Oops. Done.
  • again throwing the crews overboard.: this is first mention of crews being thrown overboard. Perhaps: " again murdering the crews, by throwing them overboard."
Good point. Done.
  • so heavily as to spring English ship's timbers.: missing word I think "so heavily as to spring the English ship's timbers."
Inserted.
  • Grammar is not a particularly strong suit of mine, but should "men at arms" be "men-at-arms"?
It certainly should - sloppy of me.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good points Zawed, thanks for that. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Zawed (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit
  • Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made some minor changes (adding location/identifiers, and standardizing publisher spelling)
  • Harris, Robin (1994); WorldCat seems split between giving a location of Woodbridge, Suffolk, and London, probably a result of the Royal Historical Society being based in London; either should be fine; defer to whatever copy of the book you used if a physical book otherwise keep it as it is.
Fixed.
  • Prestwich, M. (13 September 2007) is there a particular reason for the inclusion of the day and month?
No, removed.
Thanks Iazyges, sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Support Comments from Iazyges

edit

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • the French were well aware of this. perhaps something the French were well aware of. for flow?
I prefer it how it is, for clarity and emphasis. If it really upsets you I could break it into two sentences? Although that would seem a little clunky to me.
No, I think it is better as is than in two sentences, I agree it would be more clunky,
  • firing from their elevated positions as the English closed perhaps firing from their elevated positions as the English closed in or firing from their elevated positions as the English closed the distance
Why? Wiktionary has one meaning of "close" as "To make (e.g. a gap) smaller", which is the sense used here.
I think that might be a more British meaning than American, and the different terms make it more universal; it's not a huge issue.
  • The English are said to have captured between 14 and 26 of the enemy and might be helpful to include "ships", such as The English are said to have captured between 14 and 26 of the enemy ships and
Good point. Done.
Thanks Iazyges, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Support article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:22, 1 August 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Excubitors

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

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

Toolbox

Starting back in 2008 (!), I've gradually expanded this article on a late Roman imperial bodyguard unit, that became one of the elite regiments of the middle Byzantine army, and brought it to GA last year. It is, AFAIK, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject, covering the history, organization, and commanders of the unit. All these topics are divided into early and late periods, as the Excubitors underwent a shift in their role. I will attempt a FAC in due course, and am eager to get some additional reviews here so as to improve this article further. Constantine ✍ 20:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

edit

This is well outside my area of expertise, so I may have misunderstodd some point.

  • "numbered 300 men" Suggest putting this in the Organisation section.
    • Done.
  • Suggest splitting the second paragraph in two.
    • Done.
  • "was structured along standardized lines followed by the other tagmata, with a few variations" Alas, I have no idea what that was, let alone what the variations were.
    • Have clarified that the differences pertained mostly to titles, and linked the relevant section in the main tagma article. Any more would stray into territory of comparing the structures and nomenclatures of the different tagmata, which is not the subject here.
  • Was this in infantry or cavalry unit? It says heavy cavalry in the infobox but not the article, and it is not clear if it changed over time.
    • The tagmata were all cavalry, as indeed were almost all palatine troops during the Middle Ages, back to the comitatus forces of late antique Rome. Have added a reference to that effect though.
  • Nor is it clear how big it was. I'm inferring that it changed over time.
    • It was apparently 300 strong throughout its early period (added that), but its size is entirely unclear for its later period. What is known, or rather guessed, is in the article.
Constantine, nudge! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 and Gog the Mild: comments addressed, I think. Had to break off for a while as I did not have access to my main sources. Constantine ✍ 19:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Ping me when Hawkeye's comments are addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some copy editing as I have gone. Let me know of anything you don't like.

  • "who was both excubitor and a scholarius, a member of the Scholae", What is a scholarius? Unless a reader is told, the sentence doesn't mean anything.
    • It is already explained, 'a member of the Scholae', but apparently that isn't clear. Put the explanation in parentheses, is that better?
  • "as one of the imperial tagmata, the elite professional central army". Here you have defined "the elite professional central army" as "the imperial tagmata". I think a 'the key components of' or similar would help.
    • Hmmm, there were no other components; the tagmata were the professional central army.
It is more the grammar I am quibbling with. Perhaps 'as one of the imperial tagmata, which made up the elite professional central army' or similar then?
  • Ah, now I get it. Fixed.
  • In the lead you define the tagmata as "professional heavy cavalry regiments". I haven't spotted this in the article, especially not the "heavy" part. And what does "heavy" mean here? Were the horses overweight?
    • Added links to heavy cavalry, and explained it further in the text.
  • "mere spatharioi". What does this mean? This is the English Wikipedia.
  • "rose to those of prōtospatharios and even patrikios." Likewise.
    • Have glossed the ranks. 'Patrician' is misleading, but cannot otherwise gloss patricius/patrikios without going into a lengthy diatribe about the evolution of this term. I am completely at a loss how to gloss 'spatharokandidatos'. TBH I would prefer not to gloss the court dignities at all, as their literal meaning was by that time largely divorced from any actual role they played.
I think how you have it now works well. (Personally I like Harry Turtledove's explanation of spatharioi, but as that is in a science fiction novel it is sadly not citeable.
  • "these designations no longer appear after, and they may have been of brief existence." After when?
    • Clarified.
  • "and indeed there may have been". Why "indeed"?
    • Useless commentary, striken.
  • "but after Constantine V's reforms". Is it known when these took place?
    • Clarified (hopefully)
  • "before becoming emperor. From this post, he ..." Perhaps rephrase to be clearer.
    • Clarified.
  • "A protégé of Justin II, he was appointed count of the Excubitors during the reign of Justinian I already." Why "already"?
    • Rewritten.
  • "with the position of magister militum per Orientem against the Sasanian Empire, until he himself became Caesar in 582. By 577/8, he was also a patrikios." Any chance of a translation into English?
    • Done.
  • "grc|Patrikios". A typo?
    • Indeed, fixed. Thanks.
  • Optional: I would prefer reference 1 to be separated out as a footnote.
    • Agree, done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks for your edits and suggestions. Have tried to address them all. Anything else? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, will be on vacation starting the coming week, so my ability to respond here may be curtailed. Will be back to a stable internet connection ca. 12.7. Constantine ✍ 20:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One quibble left above, but I am supporting anyway, if only so CPA-5 can crack on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

As fine a set of sources as one is ever likely to come across and entirely satisfactory formatting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA

edit

Ping me when Hakeye's and Gog's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: All yours. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll review after my holiday. Tomorrow I will go on holiday for a week. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transcribed into Greek as ἐξκουβίτορες or ἐξκούβιτοι)" Maybe romanise it?
    • Done.
  • "the Excubitors long remained a crack fighting force.[4][5][6][7]" Per WP:CITETRIM
    • Done.
  • "titles of excubitor and scribon (see below)" The see below sounds informal.
    • Piped the link to 'awarded'
  • "was routed by Tsar Krum of Bulgaria" No reign?
    • Good point, added.
  • "and of the regiment of the "Walls".[52][51][53]" Re-order the refs here.
    • Done.
  • "The Escorial Taktikon, written c. 971/75" vs "and in 785/6 Irene forcibly disarmed them" One has double digits behind and the other one has only one digit?
    • Fixed.
  • "main subaltern officers of the regiment.[59][48][60]" Re-order the refs here.
    • Done.
  • "against the Italo-Normans in 1081, under the command of Constantine Opos" The infobox says circa 1081? This also applies to the lead.
    • The reason is that the regiment is not mentioned after 1081 and was destroyed at or disbanded after Dyrrhachium; but the exact date is unknown.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, I think i have addressed your comments. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 15:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Most regiments are famous for what they did do in battle, this unit was known for what it didn't. An article about the only Union regiment that refused to fight in the first major battle of the war. Kges1901 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Great to see you back at ACR, and its always great to see more ACW articles here! I'll review at some point this week. Hog Farm Talk 22:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "here it was ordered by General Robert Patterson " - wasn't Patterson technically a Major General instead of a full general?

I supported back at GAN, and didn't have much to pick on then, and I'm at a support here as well. Hog Farm Talk 22:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • " Members of the only regiment to refuse to fight at the battle due to the expiration of its term of service, its men were denounced as cowards." I had to read this twice to parse it. Consider rephrasing.
  • Rephrased
  • "on the eve of First Battle of Bull Run". Should there be a definite article there?
  • Good catch
  • "in subsequent Pennsylvania regiments". I'm not sure that is grammatical.
  • Rephrased
  • "during the war, and they formed the bulk of". I don't think you mean "and". Perhaps 'for example' or similar?
  • Rephrased
  • "In response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 men". Consider adding something like 'to serve in the army for three months' to give the context.
  • Done
  • "The militia regiment volunteered". How does a unit volunteer? As opposed to the men who made it up?
  • Done
  • "Departing Norristown with a send-off from the people of the town after the presentation of flags sewn by women of the town". Listing the three events in reverse chronological order makes this a little difficult to follow. And is it possible to avoid "... of the town ... of the town ..."?
  • Done
  • "the needs of the state for speedily formed units". Do you mean something like for 'the urgent of the state for formed units'?
  • Done
  • "With this order, the regiment became a volunteer unit in federal service, and confirmed the militia officers in their positions in an election." Which confirmed the officers positions? The order or the election?
  • Done
  • Done
  • "before it rejoined the regiment at Annapolis". Did it travel by rail or steamer? Or march?
  • Done
  • "after receiving the necessary equipment." What equipment is needed to drill and be inspected?
  • Source says that "camp and garrison equipage was not supplied" initially, so they didn't have tents. As mentioned they didn't have "uniforms and equipments" other than muskets and small amounts of ammunition. Presumably they didn't stand for inspection without having uniforms.
  • "The appeals of McDowell and Hartranft to patriotic duty fell on deaf ears: many in the regiment were willing to stay, but others wanted to muster out as scheduled due to their previous negative experiences with lack of equipment, and they believed that they were entitled to a rest as they planned to reenlist in new three years' units, which regimental officers were preparing to organize following the expiry of the three-month term." This sentence is a bit long. Perhaps split it?
  • Split, is it ok now?
Looks good.
  • "Hartranft and Captain Walter H. Cooke of Company K stayed with the army ... Cooke ... initially started for the camp of the New York Fire Zouaves to serve as a private ... Both distinguished themselves during the Battle of Bull Run and were awarded the Medal of Honor in the late 1880s." Which of the three is intended to be excluded?
  • Cooke and Hartranft are the only people mentioned and both received the Medal of Honor. Is this unclear?
D'oh!
  • "its departure witnessed by numerous reports who ensured that". A "report" can't witness, nor be referred to as "who".
  • "which soon followed on 27 July". Delete "soon".
  • Done
  • "three years' regiments". Were they not referred to as 'three-year regiments'? (I could well be wrong, this is not my area.)
  • Done, the former seems to be more 19th-century language
  • " which included the Madison Guards as its Company A". Perhaps mention that "Madison Guards" was the name for Company C? (I know that this mentioned in the table, but I suspect that many readers will skim this.) Similar perhaps to how you handle the similar issue in the last sentence of the article.
  • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed one, but otherwise the changes are all fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Georgejdorner

edit
I am still baffled by all the extra WorldCat references and other extraneous links to cites. However, nothing required is missing from this article, and thus there are no grounds to deny support.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info box
edit
  • A unit's manning is usually given categorizing officers and enlisted ranks separately. Is that possible here?
  • 39 officers and 756 enlisted from the muster rolls, but I'm not sure that is necessary as I've seen plenty of works that don't separate. In a volunteer unit where the men elected their officers I don't think this matters.
  • Power of command always matters. To the best of my knowledge, the breakdown of officers and men is listed when known.
  • Listed breakdown.
Lede
edit
  • Sentence beginning, "Hantraft and a company commander..." could be prefaced with "However," to sharpen the point there were courageous soldiers in the regiment.
  • Done


Formation
edit
  • Mention of the supplies missing when they left Camp Curtin would lead into later mention of equipment shortage.
  • Done
  • No mention of Odd Fellows Hall in source.
  • Auge mentions on page 184 that a meeting was called at the Odd Fellows' Hall. @Georgejdorner: All good with this?
  • The link from Auge in the bibliography leads to a title page, and does not support the facts cited. If you did not have the link here, I would not have commented. It's ironic that deleting the link would solve this issue.
  • The same phenomenon occurs in several other biblio links.
  • Sorry to say this, but I think this is absurd. These added meaningless links, to the average reader, must seem like useless clutter. And, to the best of my knowledge, these links are not required by WP standards.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLUF, the average reader does not view the references intentionally if they are not deeply interested in the subject. Adding links for PD books is standard and in fact there are bots that go through articles adding such links to online versions to aid in verifiability for Wikipedia editors. Kges1901 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Garrison duty
edit
  • Phrase "half of the regiment" can be condensed to "half regiment".
  • I feel that this would be confusing since half regiment can also refer to a specific unit size for a unit that is half of regimental strength
  • I am unaware of any TO&E half regiments outside the French Foreign Legion. And the text does not say the regiment was split in two; it states "half". And the present sentence is awkward.
  • Have rephrased to be more concise, decided to just use "the other half" to avoid redundancy
  • Much improved.
  • Leading sentence of second para is awkward and needs rewriting. The next sentence lists the equipment needed; it might be better placed, in a rewrite, in Formation.
  • Rewritten, does it read better now
  • Still needs work. Try something like, "...its men were not issued before departing hastily from Camp Curtis on 28 April." Though I still cannot tell if they were uniformed or in civvies.
  • Done
  • "left without uniforms..." is followed by a description of shoddy blouses and pants issued. Seems contradictory. Could use some clarity here.
  • These were what they received at Annapolis
  • So did they receive shoddy civilian clothing? Or partial uniforms?
  • Primary sources describe these as contractor-produced 'uniforms' issued by the state. The regiment received new uniforms in June due to the inferior quality of the contractor supplied clothing. Kges1901 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can your sources support statement(s) that they were first issued state-issued uniforms, then received better quality uniforms later on?
Elaborated on this in the text. Kges1901 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Manassas Bull Run campaign
edit
  • Which Battle of Bull Run were these MoHs awarded for? Wouldn't it be less confusing to use "Manassas"; better yet, sneak in an explanation for North and South having differing names for the same battle(s).
  • Clarified
  • Nice job on the rewrite.
  • Speaking of which...why is the Confederate name of the battle used to describe a Union regiment's participation?
  • Inconsistency in wikipedia article titles because there is Manassas campaign but First Battle of Bull Run
  • Basically, every battle in the Virginia theater had two names. In this case, the Union name was either First Bull Run or Second Bull Run; the Confederate equivalents were First Manassas and Second Manassas. If this is difficult to work into the text, I recommend an explanatory Footnote.23:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • This explanation is a popular myth invented long after the war ended. William C. Davis in his history of Bull Run describes how veterans of the battle from both sides initially referred to the battle by different names: "They could not decide what to call the battle—Young's Branch, Stone Bridge, Bull Run, Manassas, or Manassas Plain—but they published letter after letter from soldiers and correspondents who were in the fight." See also Mackowski and White's introduction to Turning Points of the American Civil War, describing how there was actually a Bull Run Chapter of the UDC and a Manassas Picket Post of Union veterans, demonstrating that the narrative of conflicting names defined by the different sides is a postwar invention. Kges1901 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was a sprout in Maryland in the 1950s and we played Civil War, we Yankees said "Bull Run" and the Rebel kids used "Manassas". Just saying.
  • And why defend prior use of terms? Why not use terms presently in use?
  • Either way, I think this debate isn't relevant to the article, and standardized on the term used by the sources, which is Bull Run. Present usage seems to have swung towards Bull Run, as all of the 21st century studies of the battle (Detzer, Rafuse, and Longacre) use Bull Run in their titles.
  • Fair enough. My concern is answered. And how!
  • Citation (7. does not connect to source.
  • Not sure about this. Ref 7 connects to Russell 1861.
  • Your link from the bibliography connects to a Google listing instead of the actual source.
  • Fixed.
Subsequent service
edit
  • I am puzzled by the mention of Corson's MoH. He did not win it while in the 4th Pennsylvania. Reason?
  • I have mentioned him and some other notable soldiers of the regiment in the section as examples of what the regiment's soldiers did during the rest of the war
  • The section describes how men of the 4th Pennsylvania, despite their actions at Bull Run, went on to see substantial combat throughout the next four years of war. It is directly relevant because it provides an epilogue to the history of the regiment. Kges1901 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now it's clear that there were some very courageous men in the 4th despite the regiment's combat refusal.
Article overall
edit
  • Toolbox utilized. No discrepancies.

Time for a break. We are tripping over each other in our edits.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Return.
  • Not everyone is familiar enough with Civil War history to place this event early in the war. I believe you need a mention of that in the lede, and a sentence or two in Formation. If your sources allow, you could mention the populace's enthusiasm for war.
  • Nicely done.
  • I am baffled by all the links to WorldCat in the Bibliography. What purpose do they serve? Why should the general reader care about these links?
  • BLUF the general reader probably does not care about anything other than the text and is unlikely to read the sources. The links assist with verifiability for books with no ISBN, if anyone wants to dig deeper. If anyone wants to read the book itself if it can't be found online, they can click on the link to find a list of libraries that have the book. Kges1901 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ends and odds
edit

Fun fact: Did you know that poor quality Union uniforms gave rise to the word 'shoddy'?

Yes!! Thank you Quora!! Many thanks!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Will do, ping me if I haven't gotten to this within a few days. Hog Farm Talk 14:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not seeing the background information about the PA militia within the cited page of Auge, is there a pagination or ref placement issue?
  • Full details are in Bates, though Auge says the regiment was a pre-existing unit
  • Publisher needed for Auge
  • No publisher as source was self-published, although that is not an indicator of unreliability in the 19th century, for example Dyer's Compendium was self-published. Auge was likely quoting contemporary newspapers, and the same details are contained in the Civil War Journal of Colonel Bolton (ed. Dr. Richard A. Sauers, published 2000), one of the regiment's company commanders.
  • Other sources look okay

Looks fine other than the above. Hog Farm Talk 22:44, 7 July 2022 (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) 21:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Oswald Boelcke

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk)

Oswald Boelcke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Oswald Boelcke has been dubbed "The Father of Aerial Warfare" because of his pioneering of aerial tactics, his development of the world's first aerial tactical manual, and his role in founding the Imperial German Air Service. The fighter squadron he founded, trained, and led, Jagdstaffel 2, produced 25 flying aces; Jasta 2 aces were often transferred to lead other squadrons. When Boelcke was killed in a midair collision, he was the leading ace of the First World War with 40 victories. Boelcke and his protege, Manfred von Richthofen, were the two leading German aces of the war. The Dicta Boelcke tactics manual is still used to train fighter pilots.

CommentsSupport by MisterBee1966

edit

The entire section "Awards and honors" is missing citations. Some of the awards are referenced in the main body of the article, but not all. I believe that every single entry requires a reference, otherwise the section has to be removed or scaled down. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the rescue ship Boelcke, see de:Boelcke (Schiff)? You can also find reference to this ship online. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alas, I am monolingual. And given the errors in the previous two 'Google translates' in this article, I am not inclined to trust it. Nor did I find a reliable source with 'Google search'.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you checked the book "The Naval War in the Baltic, 1939–1945" by Poul Grooss, ISBN 978-1-5267-0002-5? You may also look into "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945: Spezial-, Hilfskriegs-, Hilfsschiffe, Kleinschiffsverbände" by Erich Gröner or "Rettungsaktion Ostsee 1944/1945" by Martin Schmidtke. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Grooss book has been ordered via Interlibrary Loan; it may take some weeks to show up. I have preserved the German language sources on the article's Talk page for the use of German speaking editors.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor edits, fixing brackets and removing overlinking, I support the nomination MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7

edit

Drive-by from HF

edit
  • I'm concerned about some WP:TONE issues in the article. I don't think phrasings such as "On 9 August, Immelmann pounced on a French machine" or "Their early combat sorties relied on the naked aggression of headlong solo attacks upon unwitting enemies"
    "pounced on" replaced by "attacked".Georgejdorner (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote "naked aggression" sentence. Supplied more reliable cite for less dramatic statement. I might add, that the original cite from Head is a bit too subtle and ambiguous, but still true.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as he was killed in action[101] before the Nazi Party was founded." is probably WP:SYNTH. The cited page of Kershaw's biography makes no mention of Boelcke; and the google books snippet of the bit from Head at the beginning of the sentence doesn't seem to say why he wasn't associated with the Nazis. I can't check the citation to VanWyngarden but it appears to be about his death. So this appears to be associating a statement that he wasn't Nazi-associated to a statement about when he died to a statement about when the Nazi party was formed, creating a synthesized statement not supported by any of the sources individually. We can't play cause-and-effect guessing games. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I was trying to show that since Boelcke died in 1916 and the forerunner of the Nazi Party was not founded until 1918, it is absurd to portray the ace as even a proto-Nazi. There is considerable discussion upon Boelcke and the Nazis on the article talk page, as there was an editor who wanted to blame Boelcke for Holocaust deaths in barracks named for Boelcke.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was innocently ignorant of WP:SYNTH until now. I do find it interesting that the editor who was so insistent that a Nazi concentration camp is Boelcke's legacy seemed to use synthesis to make her point. Without that, the claim that Boelcke died before the Nazis came to exist is unneeded. In the meantime, I am looking for a source for the origin date of the Nazi party. (Boelcke's death can be cited from a number of sources; the one used was most convenient.)Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Head: "He was one of the few German heroes of the Great War who was not tainted by later association with Nazism."Georgejdorner (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, I never suggested that Boelcke was a Nazi, which obviously can't be true because of the chronology. But notable structures named after him should be mentioned in the article, whether used admirably or not (its use does a disservice to Boelcke, I agree, but WP:NOTCENSORED). (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

edit

Interesting subject, will review over the next few days. As a first comment from a quick perusal of the article, the lede uses the form "Father of Air Fighting Tactics", while the actual cited appellation is "the father of air combat". Constantine ✍ 16:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Early years

  • near the Junkers factory In view of what Junkers later became, this is a neat coincidence, but is this otherwise notable?
  • Boelcke never did become very large; I don't know why one would expect him to be very large, but 1.70 was above average for Germany (and likely the rest of the world) at the time. Perhaps 'Boelcke was of moderate height'?
  • a rather daring Alpinist...His charisma made him...made him memorable specifically? This smells more than a bit of MOS:PUFFERY.
    • Head, p. 39: "He loved the sport and quickly became 'a skilled and fearless climber'....
    • Head, p.40: "They (other boys) admired him as the best athlete in gymnastics, and they submitted willingly to his leadership."
    • If puffery there be, 'tis not by me.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No doubt, but then quote him directly, or tone it down. Since we can be pretty certain that Head did not interview all the boys who 'submitted willingly to his leadership', we are safe in assuming this is a bit of hero worship slipping through. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me, it reads like an assessment by a teacher. Nevertheless, I have rephrased it.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • It still contains some descriptions that are clearly subjective. 'Rather daring' is an evaluation that cannot be measured or verified. It is an opinion, and must be attributed, not presented as fact. Likewise about him being popular or memorable on account of his appearance. It is likely that these are true, but we should distinguish the voice of the biographers from that of Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which leads me to Werner 1942/2019. I have occasionally read some Nazi-era books, the wording is anything but sober and objective, and I suspect Werner wrote his book to lionize Boelcke and get more German youths to join the Luftwaffe, rather than as a scholarly biography of the man. I suggest treating it with extreme caution as a source on Boelcke's character.
    • Head was the major text I used. I checked his footnotes to insure I was not reusing Werner, etc without realizing it. Same with other supplementary sources. I might add that I have such loathing for the Nazis, I dislike writing about any of them.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • could move its adherent up the social ladder 'adherent' reads odd. Perhaps 'would provide opportunities for upward social mobility'?
  • Link 'Kaiser', 'airship', '1916 Olympics' (and note they were to be held in Berlin)
  • had the audacity again, editorializing. And, for the record, not so odd: Willy was a pop star for his time, and petitions to the monarch are as old as monarchy itself.
    • At 10 years old, Boelcke was not quite yet a pop star.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • By Willy, Kaiser Wilhelm is meant. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have completely confused me with the pop star reference. Though I have scant experience with monarchy, I doubt that many ten year old children write to emperors. Only the audacious ones.
          • Not that important. My point is that Kaiser Wilhelm II was very much a celebrity during his day, with photos of him in his various outfits, tours of cities and factories, the media following on his every move and utterance. We often forget this in light of WWI and its aftermath, but he was for a very long time a sort of 'people's monarch'. Constantine ✍ 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • but once his parents were apprised of the opportunity by the belated reply letter, they objected Why? This contradicts their views as established in the previous sentence.

Entry into military service

1914

1915

1916

Legacy

That's it for a first read-through. I am not an expert on the subject, but the article appears to be quite comprehensive. The tone is rather sympathetic to its subject, but, with the exceptions noted above, I don't think it is biased. A nice read. Constantine ✍ 20:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: my comments have been addressed, so I am happy to support. Well done! Constantine ✍ 10:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF (take 2)

edit

Aside from my drive-by comments above, I'm going to try to give this one a fuller review Hog Farm Talk 23:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Boelcke never did become very large; he was of average size. In later life, he was described as being about 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 meters) tall" - recommend just removing the "never did become very large" and note that he was of average size and listing the later life height
  • I'm a bit concerned about some of the phrasing here - "rather daring Alpinist", "had the audacity", etc. I suspect that what's going on is that many of the sources are in more of the "fanboy" tier of military biography, the writing style of those sources is coming into the article. I don't think some of the items like that are necessarily encyclopedic tone.

ready for WWI section, pausing for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Eindecker were limited to be flights when pilots were not on reconnaissance missions in their two-seaters." - I'm not sure what exactly the second half of this is suppose to be saying - the meaning is pretty clearly that you weren't suppose to take the Eindecker over enemy lines, but this seems to be a really convoluted way of saying that. At a minimum, I think "in their two-seaters" can be lost
  • "In the glare of German publicity, Wintgens had claimed five victims, Boelcke two and Immelmann one." - so I guess "Boelcke won his first individual aerial combat on 19 August 1915 forcing down a British plane" doesn't count here, with the July 4 and August 9 victories in the count?
  • "On 1 November, the day after his sixth victory, Boelcke was awarded the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern" - no detail about victories #5 and #6? He's at 2 at the end of August we're told at the end of the prior section, and he got two more in September, but it just skips to after 6?
  • "Immelmann duplicated the feat six days later" - is "the feat" the award or six victories? If it's the former, I'm not sure this is the best phrasing as Immelmann didn't award himself the honor, so he didn't really duplicate it actively.
  • "On 5 January 1916, the winter weather finally improved enough for flying." - we weren't told that it had gotten bad enough to prevent flying earlier that winter
  • Isn't it a bit of an anachronism to refer to Turkey instead of the Ottoman Empire at this point?
  • "Its eight maxims seem self-evident, but Boelcke was the first to recognize them." - this seems like a touch of editorializing

Ready for "Into battle" Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm unsure of the use the Google maps knowledge panel to demonstrate existence of something - it's been found in a few AFDs of places in the US that turned out to be non-existent that the knowledge panel sometimes scraped Wikipedia. I'm also not convinced that the streets/buildings/etc are necessarily worthwhile to mention if the only source is the Google maps thing; there are surely countless bars and businesses named after Boelcke.
    • MisterBee1966 suggested the use of google maps. I used the maps because info on Boelcke's legacy is scant.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it's one thing to use that for streets or military barracks, how do you determine that the clubhouse is significant just based off on the Google maps? This would almost certainly be challenged at FAC if you were going to take it there. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not particularly keen on these listings, either. I included them to prevent MrBee1966 from vetoing this promotion. I have also clarified that the club is a military officers club on the perimeter of a military installation. Mt google search turned up no other bars/lounges, and I would not list them if it did.
        • If there should be an objection during the FAC, I'll ditch these listings.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's mainly it from me; I'm not assessing the sourcing because I'm not familiar with most of it. Hog Farm Talk 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgejdorner ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, all, but my 11 year old router died on the 27th, and I have just now gotten back online.
Is there anything still pending in this review?Georgejdorner (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:45, 29 June 2022 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Freddie de Guingand

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Freddie de Guingand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

An article on Freddie de Guingand, Monty's chief of staff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 20:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

It's good to see this article on a key British figure of the war here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

More where this came from. I also overhauled Miles Dempsey. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "De Guingand seems to have been blessed with considerable diplomatic skills" - it's previously stated he learned them on the job
    Re-worded. The lead is actually the original article before I rewrote it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was able to smooth over many difficulties arising from Montgomery's problematic relationships with many of his peers and superiors" - this dodges the issue a bit, as it implies that the difficulties were "problematic relationships" rather than the actual issue of Monty frequently being a jerk to other important military leaders whom he needed to cooperate with
    Changed to "Montgomery's personality and his problematic relationships with many of his peers and superiors." Actually, years of researching the command in NW Europe has given me a better understanding of the motivations of British, who come across as snooty and condescending to Americans then and today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto the corresponding material in the 'North West Europe' section, where the issue should be expanded upon a bit given it's importance.
    I tried to illustrate it with the response to the Battle of the Bulge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that putting this a bit more bluntly would help. The issue seems to have been that Monty was a high performing jerk who often rubbed other high performing jerks (e.g. Bradley) up the wrong way and was a jerk to his boss from time to time without really meaning to be one. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - great work here. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support happy to now support this. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901

edit

A quality effort on a major figure of the war. Only a few nitpicks:

  • Through the intervention of Montgomery, with whom he served in the 1920s and 1930s and formed a friendship - Might be more concise as Through the intervention of Montgomery. with whom he had formed a friendship with during their shared service
     Y Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did de Guingand enter Sandhurst before or after the Armistice?
     Y This required some looking up. It was on 10 September 1918. He would not have been eligible to be sent to the front at this time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article says that he entered ranked 15th in his class. Surely this was his rank on graduation?
     Y On entry. Emphasised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who scored highest were given places but the remaining positions were filled from others who had passed the exam and were then given a place based on their service record more concise as -- > The highest scorers were guaranteed places but the remainder selected based on service record from those who passed the exam
     Y Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any details in sources as to any specific reasons that he jumped from a training establishment to a GSO1 position quite rapidly?
     Y An error in the London Gazette. It should have been GSO2. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • De Guingand asked to be returned to his regiment and this was done --> could be more concise as De Guingand requested to return to his regiment, and reported to its depot on 21 January, but was immediately placed on leave
     Y Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 25 February his orders were cancelled and he was posted to the new staff college at Haifa in Palestine as an instructor. The war had created an urgent requirement for more trained staff officers --> Due to the urgent wartime requirement for trained staff officers, de Guingand's orders were cancelled on 25 February and he was posted...
     Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there more details in the sources as to why de Guingand started planning for the pullout of British forces in Greece at such an early date, before the German invasion even started (or was Ultra a factor in this)? Also, did the political consequences of such planning motivate Wavell to order de Guingand to scrap the plans? These sentences should also mention that the successful German invasion was the reason that the troops needed to be evacuated
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • accurately forecast the Axis capture of Tobruk --> correctly predicted...
     Y Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • vice Brigadier Jock Whiteley - this is jargon to the general reader, suggest just using 'replaced'
    Looks okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Sir Claude Auchinleck was Commander-in-Chief Middle East and commander of the Eighth Army and Dorman-Smith - Change to --> while Dorman-Smith to avoid repetition of 'and's
     Y Re-written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how there were conflicting command structures since Auchinleck was clearly senior to Dorman-Smith?
     Y Within the staff, since there were essentially two chiefs of staff: Dorman-Smith (DCGS ME) and Whiteley (BGS Eighth Army). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link COSSAC
    To what article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Frederick E. Morgan? This might be one of the more important D-Day subjects still without an article.
     Y Add a linked reference to Frederick Morgan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and his partnership with Montgomery has been compared - by whom?

Kges1901 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A supplement to one of Edward III's many invasions of Scotland. GA a little while ago and possibly sufficient to become A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass for the map in "Fall and recapture of Berwick town", it might look better using {{maplink}} as this would de-emphasize modern boundaries. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Looks pretty good, but I have a couple of issues:

  • In the lead it says that "in 1355 the Second War of Scottish Independence had been underway for 13 years" but in the body it says: "by 1333 England and Scotland were at war again when Edward besieged Berwick, starting the Second War of Scottish Independence." This does not add up.
I assume that was a thumb-fingered typo rather than appallingly poor maths. Fixed.
  • "bounderies" is a misspelling.
Oops,. Corrected.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye, both of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit
  • "subsequent unsuccessful siege of Berwick castle" Isn't the castle a proper noun?
It is, it is. And I've been inconsistent! Corrected.
  • "regents of the newly-crowned 14-year-old King Edward III" No reign template?
  • "Encouraged by the French king, John II" Same as above?
  • "David II, was captured" Same as above?
They are optional, so long as one is consistent. Which I wasn't. So now added. (Only in the main body, not in the lead.)
  • "with Edward's son about to lead an attack in south-west France" Maybe add his name here?
His name was also Edward, but he is universally known now as the Black Prince, which seems a bit complicated for a passing mention. What do you think?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5, all addressed except the last one, which is a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry was busy with exams (last one was today) but it looks good. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Will take this one on; if I haven't gotten around to it within a few days ping me. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are all reliable enough for ACR
  • The Google books link for Robson is 404-ing for me
Me too. Removed.
Linked. UK academics must be more notable ;-) .

Spot checks not done. Sourcing looks fine; passing. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Both actions addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kges1901

edit
  • Is there a reason why Berwick Castle and Northumbria are not linked in the lead?
Sloppiness? Fixed.
  • I can accept that medieval casualties wouldn't be reported, but to have unknown for both strength and casualties means that the infobox doesn't say much at all
This is not helped by it covering two (or possibly three) different sieges, with numbers fluctuating during the course of each. The only figure which the sources give is that for the Scots in the final siege, but trying to get everything in, when most of the numbers are "unknown" seemed likely to be more confusing than helpful. This sort limited infobox is not that uncommon - and it does communicate that the numbers were not known. But the main issue is in trying to cover two (or three) events in one article.
  • Encouraged by the French king, John II (r. 1350–1364), the Scots invaded England with a large army, certain that few English troops would be left to defend the rich northern English cities, the Scots were decisively beaten at the Battle of Neville's Cross and their king, David II (r. 1329–1371), was captured. - Run on sentence, needs splitting
Oops. Split.
  • Is there an explanation as to why the most of the attacking Scots abandoned the siege before Edward arrived?
Sadly, not in the sources. ORing, the whole English army headed by a very annoyed king was on its way. I am amazed that anyone stayed.
  • according to a contemporary "by reason of the discord of the magnates" - Is this implying that there was disunity among the Scots magnates that affected the conduct of the campaign? This could be expanded upon to give more context if there is more information in the sources. Kges1901 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, and annoyingly, not. ORing freely, I am guessing that there was a fair bit of "I told you so" at the leaders who had opportunistically broken the truce. I have an FA on the broader campaign - Burnt Candlemas - note " Much of the territory they were despoiling was part of the estates of Patrick of March, one of the leaders of the Scottish assault on Berwick in defiance of the truce."
Hi Kges1901 and many thanks for the review. Good points there, see what you think to my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the limitations of the sources, I think you've done a good job on this, supporting. Kges1901 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Van Buren

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Van Buren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

My 96th good article, this one is another example of the Confederates being incompetent in Arkansas. Hindman's Confederates are falling back across the mountains during a nasty Ozarks winter, and stop at Van Buren. The officer put in charge of watching the roads north had previously gotten in trouble for being negligent, so it should perhaps be no surprise when his Texans come running into Van Buren one morning chased by Union cavalry. Hindman brings up reinforcements who content themselves with shelling a town full of both Union troops and their own civilians, while Union cavalry chases down Confederate steamboats trying to escape. Meanwhile, the Confederates tasked with evacuating supplies and burning what could not be taken panic and torch everything. Hog Farm Talk 14:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review the flag image is said to have been published before 1927 but I don't see where that is supported. Under us copyright law distribution is required to count as publication. Putting the image on a website would count but not waving it around. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that whoever produced the flag back in the 1860s had any thought of copyrighting the work, but I've removed the image, buidhe. Alternative images would be one of the fort at Fort Smith, of one of the types of cannons referenced in the article, or I could try to dredge up an image of Blunt/Herron/Hindman from an old book, whichever would be viewed as most relevant. (oldest image I can find for Van Buren itself postdates the battle by 25 years). Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The map section looked a little weird, with the bits of border at the top and left, so I recropped it very slightly. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 16:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a photograph of a wartime commissary building at Fort Smith that I took myself. Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—pass: sources look ok. Checks done on Bearss 1967. "Hindman retained a field command under Holmes and pushed the troops under his command into northern Arkansas and southwestern Missouri." -> the source doesn't use the term field command, but I'll assume it's obvious. Fixed pagination for one of the refs but found no other issues. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments SupportGeorgejdorner (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First pass

edit

This is my first A Class review. I am probably going to be awfully slow in this evaluation. I intend to proceed bit by bit.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last sentence in lede is puzzling. Recommend adding "The battles of" to begin the sentence.
    • Done
  • "...his methods were unpopular and sometimes extra-legal." Can you elaborate on this?
    • The whole thing is a bit too detailed for this, but I've added a quote from a historian referring to his actions as "fanaticism and a complete disregard for constitutional rights"
  • 7 miles or 9 miles north of Van Buren? Which is it? Also, single digit numerals are spelled out.
    • I'm not sure, the sources disagree so I've listed both numbers. The modern distance is not relevant because of significant changes in the road network. The single digit numeral is due to the use of {{convert}} which I do believe is capable of spelling out numeric outputs. From my past experience at FAC (where this is headed eventually), it's considered acceptable to have the minor MOS issue with the single digits instead of just hard-keying all of the conversions, which is not desirable
  • Fix single digit numbers throughout article.
  • Is it necessary for you to mention the names of historians in text when they are listed in cites and bibliography?
    • I think it most cases it is desirable, for in-text attribution purposes of who says what. I've been asked to do similar things in FACs in the past, so I generally just list the historians outright when there's disagreement.
  • Why isn't Theophilus Holmes mentioned in the info box?
    • Holmes was in Little Rock a long ways off on bad roads and played no meaningful role in what actually happened in the battle besides the orders to Hindman to pull out. Holmes was an infamously passive commander (if you think it'd be helpful, I can add that Holmes was sent west because he'd been too incompetent in more important areas)
      • A military commander is always responsible for the actions of his troops, no matter what. Holmes was in command and should be listed. Your suggestion that he had little to do with his troops' movements would be a great additiion.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not directly stated in any of the the "major" sources (both Sheas, Bearss 1967, Christ) but the fact that none of those sources mentions Holmes at all between his December 21 visit and his order to Hindman mentioned in the aftermath section. In the American Civil War, it was not uncommon to have department or theater-level officers who did precious little of anything; from what I've seen the standard with American Civil War battles is to list only the commanders who were effectively making decisions on the field. Otherwise we'd have to list Henry Halleck for darn near 40% of all battles when he had basically nothing to do with most of them. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Command responsibility lies on those in command positions, but not on staff officers. Holmes' presence on the battlefield may have turned the tide of battle. As you have noted, he shirked his responsibilities. Whether he was absent or present, it was still Holmes' command.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added Holmes. In all fairness, I do have to say that Holmes wasn't necessarily shirking - Van Buren was out in the middle of nowhere in a low-infrastructure area Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have no access to the Sources, I take them in good faith. With nearly a dozen listed, it's obvious someone did their research.
    • I've got print copies of about half of them (Castel, Christ, Foote, Hess et al., Piston & Rutherford, Shea 1994, and Shea 2009).

I'll be back. (Let your imagination supply the ghostly music.)23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Second pass

edit

The added Background material substantially improves the article's quality, as do the other previous editorial changes. You are adding some quality tweaks here.

I clicked through the Toolbox and noted no problems.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you realize this article is an orphan? It has a list of connected User pages, but they aren't available to the general reader to use as entry.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are red links allowed in a Class A article?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if they're reasonably likely to become an article. I've removed the redlink for Shaler as he's fairly marginal but the one for Tilden's battery is reasonable. I could hammer out a GAN-able article on Tilden's battery in 2 or 3 hours if I had the time (which I don't really right now)
  • A5 criteria suggests two or three illustrations for a short article like this. I would suggest two more--a steamboat, and a cavalryman.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tacked on an image of one of the types of cannons used and one of Blunt, as they're probably a bit more closely related to the battle. (I try to avoid using generic cavalry images, as ACW cavalry, especially the Confederates, are often way over-romanticized)
  • Have you considered date-month-year format for greater clarity?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that actually adds clarity, and from what I've seen, most scholarly ACW sources actually use month-date-year instead. Randomly pulling 7 scholarly works off my bookshelf shows 7 mdy and 0 dmy (sample: Civil War on the Western Border [Monaghan], Civil War in Louisiana [Winters], On to Petersburg [Rhea], Defending the Arteries of Rebellion [Chatelain], Shenandoah 1862 [Cozzens], General A. P. Hill [Robertson], Battle of New Market [Davis])
      • Both formats are acceptable, per MOS. Having the date and year numerals separated by the month aids in comprehension; I have carried the usage over from my military service. Nevertheless, you are not wrong, and your format is probably true to your sources. I should have noted from the start that your format is okay.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence of the text lacks a year date, and seems oddly placed. The sentence before it is an excellent ending summary sentence. I would recommend incorporating it into the sentence beginning, "Holmes ordered Hindman to abandon the Fort Smith area..." That is, if the Union did indeed capture Fort Smith in 1862.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved the sentence up to the prior mention of Ft. Smith and clarified that the capture happened in 1863, so hopefully this works better

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • Background: Could we start with a short paragraph explaining what the American Civil War was and summarising what had happened in it prior to March 1862?
    • I have (quite lazily) copied and properly attributed the relevant material from the Battle of St. Charles article
I thought that you might. Very sensible.
  • "leaving very little military organization remaining in the state." Delete "remaining".
    • Removed
  • "with Fort Smith to the southwest and on the south bank of the river." Delete "and".
    • Done
  • Link seniority.
    • Done
  • "Bacon had also been destroyed as well." You don't need "as well" as well as "also".
    • Removed "As well"
  • "By January 8, 1863, only parts of two cavalry regiments and one infantry regiment remained at Fort Smith." Of which side?
    • Confederate. Added

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - sorry for a second ping on this review page in a matter of minutes, but these are all done (the new background material might need a look over but it's been through FAC once so it's hopefully not in terrible shape). Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit
  • "convention adjourned on March 21 without" --> "convention adjourned on March 21, without"
    • Done
  • "United States-held fort in seceded territory on April 12" Same as above.
    • Done
  • "After significant military activity in Missouri throughout 1861, Major General Earl Van Dorn" Link Major General.
    • Done
  • "which was about 8 miles (13 km)[26][25]" Reorder the refs here.
    • Done
  • "Holmes visited the Van Buren area on December 21" --> "Holmes visited the Van Buren area on December 21,"
    • Done
  • "After spreading disinformation on December 26 that the Union" Same as above.
    • Doesn't seem right to me but done
  • I see a lot of miles. Maybe replace them with abbreviations of them?
    • Should be abbreviated on all except the first

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article discusses the role of the almost exclusively white volunteers who fought for the Rhodesian cause in the country's Bush War during the 1970s. They were generally motivated by a mix of racism, anti-communism and a desire for adventure, with few having a deep commitment to Rhodesia. While the Rhodesian government actively recruited volunteers, it didn't trust them and they often received a hostile reception from their Rhodesian comrades. The opponents of the Rhodesian regime regarded them as mercenaries, and were sceptical about western governments' lacklustre efforts to block their recruitment.

I started this article earlier this year as part of a burst of editing on the Rhodesian Security Forces. It's slightly patchy in parts, but this reflects the limited sources (as noted by the most recent works on the topic, the literature is thin and at times unreliable, and no-one even knows how many volunteers there were). Given the limited sourcing, the article may be one of the most comprehensive works on this topic. The article was assessed as a good article in February, and has since been expanded and copy edited. As a result, I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

edit

The Rhodesia area is long overdue for some improvements. My comments:

  • A little more explanation in the background about why the Rhodesian government issued the UDI (to avoid majority rule, also an intro to Rhodesian Front ideology here would be suitable) and why guerillas fought the government (to overthrow the minority government) would be nice.
  • the Rhodesian government had a strong preference for whites If the reasons for this are known, this should be made explicit.
  • White people and black people should be linked up here closer to the background, not further down in the article.
  • I'm sure the anti-communism motivations of some of the foreign volunteers had to do with opposing the ideologies of the Zimbabwe African National Union and Zimbabwe African People's Union. I'm sure the Rhodesians played up the possible communist sympathies of their opponents for their own political advantage, but if these volunteers were offered the opportunity to fight communists it should be mentioned to what extent such opponents were actually communist, or what communist backing they received.
  • Is it known why the black ex-Flechas joined? Were they seeking a career future after political fortunes turned against them in Mozambique? Were they actively recruited by Rhodesia or simply accepted into its ranks after fleeing Mozambique?
  • In the "Numbers of volunteers", there is inconsistent punctuation with regards to the bulleted list.
  • More potential force estimates seem to be found here.
  • Foreign volunteers who openly expressed extreme racial views were deported. Is it known why? Were they viewed as liabilities?
    • The source doesn't explicitly say, but this would have been due to the Rhodesian government's attempts to portray itself as not being racially extreme, which the background section now notes. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The security forces rarely discussed the foreign volunteers. I'm not exactly sure what this means. Top brass didn't like bringing it up in internal meetings?
  • The nationalists argued in their propaganda Since the distinction is not made earlier, it might be best to qualify this as "black nationalists" or something else to clarify who these people were aka the Zimbabwean nationalists opposed to Rhodesia. Disregard if the distinction is explained earlier on in the article.
  • The Portuguese government banned Rhodesian recruitment in the late 1970s, but was unable to enforce the legislation. I presume an an aftereffect of the Carnation Revolution? This unexplained seems at odds with In 1976 Portuguese officials offered 2,000 white soldiers who had served with UNITA in Angola unless those officials were being rogue.
    • Fixed - the source says they were former officials. I imagine that this lines up with the Portuguese government being unable to enforce its laws against citizens serving in other countries. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known what happened to these people at the end of the war? Were they sent home? What did the new Zimbabwean government (both transitional and Mugabe's government) think of them?
    • The British agreed to leave them in place during the interim period as part of the negotiations for the Lancaster House agreement. Mugabe ordered that any that still remained when he took power be dismissed - added. I was struggling to find information on this, but Newspapers.com and some creative Googling returned useful stories. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does White mention any memoirs published by foreign volunteers themselves?

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SR and IR by Buidhe

edit
  • Image: the one image meets some of the NFCC criteria but not all of them. I think it's potentially replaceable with free content as an ad placed in a US newspaper in the 1970s would be public domain in the US unless there was a copyright notice, which was rare.
    • I haven't seem any sources which say that the Rhodesians advertised in American newspapers, only magazines. The image here is particularly interesting, as it's the subject of a newspaper story and an example of the ads targeting British people (who made up the majority of volunteers). Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Magazines and newspapers published in US are the same for copyright—the ad would need to incorporate a copyright notice to be eligible for copyright protection. It's hard to make a case for this specific ad meeting NFCC if public domain ads are available because this ad (and British ads in general) doesn't seem to be discussed in the article text. (t · c) buidhe 08:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with you, to be frank, as I think that the fair use claim is fine given this illustrates how the Rhodesians targeted their main source of recruits and the article notes this campaign. It turns the National Library of Australia has a full set of Soldier of Fortune editions, so I'll check them out next weekend to see what I can find. This should get me yet another funny look from the librarians! Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: The NLA has the 1978-79 editions onwards, none of which had ads for service in Rhodesia unfortunately. The closest was an ad for a T-shirt glamorising mercenary work in the country. There were also lots of ads for Nazi memorabilia, conspiracy theories and other fringe movements: weird magazine! I've added some more material to the article on the leaflet that's depicted, which I think helps establish its significance. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: most of the sources look fine but I would not cite parliament records for anything but what was said in Parliament. Also, I'm not sure I can verify "As part of the negotiations that led to this agreement, the British government made a commitment to not remove foreigners from the Rhodesian military prior to the election".
    • Reworked this to attribute it to the politician responsible. I think that the verification is clear - the minister was asked about "foreign troops or mercenaries" in Rhodesia and replied stating that "There are persons of various nationalities serving with the Rhodesian forces, as there are with the Patrotic Front forces. The Government made clear during the constitutional conference that there would be no purge of the forces of either side during the interim period". Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the estimates of the numbers of volunteers both in the body and the lead, it could be made more clear which estimates are of those serving in the Rhodesian army at one time versus the cumulative number of foreign volunteers that had participated in the conflict.
    • Unfortunately the sources aren't clear on this: I've described what they've said, which notes that most sources refer to this as a point in time figure. I suspect the underlying problem is that historians haven't been able to access the relevant Rhodesian archives, as noted in the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Ellert 1999, p. 130. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for this review. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: How are we looking for this review? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

should be ok (t · c) buidhe 15:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
That will be the case for many "militant organisations". You are using the infobox inapropriately by trying to work in information it was not designed to convey and probably confusing readers. the "name of the country in which the organization was founded and active" is Rhodesia, possibly adding (now Zimbabwe).
I don't think it's that bad, but have taken this out Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size: the article consistently uses 2,000 while the infobox has 2000. Is there a reason?
  • This is very thinly illustrated. Nothing else which could be used?
    • Unfortunately not. This era and the obscurity of the topic mean that I haven't been able to find any PD images. Rhodesian works from the 1970s are still under copyright in Zimbabwe and the US, and the various images on Commons are either irrelevant or have dubious copyright claims. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 69, pp. error.
  • On a first skim I can find almost nothing in the article on military operations which the volunteers engaed in, which seems a little odd. I may come back to this.
    • This reflects the sources, unfortunately, which don't discuss this. The war is tricky for historians to describe, as it was years and years of escalating numbers of generally very small unit actions. As the foreigners seem to have topped out at 10% of the Rhodesian Light Infantry, I suspect that it's hard to identify battles where they played a prominent role. The French company might have been an exception, but it turned out to be a gang of criminals rather than a fighting force. I've added a bit more on the role of the Rhodesian Light Infantry which might help. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: first sentence, could "military" be specified?
  • "It is not known how many foreign volunteers served in the Rhodesian Security Forces". This seems the wrong way round. Should a reader not first be told that Rhodesian Security Forces contained foreign volunteers?
  • "The volunteers frequently received a hostile response from Rhodesians in the units they were posted to". One gathers from this that they were integrated rather than separate units. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the lead?
  • Suggest "It was illegal to serve with the Rhodesian Security Forces in many countries" → 'In many countries it was illegal to serve with the Rhodesian Security Forces '.
  • "regarding Rhodesia". You have already stated that only Rhodesia is being considered earlier in the sentence.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that UDI is in caps doesn't - according to the MoS - mean that what it is short for should necessarily also have. Eg because ASAP exists I would not consistently capitalise every use. You are not talking of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (for which a case for initial caps can be made) but a unilateral declaration of independence (for which it can't).
I am referring to the specific UDI here, so I think this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording to clarify things here after checking the constructions some sources use when writing about this. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The white minority government of the British colony of Rhodesia". Perhaps locate Rhodesia in the text? Maybe even add a location map?
  • Background: The first sentence of the first paragraph concerns events in 1965. The first sentence of the second paragraph events from the 1950s and 1960s. A reader may find them easier to follow if they were in chronological order.
  • "the development of African nationalism over the 1950s and 1960s". Perhaps "over" → 'during'?
  • "a policy of appeasement". Who was purportedly being appeased? International communists?
  • As a complete aside, I cannot help but think of Tom Sharpe's ironic dedication of (from memory) "Dedicated to the fine men of the South African Police Force and their struggle to uphold western civilisation in southern Africa". He was deported.
  • There seems to be a lot on the Rhodesian Front, and little on the more general African de-colonisation - peaceful or otherwise. Possibly flag up how odd Rhodesia's race-based government was - one of only two in the world.
    • This largely reflects the sources noting that the key factor that drove foreigners to fight for Rhodesia was the kind of ideology the RF had adopted - as a result, there's a need to explain what it was. There were a bunch of other white minority governments other than South Africa worldwide at this time - the Portuguese in various parts of Africa, the British in Hong Kong, etc. Rhodesia's key difference was the RF's rather odd political ideology. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However" is used six times - not necessarily excessive, but you may wish to review.
  • "The guerrillas began to gain the upper hand from the mid-1970s". 1. Perhaps mention explicitly that they engaged in military operations. 2. When did these commence?
  • "Shortages of white manpower were a persistent problem for the Rhodesian Security Forces. While most of the security forces' personnel were black, the Rhodesian government had a strong preference for whites." Perhaps swap the order of these sentences.
  • "The expansion of the military, increasing battle casualties and a decline in the white population caused the shortages of white personnel to worsen over the 1970s." This leaves a reader, this one anyway, wondering why the white population declined. Maybe a quick mention in line. or else a longer footnote?
    • Due to emigration - added. One of the many interesting things about the Rhodesian Bush War is that a sizable proportion of the white Rhodesians left the country as a result of it. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As part of its response to the shortage of white manpower, which also included increasing the numbers of conscripts and the periods they were obliged to serve for, the Rhodesian government began seeking white volunteers from outside the country in 1973." This sentence seems a little complicated. Perhaps 'In response to the shortage of white manpower the Rhodesian government increased the number of men liable for conscription and the periods they were obliged to serve. In addition, from 1973 it began seeking white volunteers from outside the country'?
  • "offered a rank in the Security Forces." Why the upper case S and F?
  • "they were paid at lower rates than white Rhodesian soldiers." This may read better if "Rhodesian" were deleted.
  • "An exception was a group of almost 200 French military personnel who enlisted together in 1976." Is anything known of their pre-Rhodesian background? One is curious as to how 200 men came to join up together.
    • Added - they were recruited by the Rhodesian intelligence service with the assistance of French intelligence agents, with the remainder of the Rhodesian government regarding it as having been a bad idea. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "white soldiers who had served with UNITA in Angola." Perhaps give a reader some idea of what UNITA was? And why 2,000 of its soldiers were suddenly looking for new jobs.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Most foreign volunteers for the Rhodesian Security Forces did so as a result" is not grammatical.
  • Would it be possible to give an idea of the total size of the Rhodesian Army?
    • Done, by expanding this to a short section. It's a tricky question to answer as the size of the Army increased considerably during the 1970s and it had lots of reservists so the total numbers of active personnel fluctuated by quite a bit. It seems that the army was pretty huge for much of 1978 and 1979, and I've given a point in time figure that illustrates this. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "South African journalist Paul Smurthwaite separately reported". I am not sure that "separately" adds anything.
  • "but estimates range as high as 2,000". Is this their estimate? If not, whose?
  • The last bullet point seems to contain three separate estimates, which may benefit from being split.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "British citizens were banned from joining the Rhodesian Security Forces". Banned how. Was it made illegal? Reading on, apparently not. I get the impression that the British government made vague noises that they would rather this not happen, rather than "banned" it.
    • Added a bit, but that's exactly right. It was unclear whether the grab bag of measures the British brought in would stand up in court so it seems to have never been tried. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were immune from prosecution." This has a technical legal meaning, which I don't think applies here. Perhaps rephrase?
  • "Carter Administration". Should that not be a lower case initial a?
  • "He also wrote a novel". Does it have a title?
  • "During the play the former volunteer slept with the niece of one of the main characters and threatened the other, an ex-soldier who was recruiting mercenaries to serve in southern Africa, with a gun." I don't see the relevance of this fictional event to the article.

And done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow response here: My one week trip unexpectedly became a two week trip. I'm grateful for these comments, and will respond over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again: I've been unwell for most of the last week (confirmed not to be COVID, but it knocked me off my feet). Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I have gone through your comments to date and commented on one, the rest seem fine. Note that I will be away from the internet from c. 21-31 May. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again: I think that I've now addressed them all. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hiking in the Scottish Highlands. Very limited internet. Back next week. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA

edit

Will do this at the weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of the Blacks

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another in a series of articles on the history of the Fatimid Caliphate. The so-called 'Battle of the Blacks' was an event that marked the end of the Fatimid army as a fighting force, effectively ended the Fatimid Caliphate by removing its last source of armed support, and established Saladin as the ruler of Egypt. It was effectively the first major test of him as a ruler, and shows a ruthless side of him much at odds with the romanticized version current in popular culture. This is a recently written article, just promoted to GA. I hope to get this to FA eventually, and above all, to ensure it is accessible to a non-specialist readership, so any criticism or suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 19:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will review. Hog Farm Talk 07:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: - ping me once Gog's comments have been addressed and I will review then. Hog Farm Talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hog Farm, Gog's comments have been addressed. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will start now; sorry for the delay, have gotten quite a bit busier lately.

  • "and other pro-Fatimid elements" - recommend blue-linking Fatimid to an article about the Fatimids here. Because Fatimid army is redlinked, the reader never really has a link to explain the Fatimids for them
    • Good point, done.
  • Link majordomo in the lead and the body
    • Done.
  • "and even publicly humiliated when Saladin the palace on horseback (hitherto a privilege of the caliph)" - missing a word?
    • Fixed.
  • "and the strike at Saladin's forces from the rear while he was facing the Crusaders" - is "the" necessary?
    • Typo for 'then'. Fixed.
  • I really think that the historiographic discussion of the truthfulness of the claimed conspiracy should be at least introduced in the section discussing it - it's presented almost as fact initially, but suggested to be false later.
    • That is a very good point. I have moved the relevant portion of the last section to the end of the section about Mu'tamin's conspiracy.
  • The lead directly states that Saladin ordered the execution of Mu'tamin, but this is only implied in the body
    • Have rephrased slightly, but I think this is evident; Saladin's men would never touch the palace majordomo, and then bring his cut-off head to him, without the explicit orders of their master.

Having to stop after the Mu'tamin's conspiracy section, will finish this off soon. Hog Farm Talk 05:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Gatimid troops rose in revolt in Qus under their commander, Abbas ibn Shadhi, while other areas of Upper Egypt were in turmoil due to the restiveness of the Bedouin and the presence of fugitive black African soldiery." - presumably this revolt was crushed, right?
    • Clarified.
  • "At least some of the black African and Armenian troops may have been retained in service, however, or have been left unmolested in or near Cairo, as they are mentioned during the abortive pro-Fatimid conspiracy of 1173, when the conspirators hoped to use them to seize Cairo in Saladin's absence on campaign against the Crusaders.[51][52][53] Following the discovery of the affair and the execution of its leaders, these troops were banished to Upper Egypt" - this is presented as fact here, but then stated to be dubious later? Again, I think there's a better way to meld the old claims with the modern doubts of accuracy
    • As above, I've added the relevant portion right after the summary of the conventional/primary narrative. I also clarified Lev's view about the actual motives of these events.

Not familiar with this subject matter or with the sources, so I can't really dig into this one too deeply. Hog Farm Talk 07:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, thanks for the review. I have tried to address your comments above. Especially since you are not familiar with the subject, I'd like to ask whether you could follow events at all, or whether additional context or clarifications might be in order. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hog Farm, a small reminder :) Constantine ✍ 18:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-expert support. I think the conspiracy section is much improved. Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

I will do a little copy editing as I go. Let me know if any of it causes issues.

  • The two bullet points under Result seem to clutter the infobox. And contradict the template instruction "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"."
    • Hmmm, it is a bit cluttered, but the outcome of this battle was not merely a military victory of Saladin; it was followed by the killing of most of the surrendered black troops, and resulted in a major political victory. This should be reflected somehow, or not?
      Not. "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." seems pretty clear! I mean, a little fudging is one thing, but you're trying to work a paragraph in. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Guilty as charged. Fixed this.
  • "Saladin's rise to power" What rise to power. Where? To a position, or just as a generalissimo?
    • Good point, rephrased
  • "the new vizier relied chiefly". Could the vizier be named and/or linked?
    • Saladin was meant here, but obviously not clearly enough. Explicitly named.
  • Link Kurdish, Turkish, Isma'ili,
    • Done.
  • No link for Mu'tamin al-Khilafa?
    • Added.
  • "justify Saladin's move against the Fatimid troops". How was executing the palace majordomo a "move against the Fatimid troops"?
    • Well, not sure this can be easily explained in the lede: Mu'tamin, as the chief black palace eunuch, had close ties with the black troops, and the black troops, forming the bulk of the Fatimid army, would obviously play a major role in Mu'tamin's planned betrayal of Saladin. Modern historians OTOH suspect that whatever the reason for Mu'tamin's execution, Saladin sought and welcomed the confrontation with the Fatimid troops, so as to get rid of them. The whole conspiracy was possibly a manufactured story.
  • "only to be driven [back?] ... The black troops and their allies appeared to be winning". This appears to be a contradiction, or at least confusing.
    • Rephrased.
  • "the burning of their quarters". "quarters" can be ambiguous in this context. Maybe 'barracks', or 'living accommodation'?
    • Settlements?
  • Suggest replacing "black" with 'black African' throughout. (Optional.)
    • Good suggestion. Done.
  • "This culminated in the restoration of Sunni dominance over Egypt and the deposition of the Fatimid dynasty in September 1171, and the establishment of Saladin's own Ayyubid dynasty in its place." too much happening here. Can we split it into two sentences?
    • Good suggestion. Done.
  • "His troops numbered a few thousand". I am unclear as to what constitutes "his" troops. As opposed to the large number of soldiers in the area who, I assume, were not.
    • Good point, rephrased.
  • "and himself a Sunni leading a Sunni army, at the head of a nominally Isma'ili state". Mention that Ismailism is Shia, and that Sunni and Shia are the main divisions of Islam.
    • Hmmm, rephrased to that it doesn't require too much exposition (hopefully).
  • How does "important symbolic figures, sources of legitimacy, and in command of enormous financial resources" equate to "virtual powerlessness?
    • Because they were not at the head of the administration, nor of the army. The vizier exercised that power. The Queen of England also has these attributes, but her political power is almost nil, apart from a vague authority and deference that she might command. Same with the last Fatimid caliphs: in theory revered, in practice they had about enough power to determine what they would have for supper.
  • "In the meantime, Saladin gradually began distancing himself from the Fatimid regime: he introduced the name of Nur al-Din in the Friday prayer after that of Caliph al-Adid, relegated the latter to a ceremonial role and even publicly humiliated him by entering the palace on horseback (hitherto a privilege of the caliph), and began openly favouring his Syrian troops, awarding them military fiefs (iqṭāʿ) for their upkeep, while withdrawing similar fiefs from the Fatimid commanders." A long sentence, which makes up the entire paragraph.
    • Good point, done.
  • Article: "Mu'tamin made contact with the Crusaders, inviting them to invade Egypt." Is this the same report that "Modern historians have questioned the veracity of"? (Lead.)
    • Yes.
  • "firing stones". Do you mean 'throwing stones'? Or were they fired by siege engines or firearms?
    • Definitely not firearms at that time. Replaced with 'throwing stones and shooting arrows'.
  • "There they set fire to the quarter". The whole quarter, or just the barracks?
    • 'Barracks' is a poor term, I've replaced it with 'homes'. The troops lived there for generations, in normal houses with their families. Nothing in common with modern-day barracks.
  • "preventing them from flanking their pursuers". You what? How does one flank a pursuer?
    • By doubling back from the side alleys and attacking the pursuers from the side. Here Saladin's troops did the opposite.
      I think this needs some further explanation or rephrasing. ('preventing them from easily turning on their pursuers'?)
      • Have explained it a bit further.
  • "There the blacks were attacked and killed by Turan-Shah." Yet the lead says "most who survived the massacre" and the article later "Only a fraction of the black troops escaped". I can see a couple of ways how this could have happened, but perhaps not be so definitive in the main article?
    • Good point. I've tried to rephrase a bit. Apparently not all blacks at Giza were killed, not all black troops in Cairo were at Giza, and not all black Fatimid troops were in Cairo.
  • "the other black eunuchs". Was Mu'tamin a black eunuch? If so, could we be told at first mention.
    • Oops, added.
  • "with pursuing them and killing them. Over the following months, Saladin pursued his phasing-out". "... pursuing ... pursued ..."
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. A couple of responses to your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, I've addressed the final outstanding issues. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

The sources all seem to me to be appropriately reliable and I can see no formatting issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit
  • Could you remove the first (short) paragraph in the lead?
    • Merged with the one after.
  • "The Battle of the Blacks or Battle of the Slaves was a conflict in Cairo" Was this a slave revolt? If so maybe change conflict into slave revolt?
    • No. Slave soldiers are not the same as slaves. The name derives from the term 'bought slaves' for the Black troops, since they were indeed purchased as slaves before entering military service.
  • "caliphal palaces and the palace of the vizier" --> "aliphal palaces and the palace of the Vizier"?
    • these were buildings associated with the offices, not the individuals holding them.
  • "sort of representative and champion of their interests.[23][22][26]" Switch the refs here?
    • Done.
  • "were joined by other Fatimid troops and ordinary Cairenes.[16][22][26][23]" Same as above?
    • Done.
  • "waiting to see who the caliph would support" --> "waiting to see who the Caliph would support"?
  • "to target the caliph's pavilionéµ" --> "to target the Caliph's pavilion"?
  • "who believed they had been fighting in support of the caliph" --> "who believed they had been fighting in support of the Caliph"?
  • "Africans were attacked and killed by Turan-Shah, with only a few surviving.[35][32][36]" Switch the refs here?
    • Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CPA-5, thanks for taking the time. I've addressed your points above. On capitalization, I admit I admit I am confused by its rules, but MOS seems to prefer uncapitalized except when coupled with the holder's name. Constantine ✍ 19:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Ah, if only it were that simple. Also when the title is used as a stand in for a specific, individual holder. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: thanks for the clarification. @CPA-5: Done. Constantine ✍ 18:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: a small reminder. Constantine ✍ 11:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2022 (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) 19:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

CSS Baltic

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

CSS Baltic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After very helpful assistance from Sturmvogel and Parsecboy, I bring you my first ship-related A-class nomination. Commissioned in 1862 and decommissioned in 1864, she saw no significant action during that time. One historian had written that she was "one of the most obscure Confederate ironclads" and that "Confederate documents relating to the vessel are almost nonexistent". Another described her as "a nondescript vessel in many ways", and a few months before her decommissioning, her commander stated that she was "about as fit to go into action as a mud scow". Hog Farm Talk 14:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

edit

I will review this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow. Apologies. Busy. Slava Ukraini! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I've been a bit busier lately, anyway. Hog Farm Talk 22:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She deteriorated over the next several years and became rotten [...] "several" is I think too many years for two years.
    • Replaced with "two"
  • Footnote [a] gives Bisbee's name and qualification twice.
    • A relic of Bisbee's origin theory of the ship being knocked into a footnote for due weight purposes. Corrected
  • DANFS and naval historian Paul Silverstone state [...] Silverstone and DANFS [...] and DANFS as "smaller". Acronyms should almost always be preceded by a "the".
    • I caught three instances, which I think is all of them
  • Prior to Tennessee's completion in February 1864, Baltic was the only Confederate ironclad on Mobile Bay. The Tennessee here kind of comes out of nowhere; it has no introduction. Also, do we have an article for it or is it another future Hog Farm Four Award?
    • Linked, although I've currently got a requested move on it.
  • Through late 1863 and early 1864, Baltic's condition worsened, and naval constructor John L. Porter surveyed the ship's condition, judging it to be in such poor condition that he recommended that the iron be removed from her. I think this sentence would work better if the "and" after "worsened" was replaced with a semicolon; even better if there's a date or at least vague window of time (early 1864?) given for Porter's inspection of the Baltic.
    • Best I can do I think is "By March 20 ..." for a date on Porter's inspection
  • With the end of the war approaching, Baltic, Nashville, and other vessels were later sent up the Tombigbee, and they were captured by Union forces on May 10, 1865, at Nanna Hubba Bluff. Recommend breaking this sentence into two at the "and" after "Tombigbee".
    • Done

What a bizarre boat! I never tire of Civil War weirdness. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Adam Cuerden

edit

You can technically get a larger-resolution copy of the image from https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-58000/NH-58793.html - How useful that is I'm not sure, though, as they somehow got a ridiculously blurry scan. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 22:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure how useful that would be, especially with the extra blurriness. FWIW, with Bisbee noting that it's not known how accurate the image actually is, it probably isn't all that important to get a super high-res copy anyway. Hog Farm Talk 05:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit

Will do this at the weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: - Are you still intending to review this one? I'm going to be away from my print books for much of next week. Hog Farm Talk 13:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CSS Baltic was a casemate ironclad that" Maybe add here a note with the explanation of the "CSS" part? Since I have no clue what it stands for.
    • Footnoted. "Confederate States Ship"
  • "vessel that naval historian William N." What's his surname?
    • I've wikilinked it in the lead to make it clearer that the "Still" in the sentence is his surname
  • "Baltic was built in 1860 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" --> "CSS Baltic was built in 1860 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"?
    • Well, it wasn't a "CSS" at that point. It didn't gain the prefix until the Confederates took her over
  • "Little is known about her, and Bisbee describes" Introduce Bisbee here since not everyone reads the note first.
    • Done
  • "According to naval historian Saxon Bisbee, the vessel was taken to Mobile, Alabama" And here remove the introduction of him?
    • Done
  • " legislation appropriating $150,000 for an ironclad" Is it possible to convert this amount of money to a modern one?
    • Done. (equivalent to 4.5 million per the template; they didn't get their money's worth)
I get $4,523,889 which might be a little bit over-detailed. Same as bellow.
@CPA-5: - I've rounded both of these off to the nearest thousand. Is this better? Hog Farm Talk 13:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was bought on December 13 at a cost of $40,000" Same as above and maybe add a comma behind the date?
    • Done
  • I see a lot of "feet" maybe move them into their abbreviation (same with the inches)?
    • Should be abbreviated except for the first usage now
  • Maybe add a picture of the navel mines of the 19th century? Since I didn't know it already existed that early.
    • I've added one. There were several types, although a number were based off of old wooden beer kegs.
  • "Bisbee states that the converted ship's draft was 7 ft (2.1 m), the DANFS and naval historian Paul Silverstone state 6 ft 5 in (2.0 m)" Infobox says something diffrent.
    • The 6 ft figure from the infobox is attributed to Still after the presentation of the DANFS/Silverstone figure. Something does seem to have gone wrong here because I'm missing the cite to Bisbee in here; I'll try to get that after work. Hog Farm Talk 13:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you searched for? Nice job! Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Sources all appear to be high quality and reliable.
  • Formatting all appears to be consistent.
  • You may get some nitpicking over the ISBNs being different formats - there's a tool here you can use to standardize them. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer not to standardize. Once or twice I've seen that cause pagination issues because the switch to ISBN-13 makes it look like a different edition, so I prefer to use the ISBN directly off of the copy I'm using. Hog Farm Talk 19:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias

edit

I'll dust of my reviewers notebook and see what I can find.

  • For those of us outside of the US, could you clarify succinctly where "Mobile Bay" is in the lead. Something like "Mobile Bay, on the Gulf of Mexico." would suffice.
    • Noted in the lead and body
  • Per WP:CITE, quotations need citing wherever they appear, so the quote in the lead needs an inline citation in the lead.
    • Done
  • "She deteriorated over the next two years and became rotten, and her armor was removed.." Not keen on the repetition of "and" which makes this sentence feel like it has been overextended.
    • Split into two sentences
  • "By that August, she had been decommissioned, and she was taken up.." Remove the second of these "she"s.
    • Done
  • "..where she was captured on May 10, 1865." For clarity could you state who she was captured by?
    • Done
  • "..found that her upper hull and her deck were rotten.." Remove the second "her".
    • Done

More to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back, Harrias! Hog Farm Talk 23:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put the uncertainty about the year she was built in the main prose, rather than hiding it in the note; especially as the infobox offers both options. If the weight of sources support 1860 over 1856, say that. You do this well later in the paragraph.
    • I've removed 1856 from the infobox. At Talk:CSS Baltic#New Albany?, it was decided to relegate Bisbee to a note here, as Bisbee is likely wrong but given that he is a very major source in the CSA ironclads topic area, was worth still attributing in a footnote. FWIW, Bisbee's footnotes and support for the claim are not convincing, although his referencing is usually sound. Hog Farm Talk 13:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and Bisbee describes her.." Introduce Bisbee again on this first use in the main body.
    • Done
  • "..four horizontal return-flue boilers; the boiler were either.." It should be "boilers" plural on the second use here too. From the grammar, I assume this is just a typo. Alternatively, consider "..each boiler was either.."
    • Done
  • The "Joiner, Gary D. (2011)" source needs pp, rather than p for the page range.
    • Done

Overall, I enjoyed this read. The article is well-written and nicely puts the ship and its capabilities (or lack thereof) nicely into context. Really good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Harrias: - Thanks for the review! I've (hopefully) addressed all of the above concerns. I'm hoping to get it to FAC in time for a TFA on Dec. 13 (her purchase by Alabama), if the Bisbee footnote thing isn't disqualifying. Hog Farm Talk 15:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – as I said, a really nice piece of work. If I review at the FAC I will probably bring the footnote issue back up, but that isn't to say that I will oppose over it, only drill a little deeper. I'm content for ACR though. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

USS Johnston (DD-557)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

USS Johnston (DD-557) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

My first US Navy ACR. This article is about maybe the most famous and fightingest US destroyer that ever sailed: Johnston (DD-557), of Samar and captain Evans fame, the deepest shipwreck ever surveyed, and a warship that will live forever in history and doctrine. I intend to take this article to Featured-dom (and ALL the Fletchers eventually) and hope for this to be an auspicious beginning to the quest of pinning the bronze star to the other 175 articles in this topic. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Buidhe

edit

Note: I know nearly nothing about destroyers, so this is mostly a prose review

Extended content
  • "not properly surveyed" who decides what's properly? Is there a way to rephrase this without words-to-watch-y language?
  • "Johnston's armor measured" I assume this is the thickness?
  • "On 30 January, she screened for" That's incomprehensible jargon for me, sorry :(
  • "to return to the Marshalls for resupply and then to Kwajalein" This does not make sense to me since Kwaj is part of the Marshall Islands.
  • " She returned on 8 February but was only able to refuel as all stowed 5 in (130 mm) munitions within the atoll had been claimed by Rear Admiral C. Turner Joy, in command of cruisers San Francisco, New Orleans, Minneapolis, and Tuscaloosa." The phrasing is a bit run on. Why did Joy have priority?
  • "Direct fire" was the previously mentioned fire not direct?
  • "Center Force" I wonder if it's necessary to introduce this name? Why does it matter for this US ship what a Japanese fleet was called in historiography?

That's it! (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Most of the licensing looks fine but the own work claims on File:Gun turret No. 51 on the bow of the wreck of the USS Johnston DD-557.jpg, File:Bridge and Mk 37 Gun Fire Control System (top) of wreck of the USS Johnston DD-557.jpg, and File:Starboard bow of the wreck of the USS Johnston DD-557.jpg are pretty sketchy. How do we know that the photos were uploaded by the copyright holder? (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the images. Out of curiosity, I reviewed the uploader's history and found a history of this sort of thing. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Vami IV: - I dunno, some of the Vescovo images have gone through OTRS (like this one); it very well could actually be him uploading the images (or someone uploading them on his behalf). And Vescovo is cited as the author here, which is clearly the same footage as the bow photo that was uploaded here. It might be worth re-examining these and seeing if they can be used before this article goes to FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed File:USS Johnston (DD-557) underway on 27 October 1943 (NH 63495).jpg and thought it would be a great Featured picture candidate. So I nominated it there. But that's more of an aside. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 23:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I've been surprised at how slow ACR's been moving lately - I thought this would have gotten more attention by now. I reviewed at GAN, so I don't know if I'll find anything to real pick at. Hog Farm Talk 14:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 14:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, Hog! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

edit

I bought The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors (2005 paperback edition) on a whim at a used book store a week or two ago, so I guess I can give some comments:

  • In the Design or Construction sections, a "Because its entering World War II in 1941, US ordered X many Fletchers as part of Y naval expansion plan" or such, if sources allow it.
  • From there, Johnston sailed to join the ongoing campaign in the Gilbert and Marshall Islands. Ongoing campaign against forces of the Japanese Empire.
  • Over the next three days, Johnston resupplied, took on donated supplies from New Mexico, 5 in shells from Ringgold, and fuel oil from Suamico. Grammatically, should this be "taking on donated supplies..."?
  • What happened to her surviving crew? Picked up by the Japanese? By the Americans? This newspaper article quoting historian Ian W. Toll reports that the bailing crew was initially fired upon and mentions the claim that Japanese sailors saluted the sinking destroyer out of respect (this claim seems almost mythical but I wonder if there's more to it).
    • The Americans got worried about continued Japanese activity, particularly submarines, and didn't immediately send in any search and rescue. Thus, a lot of guys died of exposure, injury, and depredation by marine fauna. In the end, 141 guys from Johnston were rescued. I've added this last detail to the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There exists/ed a "USS Johnston/Hoel Association" for veterans, if a secondary source (maybe this works?) can affirm this it would be worthy of mention.
  • Since my book is different I'll defer to your call on this one, but should ref 16 concerning Japanese force strength be multiple pages? In my book it'd be pp. 153-154
  • For ref 43 regarding The Guardian article, the AFP should be entered under the cite news "agency =" parameter, not the "author =" one.

-Indy beetle (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: - Hi Indy, can you take a look at Vami's replies and see if your concerns are addressed? Thanks. (by the way, if you're ready to support, please ping me so I can close the review). Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting with the caveat that the page numbers for The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors be double checked, if I recall in my earlier review some instances seemed slightly off (beyond the one mentioned above). -Indy beetle (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can do; can't hurt. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

The sources all seem to me to be appropriately reliable. In terms of formatting:

  • Could the hyphenation of ISBNs be standardised?
  • Could the works in the "History of the United States Naval Operations in World War Two" series specify their volume numbers?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both   Done –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:20, 5 May 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Utica

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another from my Featured Topic on the Truceless War. It doesn't, IMO, have quite enough detail in the sources to merit FAC, but hopefully sufficient for ACR. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review there's sandwiching in the mutiny section. Is the reenactors image really helpful/necessary? For File:Carthage location 2 (cropped).png, the could be more effectively depicted using {{maplink}}. (t · c) buidhe 20:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reenactors removed. Which should also cure any sandwiching. I am afraid that you have lost me with the other suggestion and link. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


CommentsSupport by CPA

edit
  • "and its surrounding waters, and also in North Africa" Unlink North Africa?
Done.
  • "Freed of their long period of military discipline and with nothing to do, the men grumbled among themselves and refused all attempts by the Carthaginians" Sounds a bit like a romance?
Possibly. Plot spoiler - it ends badly. I am open to suggestions for different wording.
  • "home towns against Carthaginian retribution.[12][13][14][15]" Maybe remove one citation?
They are all actually needed. I could split up the cites into the paragraph, although that would create a lot of mid-sentence citations. As you know, I usually limit cites to a max of three, but in this case four seemed the least bad solution.
  • "according to the ancient Roman historian Polybius" Greek historian?
Changed.
  • "Both Spain and Gaul provided" Isn't it Iberia and Gaul?
I have followed the sources, who pretty much all use this - admittedly inconsistent - mix.
  • "were recruited from the Balearic Islands" Link?
Done

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5 and thanks once again. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Treaty of Lutatius was agreed and brought the First Punic War to an end" - note that this occurred in 241]
Done.
  • "Sicilians and Italians had also joined up during the war to fill the ranks" - were these Italians defectors from the Romans?
If only it were that simple. Some were. My preference is not to go down that rabbit hole of nuance and off-topic detail. (Note that 30 years later, during the 2PW, tens of thousands of Italians fought in Hannibal's armies.) But I could if you thought it helpful to readers.
Doesn't sound like it's worth getting into here, then. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 10,000 figure of the rebel army - is that for only the force at Utica, or the forces at Utica and Hippo combined?
Clarified.

Good work here, I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, appreciated. Your points [so far?] addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, tidy work as usual here. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also pass on source review - all sources are reliable enough for what they cite, I didn't see any major sourcing exclusions when I checked last night, and there are no serious formatting issues. Hog Farm Talk 15:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit
Thanks Hawkeye, and for the copy edit. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Kirk–Holden war

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Kirk–Holden war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is about one of the least-known but most important events in my home state of North Carolina, and sealed the sad fate of Reconstruction in wake of the American Civil War within it. After a serious bout of violence from the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan organization in 1870 (including two Klan murders of public officials that took place on courthouse grounds), Governor William Woods Holden called up a militia under Colonel George Washington Kirk to arrested those suspected of causing trouble in two counties with token support from the federal government. Klan activity was dampened, but some laws were broken and prisoners' rights denied, and Holden's opponents in the legislature used the affair to lodge eight articles of impeachment against him, thus causing him to be the first governor in the United States to be removed from office by such a mechanism. Holden died believing he had done the right thing, but as recently as 2011 the president of a local historical association thought that his removal didn't have to do with racism or with Klan pressure—despite the fact that the representative who proposed the articles of impeachment against Holden was himself a Klansman. The article relies mostly on relatively recent scholarship and just passed a Good article nom. Mostly making sure that it can be understood by a WP:GLOBAL audience and that the nuances of North Carolina law at the time aren't too confusing. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Buidhe

edit

Content review:

  • "police action", apparently based on one source you are calling it this in the first sentence and infobox. I agree that it's not a war in the conventional sense (similar to the Pig War), but also the phrase "police action" to me is associated with its euphemistic use to avoid formal declaration of war, eg in Korea or Indonesia. Also, the article seems to be both about the Klan insurgency and the reaction to it. (If you think Ku Klux Klan insurgency in North Carolina is a separate topic, I would recommend splitting it off and reducing detail in the earlier parts of the article.) I wonder if there might be another term that is used in sources such as "conflict" or "insurgency"?
    • Changed to "police operation" as that's verbatim what Brisson uses. I used police action because that's a linkable concept, but I suppose I forgot to appreciate the connation of it as "foreign intervention". As far as the "Klan insurgency," from the perspective of Holden's administration it was an insurrection, but clearly that was not the General Assembly's point of view. The phrase "Kirk–Holden war" is obviously attached to the deployment of the militia, but the more comprehensive accounts such as those found in Brisson, Wise, and Bradley make a point of recounting the events in Alamance and Caswell in good detail, particularly with the murders of Outlaw and Stephens. From what I can tell Klan activity in the other areas isn't studied too closely, aside from Nash's writings on what happened in the mountains and some of the shenanigans in Moore County, since federal officials got involved there.
  • "all enslaved black people in the state were freed" This makes it sound like there were other non-black enslaved people who were not freed. Possibly you mention earlier in the paragraph the role of slavery in the ACW?
    • Revised to say The issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation during the conflict meant that the federal government recognized the freedom of over 330,000 enslaved blacks in North Carolina; this came into effect in most of the state with the end of the war. With the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in December 1865, slavery was formally abolished across the United States.
  • You can link 1868 North Carolina gubernatorial election
    • Done.
  • It's not entirely clear to someone unfamiliar with American history that the "freedmen" are formerly enslaved African-Americans
    • I think this is now clear with mentioning the freedom of the 330,000+ black slaves
  • "white North Carolinians became frustrated with the Republican government" what were they upset by?
    • Brisson doesn't specify, but it almost certainly had to do with the rise in status of black people and/or higher taxes and financial corruption allegations.
  • "mooted" an unnecessarily obscure word, I suggest "proposed"
    • Done.
  • "The arrestees encompassed a wide variety of persons," kind of vague
    • Changed to The arrestees encompassed persons from various social backgrounds. Brisson speaks to the different "social classes" represented among the detainees.
  • "Tensions remained high between militiamen and federal soldiers in the county, with the two forces hurling insults and occasional stones at one another." You explain why the federals didn't like the militiamen, but not vice versa? (t · c) buidhe 07:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: It's not really clear, Bradley boils it down to "the true source of difficulty was the lack of a unified command structure". My read is that the US officers thought the militia leaders were paranoid, and that probably engendered mistrust which trickled down from the leadership to the ranks. The older sources that align with the "Hamilton school" of North Carolina Reconstruction historiography sometimes alleged that the militia caused a great amount of disorder in Yanceyville which the federal troops tried to curtail, but newer sources generally omit this and/or push back against the idea that Kirk's troops were simply a bunch of ruffians. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from CPA

edit

Drive by

Comments

  • "The Kirk–Holden war was a police operation taken against the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan" How is it a police operation if a militia was ordered to restore order?
    • This is a phrase used verbatim by the historian Brisson. Police is meant as a verbal adjective, not a noun (ie an operation to police the Klan). Like police action in the international context.
  • "Following an increase in Klan activity in North Carolina in 1869 and 1870" Sounds a bit odd or is it just me?
    • Removed the years.
  • "No persons were killed during the campaign" isn't it beter to use "No one was killed during the campaign"?
    • Done.
  • "of certain rights from nonwhites and forcing" isn't it " of certain rights from non-whites and forcing"?
    • Done.
  • "deteriorating and convinced the mayor and a local magistrate" --> "deteriorating and convinced the Mayor and a local magistrate"?
    • MOS:JOBTITLES seems to suggest lower case here. Same for the below comments regarding "governor".
  • "asking United States Senator for North Carolina Joseph Carter Abbott" Why has senator an uppercase I mean weren't there two senators for each state like pressent has?
    • Yes, but "US Senator Joseph Carter Abbot" seems to be the proper title for him, independent of the other senator.
  • "On May 25 he publicly condemned" --> "On May 25, he publicly condemned"
    • Done.
  • "one of the governor's closest advisers" --> "one of the Governor's closest advisers"?
  • "It arrived in Raleigh on July 19 and made camp at Old Baptist Grove" --> "It arrived in Raleigh on July 19, and made camp at Old Baptist Grove"?
    • Done.
  • "with about 350 men on July 18 and established his headquarters" --> "with about 350 men on July 18, and established his headquarters"
    • Done.
  • "by the Sheriff of Orange County and a posse" What's his name?
    • Brisson does not specify. I've been unable to find his name, apparently he was dead by the time the impeachment trials began (source).
  • "House voted 60 to 46 to impeach the governor" --> "House voted 60 to 46 to impeach the Governor"?
  • "team issued the governor's formal response" Same as above.
  • "The North Carolina Senate convened on March 22" --> "The North Carolina Senate convened on March 22,"
    • Done.
  • "Meanwhile, in the autumn of 1872" MOS:SEASONS?
    • Boyd only gives the season, but per MOS I've changed the text to read "the latter part of 1872".

That's anythihng from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the Civil War might be useful to mention in the lead, it's hard to really give background for the Klan without mentioning the war
    • Done.
  • "and North Carolina was reintegrated into the United States" - is this the best phrasing, as it wasn't fully readmitted until 1868, I believe?
    • and North Carolina reverted to the jurisdiction of the United States Better?
  • "Klan murders continued throughout the Piedmont region of the state through 1869 and 1870" - I think Piedmont ought to be linked
    • Sadly there is no North Carolina-specific Piedmont article except for Piedmont Crescent, which is a modern concept. Piedmont (United States) covers the general concept for the entire eastern US. The region itself is probably notable enough for its own article, but one does not exist.
  • Did Badham hold any sort of office or leadership role in Graham County, or was he just the one who wrote to Holden?
    • Apparently a lawyer who wanted the KKK to be prosecuted, but it does not appear that he held any official positions in government or a major leadership role in the county Republican chapter. Based off of Bradley's citations it seems he wrote to Holden on several occassions.
  • "speak with General Edward Canby" - recommend using Canby's exact rank
    • Done.
  • Who is Richard Badger? He needs some sort of gloss
    • Brisson identifies him as one of the governor's closest advisers (my text now added to the article). Apparently he was a Republican attorney who had been involved in the previous Klan suppression efforts.
  • "His men were issued uniforms and Springfield rifles " - any idea which model of Springfields?
    • "Muzzle-loading Springfield rifled muskets", something kind of old by that point, I think, but the sources do not specify what model.
  • "the men that enlisted in the militias probably hoped to benefit from the pay offered" - should this statement be attributed?
    • Done.
  • "On July 27, General George Meade" - again, recommend using exact rank if possible
    • Done.

Ready for legal disputes section, more to come later. Hog Farm Talk 20:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "None of them were convicted in the ensuing proceedings" - were these jury trials? If so, that might be worth mentioning as it would suggest the reason for no convictions. Do the sources indicate the reason(s) for the acquittals?
    • Since these were superior court trials, I would presume juries were involved. Brisson suggests possible "intimidation, collusion, or outright perjury" but other than that no specifics.
  • "Clark sent a portion of Company B to Carthage in Moore County" - is this a typo for Clarke?
    • Fixed.
  • " General Meade dissolved the District of North Carolina on September 13" - same as the other General Meade comment above
    • Fixed.
  • "The resolution requires approval from the House in order to be put into effect." - anything happen on this since? Presumably it has either been passed or died in committee forever now.
    • There's been no follow-up in the media; far as I know, it was never even introduced in the House and referred to a committee.

Sourcing looks fine. Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 05:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

The sources all seem to me to be appropriately reliable and I can see no formatting issues. See also discussion on User talk:Hog Farm Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (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 Indy beetle (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article just went through a GAN, kindly reviewed by Sturmvogel. I think the article meets the A-class criteria and am hoping to get it to FAC in the future, so any feedback is welcome! (t · c) buidhe 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit

Drive-by Just a drive-by for now.

  • No worries however just curious on my phone the images are pretty small and don't take that much space on my screen. I'm not sure whether or not this is my phone's problem but is there a way to widen the images to make it standardised with all screens? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the standard mobile view the images are never going to sandwich text because the text is not wrapped,
 
Reichstag building, c. 1900
  • and images display pretty much like this. I also tried it in the pseudo-desktop mode on my phone, but it did not sandwich anything either. I am not sure exactly what your settings are, but adding clear templates is pretty harmless and I guess it fixes the problem. (t · c) buidhe 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is it possible to remove the one-sentence paragraph in the lead?
  • "immediately sent back by the Polish police while others" Polish Police?

Will continue later. Cheers CPA-5 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • See 8 howevers is it possible to remove some?
  • "At the time of the annexation, there were at least 118,310 Jews" If this is an estimate why not round it a little bit?
  • "Many Jews were reluctant to leave family members behind or try to start a new life in a country where they did not know the language." Examples?
  • "The Protectorate police began to close down" --> "The Protectorate's police began to close down"?

Going through Employment and forced labor later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "At the time, 25,458 men and 24,028 women" Maybe round these?
  • "By July, 60% of Jewish men in the Protectorate" % --> percent?
  • "By mid-1941, more than 11,700 of 15,000 Jewish men" --> "By mid-1941, more than 11,700 of the 15,000 Jewish men"?
  • "at which point 15,000 men and 1,000 women" Maybe switch them?
  • "from visiting cinemas and theaters by the Hácha government" --> "from visiting cinemas and theaters by the Hácha Government"?
  • "were forced to register with the Jewish community as "B-Jews"" What does B means?
  • "reported to the government-in-exile" --> "reported to the Government-in-exile"?
  • "While in Prague the deportation of the city's 46,801 Jews stretched" Maybe round it per MOS:LARGENUM?
  • " At the time of liberation, 6,875 Theresienstadt prisoners" Same as above?
  • "a bit less than half (28,368) were deported to Auschwitz" Same as above?
  • " On 8–9 March 1944, 3,792 Jews from the family camp" Same as above?
  • "Only 3,371 Czech Jews deported outside the Protectorate are reported to have survived" Same as above?
  • "Jewish population of the Protectorate including 39,395 from Prague" Same as above?
  • "By the end of 1944, only 6,795 Jews officially" Same as above?
  • "Between January and 16 March 1945, 3,654 intermarried Jews" Same as above?
  • "A total of 2,803 people considered Jews" Same as above?
  • "Two to three thousand Jews" --> "2.000 to 3.000 Jews" per MOS:RANGES?
  • "The names of 77,297 known victims of the Holocaust" Maybe round it?

That's everything that I could find. Btw just curious are you going to try to promote the Holocaust in both Belgium and in Poland and against Poles. If so then give me a call I'm pretty much looking forwards to them. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Reorganized
  2. Technically the source says "Polish border officials". I don't think the capitalization makes sense because I'm not sure exactly what organization was involved. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Done
    2. This is an official figure from the Jewish Religious Community, so I'm guessing what Gruner is saying is that it doesn't include people of Jewish descent who don't practice Judaism. Edited to reflect the source.
    3. I'm getting a server error so I can't access the source right now. But I'm not sure what examples you're asking for? Individual Jews who held these attitudes? I'm not sure that's a detail that's relevant to include.
    4. I believe this is correct. Gruner actually capitalizes ("Protectorate Police") but other sources don't. (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this goes against MOS:LARGENUM, but I'd rather use the figures given by reliable sources without editing them. Arguably the authors consider the exact figure significant if they cite it. If it's not clear how accurate the figures are, rounding to tens, hundreds, or thousands place would seem like original research.
  • Changed all %-> percent
  • Done
  • Not done, I am not sure why switching would be an improvement
  • Shouldn't it be from small number to a bigger number?
  • I think the current order is easier for readers since the stats for male forced laborers are discussed earlier on.
  • Not usually capitalized in reliable sources, per MOS:CAPS
  • The article already defines B-Jews as "individuals of Jewish ancestry who did not identify as Jews" who had to register with the Jewish community. I'm not sure how to make this clearer.
  • But I mean what does the B stand for?
  • I don't think it stands for anything, and can't find any indication that it does based on reliable sources. Apparently Jews by religion were referred to as "A-Jews".
  • Government in exile is not usually capitalized
  • Why not isn't it usually an organisation's name?
  • I think the name of the organization was either "Provisional Government of Czechoslovakia" or "Czechoslovak National Liberation Committee", and government-in-exile is a way of referring to the organization.
  • 2,000 to 3,000 Jews would violate another MOS rule, not starting a sentence with a numeral
  • Well my point was really to change it to "Two thousand to three thousand" Jews.
  • Done.

Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 18:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have replied.

Support from Vami

edit

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Comparing this lead to your previous "The Holocaust in [Nation]", I note the lack of a note for what the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia is, and a sentence containing pre-Nazi Jewish population and the death toll in that region in the first paragraph. It is sparse as is.
    • Added the first. But it's hard to say what the "pre-Nazi" population would be. We have figures for March and September 1939, but these were affected by the influx of Jews from the Sudetenland and Nazi-stimulated emigration. The 1930 census also covers the Sudeten areas that were not incorporated into the Protectorate.
  • [...] initially to Łódź Ghetto. [...] departed for Theresienstadt Ghetto. The Łódź/Theresienstadt Ghetto.
  • [...] the Czech minority. Was this one of this situations where the Czechs were a minority in the region but the largest of its minority groups?
    • Typo for majority—my bad!
  • The sweeping under the rug of the Shoah by Communist Czechoslovakia is worth mentioning in the lead.
    • Done
Background
  • Zionism also made inroads among the Jews of the periphery (Moravia and the Sudetenland). Link Zionism; why not replace "the periphery" with "Moravia and the Sudetenland"?
    • Done
Second Czechoslovak Republic
  • During the mid-1930s, Czechoslovakia accepted thousands of German Jews fleeing persecution, although right-wing politics eventually led to immigration restrictions and an end to racial persecution as an accepted reason for seeking asylum.[21][22] In the mid-1930s, antisemitism was on the rise in Czechoslovakia.[23] Is there a way to combine these two sentences but without having it become overly long? They both start with "[...] the mid-1930s".
    • Tweaked wording
  • [...] in the no-man's land [...] Is this a literal or metaphorical no-man's land? If the former, what land be this?
    • This means they were stranded at the border with both sides rejecting them. The use of the term "no-man's land" for this seems to be pretty common in the context of people stranded along borders in mid-20th century Europe, and I'm not sure what term could be clearer. (t · c) buidhe 02:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Persecution of Jews
  • In Iglau (Jihlava), [...] Does the German name need to be given? Was Jihlava annexed into Germany?
    • All of the protectorate was partly annexed. But I think the majority of sources use Czech names for places in the Protectorate so I changed it back.
  • In September 1939 another wave of arrests targeted Protectorate citizens who could be used as hostages and those with ties to Poland. These arrests also disproportionately affected Jews. Affected or targeted?
    • The source does say targeted but that would require repeating the word too much.
  • At once, [...] At once from what? The establishment of the Protectorate?
    • Clarified
  • Czech–Jewish marriages were initially still allowed, the regulation of such was left to the Protectorate government. I feel this comma is unnecessary. Maybe "Czech-Jewish marriages were initially still allowed and regulated by the Protectorate government."
    • Rephrased but not as you suggested. I think it could be misleading because initially such marriages were not subject to special regulation.
  • However, the Reich Protector's office [...] Who is the Reich Protector?
    • Mentioned this in the German occupation section
  • [...] emigrated between Munich and March 1939. Huh?
    • Rephrased
  • The term Anschluss is used only once in the article, which doesn't connect it to the annexation of Austria. A reader would have to know this connection before reading this article to not be confused by this.
    • Rephrased
  • I also note that none of the Nazi big whigs are introduced/given their titles, but this is a specific article on the Shoah so I'd assume a reader would know who Himmler and Göring are, if not Eichmann and Heydrich. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aim Germanization was [...] This wording confuses me.
    • Removed
  • I have reservations about the use of the word "employment" to describe forced labor, salaried or otherwise.
    • This section uses "employment" to describe the voluntary employment that was barred to Jews during the Aryanization process.
  • By the summer, [...] Per MOS:SEASON, I advise greater specificity or "By the middle of the year, [...]".
    • Done
  • Segregated labor details for Jews only were introduced. When?
    • The first half of 1941

Up to #Restrictions on civil rights now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Failure to wear it was vigorously enforced [...] Re-word; the thing being enforced was the wearing of the star.
    • Rephrased
  • By September 1941, [...] In September 1941, [...] Another "[...] the mid-1930s" situation here.
    • Rephrased
Final Solution
  • [...] deport 60,000 Jews from the Reich and the Protectorate to Łódź Ghetto [...] Should be "the Łódź Ghetto"
  • Kulmhof extermination camp was opened in fall 1941 [...] MOS:SEASON again.
    • Fixed
  • [...] only around 250 people survived. Out of whom?
    • Clarified
  • Mischlinge Link and explain.
    • done
  • Those who had the greatest chance of surviving was the small group who had never been registered as Jews. Should be "were" instead of "was", or else "greatest chance of survival".
    • Done
Aftermath
  • Besides those who emigrated, about fourteen thousand Jews survived in other ways. [...] Although two thousand Jews counted as Germans [...] These are the only times vocabulary rather than numerals are used for a number this large in the article.
    • Partly done, in the "German" Jews section I have spelled out low thousands numbers it two places and it would be awkward (and perhaps imply too much exactitude) to write "2,000–3,000" compared to "two to three thousand"
  • People who denounced Jews or helped to purge them from associations were punished harshly, unlike Aryanizers. Could you expand on this? Collaborators were prosecuted and dealt with as their like deserve, but "Aryanizers" weren't? Who were these people anyway?
    • OK, so after WWII more than 100,000 people in Czechoslovakia were prosecuted for alleged collaboration or war crimes. But, most of this had nothing to do with the Holocaust. In fact, people could be prosecuted for such "crimes" as having a romantic relationship with a "German". Certain types of collaboration in the Holocaust were taken seriously, and others (so-called economic crimes, of being complicit in Aryanization) were swept under the rug. I'm not sure if there's another phrasing that might get the point across better? (t · c) buidhe 11:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • [...] which many academic theses relating to the Holocaust being published. Did you mean "with many" here?
    • Typo, fixed.

Reading finished. Depressing read. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit
  • "Jews were expelled from most of the royal cities in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries." - can it briefly be explained why? Was it just anti-semitism?
    • Clarified
  • "Prague (35,403 Jews, who made up 4.2% of the population)," - are we sure this is right? The 1930 Czech census is showing a population of about 950,000 for Prague (if I'm translating "hlavní město Praha" correctly), which would be more like 3.7% of the population
    • All the figures and percentages are from Gruner. No calculations involved. I don't really want to second guess it.
  • "However, the Reich Protector's office dismissed the proposal as too mild in its definition of "Jew", and therefore issued its own resolution on 21 June" - how did this resolution define it?
    • Clarified
  • "was another barrier to their emigration, which was banned by the Security Service in May 1939" - was the Security Service a German or a Czechoslovak organization?
    • It was a Nazi organization, now linked.
  • "Interior of the Olomouc Synagogue, burned on 16 March 1939" - the exact date in the caption needs a citation. The 16 March date isn't in either the article text or sourced on the file documentation page
    • Removed the exact date since I can't find a good source
  • "resettling Volksdeutsche in the Warthegau and West Prussia." - Meaning of Volksdeutsche is unclear; needs either glossed or linked
    • Fixed
  • I think it can be more directly stated that Jews married to non-Jews were originally not subject to deportation. This is obliquely mentioned several times, but never directly stated.
    • Done
  • "The Security Service reported that some non-Jewish Czechs tried to help Jews avoid deportation. In 1943, it reported that attitudes had changed and non-Jewish Czechs were grateful that the occupiers rid them of the Jewish population." - This sounds like propaganda. Is it really due weight?
    • The SD public opinion reports, although biased, are basically the only source on public opinion in Nazi Germany after 1939 and are widely used by scholars despite their known bias. I think if Lanicek considers it important enough to discuss at length it's not UNDUE here. As he states: "This report cannot be dismissed purely as German propaganda, especially when taking into account previous SD reports condemning Czechs for their sympathy towards persecuted Jews."
  • The 1948 Communist coup mentioned in the lead doesn't seem to be directly mentioned in the body?
    • Oops, now fixed.
  • Sources/images look good

Hog Farm Talk 04:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

The sources all seem to me to be appropriately reliable and I can see no formatting issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass

edit
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 Indy beetle (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Dundee

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

Toolbox

The last of the four articles from this war I have improved. I don't think that it has quite enough "meat" for FAC, but may be sufficient for ACR. See what you think. As bad as Cromwell's earlier "atrocities" in Ireland, but somehow it was taken as "just one of those things". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of that Buidhe. ("minimally reliable! The cheek.   ) Jones: I struggled a bit to understand how you came to that conclusion, but I think I see it. How I came to mine: In the third paragraph of Jones page 19 it says that Dundee was "still struggling to repair its damage" during 1700-1724. And that it only achieved "considerable" - ie incomplete - recovery during the subsequent 75 years. In this 75 years it "la[id] the basis for a renewed prosperity" - ie, didn't achieve it. So by my reckoning Jones is stating that recovery took at least 148 years. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Will review over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 14:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bit of a nitpick, but the Battle of Dunbar is never linked anywhere outside the lead
Not a nitpick, good point. Fixed.
  • "while leaving General George Monck with 6,000 of the least experienced men to mop up what Scottish resistance remained" - the lead gives 5,000. I'm assuming the lead isn't counting Okey's later detachment, but I feel like the lead really should say 6,000 if the body number is correct since that was the number of men left in Scotland for mop-up duty
Good spot. No, 6,000 is a typo.
  • If the storming attack was on the morning of September 1, and the bombardment started on August 30, wouldn't that only be two days of barrage (Aug. 30 and 31)?
I am not doing well here. I don't know why I counted in the 1st. Fixed.
  • Infobox says 200-500 Scots were captured, but the body gives only 200?
  • should the English losses in the infobox be mentioned in the body?
  • Sources/images look fine
I am usually poor at checking infoboxes I inherit, even though it is on my checklist. But this was naff even by my lax standards. Fixed. I believe.

Good work here - anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking through this one Hog Farm. All done I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We still have Three days after their artillery opened fire, the English stormed the west and east ports (gates) on the morning of 1 September, but I think that's the last concern of mine. Hog Farm Talk 15:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

This article is in great shape. I have only the following comments:

  • The first sentence should note what war this was part of
Whoops! Talk about missing the blindingly obvious. Fixed.
  • "Scotland was actively rearming " - the previous sentence says this, so I'd suggest tweaking this
Tweaked.
  • A map of the part of Scotland relevant to this battle would be very useful.
Had a go, see what you think.
Looks good, but should the caption note that the border shown is that for modern Scotland? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was the same in the 1650s so to say that might actually be misleading. I considered pointing out that the internal boundaries were modern, but decided that was getting nit picky. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick-D, I have had a go at all three. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Please see my question above though. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick, much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit
  • "reform the English church along similar lines" --> "reform the English Church along similar lines"?
Done.
  • "Oliver Cromwell was appointed commander-in-chief of the New Model Army" Isn't commander-in-chief a title?
It can be, depending on context. If you are wondering why the initial letters are lower case, see MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • "but he was not able to draw Leslie out" introduce Leslie here?
Why? (He is introduced at first mention in the previous paragraph.)
  • Can you point out where exactly in the Background section (since that's the previous paragraph)?
The last sentence of Background: "The Scottish Parliament set about rapidly recruiting an army to support the new king, under the command of the experienced general, David Leslie."
  • My bad.
  • "marched on the seat of the Scottish government" It's strange to see Scottish Parliament which has an upper case while government hasn't?
Well, not to me. There is one Scottish Parliament, but a new government every few years.
  • Well I mean sure there are multiple cabinets who run the government?
Is that a question for me? If so, I am struggling a bit to work out what you are asking. Could you exppand, or rephrase.?
  • No just a question I ask sometimes and I wanted to share that with you. :)
  • "On 30 August St Andrews also surrendered" No full stop for "St"?
Correct. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations#Punctuation and spacing.
  • "The defeated Scottish government was dissolved" --> "The defeated Scottish Government was dissolved"?
Nice spot. Done.
  • "Monck again summoned the governor to surrender" --> "Monck again summoned the Governor to surrender"?
Done.
  • "and the English parliament absorbed the kingdom of Scotland" --> " and the English Parliament absorbed the Kingdom of Scotland"
Done, although on reflection changed to Commonwealth
  • "commissioners of the English parliament and the deputies" --> "commissioners of the English Parliament and the deputies"?
Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: both answered. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Raymond

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

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

Toolbox

A smaller battle that had a large effect on the Vicksburg campaign. A single Confederate brigade underestimated Union strength and attacked what turned out to be an entire Union corps. The inexperienced Union commander performed very cautiously, and the battle drug on for hours despite the numerical mismatch. Eventually, the Union advantage in numbers and artillery began to tell, and the Confederates were driven off. The action at Raymond led Grant to decide to move east to drive the Confederates from Jackson before turning back west towards Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 06:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

edit
@Buidhe: - Which ones would you have concerns about at FAC? Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they all look pretty good. If I was seeing something I don't remember what it was. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect to have to defend Grabau 2001 at a FAC, and it is cited in the majority of the post-2001 scholarly literature on this topic, so I would say that it is fine. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review by Buidhe
  • "After unsuccessful attempts to capture the strategic Mississippi River city of Vicksburg, Major General Ulysses S. Grant of the Union Army led another attempt, beginning in late April 1863." "Grant began moving east, with the intention of later turning west and attacking Vicksburg" these are awkwardly worded, although I'm not sure how I would rephrase them.
    • I've taken a stab at rephrasing both of these
  • "As part of this movement, Major General James B. McPherson's 10,000 to 12,000-man XVII Corps moved towards Raymond." From the map I can see that McPherson's units were moving northeast, as part of Grant's larger movement, but I did not grasp that by reading (I thought this was a separate force)
    • I've tried to make it clearer the direction of the movement and that McPherson was part of Grant's command.
  • "Modern historians" Is this verifiable? Which ones should at least be specified in the body. Keep in mind WP:RS/AC
    • I've dropped the phrase from the body and name dropped three of the more prominent ones in the lead
  • "Prelude" I would find this easier to digest if subheadings were put in somewhere; possibly separating the first two paras from the last three
    • Split into subsections
  • "Attacking across the river would have risked heavy casualties, and pulling back to Memphis could be interpreted as a retreat, which would be politically disastrous, leaving Grant to choose the southward movement." A bit run-on
    • Split into two paragraphs
  • "Confederate blocking force" is blocking force a technical term, and if so is there somewhere it could be linked to?
    • It is not a technical term
  • Battle—This section would also benefit from subheadings
    • Split into three subsections

More later (t · c) buidhe 23:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "this report Gregg's belief that he was facing at most a brigade" missing word?
    • Added missing word
  • "which would make the Confederate position less tenable" I removed this as it does not seem to be adding information, any loss of military strength is likely to make a position "less tenable"
    • Makes sense

That's it. (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit
  • "The fighting opened on the morning of May 12 when" Date needs a comma here.
    • Added
  • "arrived and attacked the Confederate line.[44][34]" Switch refs here?
    • Done I think
  • "was exposed to fire from the 31st Illinois Infantry Regiment.[62][26]" Same as above.
    • Done
  • "individually with less direction from high-ranking officers.[37][23]" Same as above.
    • Done
  • "Michael B. Ballard and the writer Winston Groom;[20][83][27]" Same as above.
    • Done
  • "but only 936.42 acres (378.96 ha) were still listed in 2010" Maybe round the acres here?
    • Done

That's it from me. Nothing crazy really. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long time no see! Yeah it is indeed a bit quite here. I might take care of some in the near future especially for those which are inactive for months. I've asked Gog if he wants to have a look here in exchange for me reviewing his work. Also here everything is okay still feel depressed but I'll try to be more progressive. And support. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • "to capture the strategic Mississippi River city of Vicksburg". Suggest 'strategically important'. Likewise in Background.
    • Done
  • Infobox image caption: why all the upper case initial letters?
    • I don't know; that image has been in the article since 2006 and the caption has always been in title case. I've moved it into a more sensible capitalization and fixed some other weird things with the infobox image markup
  • "ending the Siege of Vicksburg. The site of the battle was". It is not clear which "battle" is being referred to.
    • Done
  • "Grant again began planning operations". Optional: "again began" reads oddly to me. Perhaps 'Grant planned further operations' and delete "ideas" from the next sentence?
    • Done
  • "This left Grant to choose". Do you mean "left" → 'led'?
    • Done
  • "and the advance frightened local residents." This seems a bit trivial.
    • Done
  • "Pemberton believed that ... any advance against Raymond would only be a feint ... Pemberton believed that any movements towards Jackson via Raymond were simply feints." Do we need the repetition?
    • I don't think so, I've removed the first one
  • "He had interpreted Union movements from earlier in the battle as indicating that he was facing a small force." Do we really need to be told this yet again?
    • Removed
  • "The brigade was then ordered by McPherson to support Dennis and Smith when the Confederate attack hit." Was the order given as a consequence of the attack, or was it a coincidence of timing?
    • A reaction. Clarified.
  • Not, so far as I am concerned, an ACR issue, but MOS:TENSE suggests that historians' written opinions are present in the present tense. Eg 'Bearss describes' and 'Miller also states' etc. (This would be an FAC issue.)
    • I (think) I got all these.

Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going away for a couple of days wild camping and this is the last support the nom needs. So I will support without giving it a full FAC-level second read through and will come back for that once it is nominated there. It looks entirely FACable to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gisco (died 239 BC)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Gisco (died 239 BC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A leftover from my work on the First Punic and Truceless Wars. Gisco had a background role in several events towards the end of the former and the early part of the latter, before coming to an unfortunate end. There is not, I feel, enough source material specific to Gisco to warrant an FAC, but enough, I hope to pass the ACR bar. See what you think. This is the first time I have attempted to take a bio past GA, so it probably needs close attention. Warning, Gisco's end is pretty grisly. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I'm surprised this one doesn't have any takers - will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Peacemaker67 ran through it at GAN and didn't find a lot to pick at. And thanks - it was feeling unloved. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was commander of the major base of Lilybaeum (modern Marsala) on Sicily when the Carthaginians conceded defeat in the war in 241 BC. The army commander retired to Carthage in a rage, leaving Gisco" - I think this can be made a bit smoother - it's not clear at first that Gisco's base was only a subunit of Carthaginian forces on the island
Rewritten. See what you think.
  • As Hannibal doesn't factor into this story at all, is note 1 necessary?
Removed.
It should. That's a newish article. Good find.
  • Does note 3 need attribution for the "probably" statement?
  • "Hamilcar's cavalry and elephants" - link to war elephants here
Oops. Done.
Changed. I never pay any attention whatsoever to categories.

Looks good here, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, appreciated. All of your comments now responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. I don't think the note 3 point is a major issue. Hog Farm Talk 18:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I skipped that because it is attributed. But forgot to note this against your comment. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

edit

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Made some tweaks and copyedits, as it was quicker than listing them here. Feel free to discuss/revert.
  • Overall it reads well and is the usual fine work, well referenced, clear, and comprehensive. My comments below are more nitpicks and fine-tunings, rather than anything of substance.
  • in the longest continuous conflict and greatest naval war of antiquity because these are extraordinary claims, I suggest adding a reference directly after.
Done.
  • When Hamilcar Barca took command of the Carthaginians on Sicily in 247 BC he was only given a small army and the Carthaginian fleet was gradually withdrawn. this is obviously because of the exhaustion of Carthage's resources, which is explained right after, but I would link it to that somehow. E.g. by adding, before After more than 20 years of war something like, The limited forces made available to Hamilcar are a sign of the exhaustion after 20 years of war" or similar. alternatively i would suggest inserting the info about Barca's limited forces right after ...both states were financially exhausted and suffering from a large drop in male citizens of fighting age. What do you think?
Fair point. I have moved the offending sentence to after the section on exhaustion. Does that make the inference clearer?
Looks good.
  • The map mentions 'Syracusan possessions', but Syracuse is nowhere mentioned. I would suggest at least linking to the city, and possibly adding a brief mention somewhere in the article about their role.
Bleh. Syracuse originally fought alongside Carthage, then defected. It was essentially a logistics base for the 20 years before Gisco arrived on Sicily. If pushed hard I would rather remove the map than try to work in this pretty much irrelevant information.
Makes sense. Linking 'Syracusan' would suffice.
Ah. Done.
  • Publication location for Eckstein
It should have been listed as an encyclopedia, which doesn't need one. Which is just as well, as there is no information I can find for the publisher location relevant to this work. See [10].
Worldcat gives location as Chichester.
So it does. Not sure how I missed that - it has cropped up in FACs, so I have looked hard! Added.
  • Can we add the url for the 'Translation available online from the University of Chicago.'?
Sorry. I thought I had. Done.

That's it. A nice and well-written article. Will support after the points above are addressed.Constantine ✍ 15:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Constantine. Your points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few minor issues remaining, so I support at this time. Constantine ✍ 18:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS Constantine, if you fancy signing off on the sourcing it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly sign off on the sources being RS of high quality, especially as I myself own or have read a couple of them. Will have to wait a couple of days for a source spotcheck. Constantine ✍ 19:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By all means carry out a spot check, but this is not a requirement at ACR and I am not intending to take the article to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

edit
Lede
edit
  • as are his activities prior to his coming to prominence towards the end of the First Punic War. suggest changing coming to rise, coming seems to make the sentenced slightly awkward to me here.
Done.
Life
edit
  • Prior to his coming to prominence towards the end of the First Punic War same comment here.
Done.
Hi Iazyges and welcome back. Thanks for looking through this. Both points addressed.
Good to be back! Great little article, support for A-class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Thirty Years' War

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Robinvp11 (talk)

Thirty Years' War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review; it was rejected for GA status in 2008 due to lack of adequate Sources. This issue has now been addressed, while the article itself has been rewritten from the ground up. I believe it now meets the criteria. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

Comment by CPA

edit

Since this article is about Protestant vs Catholic countries in the 17th century we don't know which calendar is used in this article. I assume New Style but Old Style should also be included in the dates. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • See above; I have not disputed the fact certain states adopted NS later than others. However, it is historical convention to use NS unless absolutely necessary to avoid confusion eg when comparing dates (see the article I have edited on the Glorious Revolution). If you read any of the Sources provided, they all follow this without exception, as do the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Catlemur

edit
  • I wrote a separate article on how and why Wallenstein was assassinated, which can be found here: Eger Bloodbath. I suppose you can wikilink it. From my understanding the town was called Eger at the time of the war.
  •  Y Added the link; where there are conflicting names, I've used that provided by the relevant Wikipedia article which in this case is Cheb, not Eger.
  • As the article already mentions the Peace of Westphalia did not completely settle the conflict. There were still disagreements on whether the normative year imposed by the treaty took precedence over other treaties in regard to church properties. This nearly reignited the conflict in what came to be known as the Düsseldorf Cow War.
  •  N I think this point is sufficiently made already.
  • A translation needs to be provided for the titles of the sources that are not in English.
  •  Y Done
  • There is no section dedicated to how the war was actually fought. Not a single mention of the Tercio or Hakkapeliitta and very little mention what tactics were employed, what the soldiers were equipped with or what made commanders like Wallenstein stand out in the field.
  •  N This is about the Causes, Course and Outcome of the war, not 17th century tactics and structure - a huge topic in itself and worthy of its own article. If people want to learn more about Wallenstein, there's a link to his article. There are several references to the impact of recruitment and forcing soldiers to live off the land, which are more relevant here than cavalry tactics.
  • Can you mention Kipper und Wipper in the Human and financial cost of the war section?
  •  Y Done
  •  Y I've reduced the amount of space devoted to the witchcraft trials and expanded this to include cultural impact - see what you think.
  • "Markó 2000, p. ?." - What does the question mark mean here?
  •  Y Reference supplied by a previous editor, I couldn't find the page number and have now removed it.
  •  N I think all those that need a reference have one - the only exceptions are my clarification on who's included in Belligerents and the official name of Hamburg which I don't think is contentious. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Catlemur: I've added a paragraph on Military Developments; can you take a look. It would be helpful if you can either Support or Oppose the request for an A class so we can close off this long-running assessment. Thanks! Robinvp11 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support.--Catlemur (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref errors

  • Found using Ucucha/HarvErrors script & Citation Style 1 error messages; see also User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.
  • Duffy 1995, p. 125. Harv error: link from CITEREFDuffy1995 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Parker 1997, p. 120. Harv error: link from CITEREFParker1997 doesn't point to any citation.
  • There are a total of 18 sources in the Sources section which are not cited in the text. These should be moved to a Further Reading section. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lingzhi.Random: Curiously, I fixed them only to discover you'd already done so. I didn't ask you to do that and if it annoys you, please feel free not to bother in future. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems I mistakenly assumed you had no idea how to fix them. Ucucha's script is invaluable in this regard. But it still requires a bit of attention. There was, for example, one source in the "Further reading" (which was then labeled "Bibliography") which was actually cited in the article text. It would have been easy to miss-- it was the only one without a Harv error warning in the middle of many that had them... This is a long article with many good sources. Good work taking it on. It takes courage to dive into the thick of something long and rather involved. That is admirable. Sorry if I was too quick to chide. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Palastwache

edit
  • The demographic losses stated in the lead ("up to 60% of the population [...] in some areas", refering to Würtemberg) and in the "Human and financial cost of the war" section are not referenced by Outram 2002 who only mentions that "in Baden-Würtemberg only 57% of buildings survived the war" (p. 251). Outram cites the overall losses estimated by Günter Franz (1940) on page 248 but gives no numbers to extreme examples like Würtemberg.--Palastwache (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: The Peace of Westphalia section lacks the mention of two key parts of the religious settlement of the war: The limitation of the "ius reformandi" for all Imperial estates except the Emperor and the "Normaljahr" 1624. With the limitation of the "ius reformandi", a ruler could still convert to Catholicism, Lutheranism, or now also Calvinism, but he could not (force-)convert his subjects anymore.--Palastwache (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complementary, the "Normaljahr" settlement determined the religion of an estate to the dominant religion in 1624 (a compromise between Catholics and Lutherans) and legalised all religious minorities present in 1624. Exception were the Oberpfalz and the Habsburg territories, where recatholization was acknowledged despite not completed in 1624.
  • Round 3, last remark before I give a support: The German theatre between 1639 and 1641 is entirely missing - currently, the transition is "Despite the death of Bernhard, over the next two years the Franco-Swedish alliance won a series of battles ..." which is not referenced (Clodfelter (2008) only refers to Second Breitenfeld) and factually wrong, Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar died 1639 but the next Franco-Swedish victory was Wolfenbüttel 1641. In 1640, the Swedes under Johan Banér were pushed back to the Weser, in 1641 he unsuccessfully attacked the Regensburg Reichstag. His death on the retreat caused a mutiny that was (according to the Austrian historian Lothar Höbelt) the last serious chance for the Imperials to defeat or rather buy-out the Swedes (then Torstensson appeared and saved the day). Especially Regensburg (the Emperor stayed there and risked captivity) and the mutiny could be noteworthy.
  • To the truce between the Dutch Republic and Spain in 1647: The given cause is "At this point, Olivares publicised secret discussions initiated by Mazarin in early 1646" - Olivares had already been overturned in 1643 and died in 1645. The sentence could be changed to "... the Spanish government publicised ..."--Palastwache (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Will take a look at this; I'm not very familiar with this time period. Hog Farm Talk 03:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the better :)
  • From a quick look, not all of the commanders and leaders are mentioned elsewhere in the article. I only looked at the list of Swedes, and Oxenstierna is only in the infobox
  •  Y Removed unused - Oxenstierna now mentioned
  • You use both Lennart Torstensson and Torstenson. Recommend picking the better variant and sticking with it
  •  Y Done
  • Structural origins mentions the Habsburgs without really explaining who they are
  •  Y I've expanded this, see what you think.
  • File:Spanish road (in red).png - What do the various colors on this map mean?
  •  Y Done
  • Link Philip Fabricius to Filip Fabricius
  •  Y Done
  • "Thurn established a new government, and the conflict expanded into Silesia" - This is a bit unclear as to when the military conflict itself actually started - was it with the Second Defenestration of Prague, or afterwards?
  •  Y Clarified wording
  • "this was helped when the Ottomans went to war with Poland in 1620, then Persia in 1623" - MOS:EGG issues. It really looks like the links to Poland and Persia are going to the nations, not the conflicts. Maybe include "with" in the piped links?
  •  Y Should be clearer now
  • I'm also concerned that the deaths denoted in the infobox aren't all mentioned in the prose - for instance, Spinola is marked as KIA, but this isn't mentioned
  •  Y Technically, Spinola died of fever in Italy, so easily resolved :)
  • "In the October 1619 Treaty of Munich" - link Treaty of Munich (1619)
  •  Y Done
  • A map specifically indicating where the Palatinate was located would be useful, as it seems to have been in a strategic location
  •  N If you look at a map of the Palatinate, you'll see the problem; it consisted of a bunch of widely scattered, non-contiguous territories and I think it would be more confusing than helpful
  • "John George of Saxony and the Calvinist George William of Brandenburg feared Ferdinand intended to reclaim former Catholic bishoprics currently held by Lutherans (see Map)" - So is that map showing only those bishoprics and all the relevant bishoprics? The caption is pretty vague
  •  Y I've removed "See Map" and clarified map caption
  • "Richelieu's policy was to 'arrest the course of Spanish progress', and 'protect her neighbours from Spanish oppression'" - Are these Richelieu's words, or that of a secondary source? I'd recommend in-text attribution as to who this is quoting
  •  Y Clarified
  • "under von Gronsfeld at Oldendorf in July" - Who is von Gronsfeld?
  •  Y Easier to remove him (not a major player) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Y Actually, now added him into the Infobox as he appears elsewhere as Bronckhorst-Gronsfeld. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Phase II Section, hope to get back to this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Iberian Union is mentioned in an image caption; it should probably be introduced in the text as well
  •  Y Done
  • The involvement chart needs an explicit source in the text, as not all of it is directly referred to in the article - such as Transylvania'a involvement in the 1640s, for instance
  •  N I didn't produce this so I don't know where it came from but I'm reluctant to remove something which clearly took someone a lot of work. I don't think it matters whether every piece of involvement is mentioned in the text, its simply a broad overview.
  • The breakdowns of casualties and strengths in the infobox don't all seem to be cited
  •  Y Done Robinvp11 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pappenheim is either only mentioned in the infobox or appears in the body under another name
  •  Y Now done (killed at Lutzen)
  • Croatian cavalry is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body
  •  Y Moved into FN (as explained, most commentators think these are included in Imperial forces) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first pass, will make another one once these are resolved. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

edit

As, after eight months, no consensus to promote seems to be forming, I am archiving this nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened per this discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the A-Class criteria and has recently gone through a GAN. Not that well-known, Charles Richardson had a long career in the Royal Navy in which he managed to take part in four minor naval actions, three major fleet actions, and even went beyond the realm of most naval officers to participate in no less than six land battles and campaigns. Having served throughout the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, Richardson continued to be employed afterwards and created the pièce de résistance of his career in 1821 when his ship caused a major diplomatic incident with the Chinese that did no favours for his mental wellbeing and caused him to retire from the service soon afterwards. He was later knighted for his services and went on to become a vice-admiral. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

I will do a little copy editing as I go, shout if you feel I have messed anything up.

  • Done
  • Some dates, at least the years, in the lead of the various battles he fought in would be helpful.
  • Done
  • "Richardson then made a valuable contribution in the Battle of Suriname in the following year". Delete "then" - "in the following year" makes it redundant.
  • Done
  • "that was complimented by Spencer Perceval." Who would be?
  • The prime minister! Added.
  • No idea. Swapped.
  • "On 29 August 1789 Vestal and Richardson were again sent far abroad". Is it known where they departed from? Were they still in the Bangka Strait?
  • Per Winfield Vestal had a refit at Portsmouth in May, and Medows' ODNB says he was sent "back" to India. Should I add anything?
An intervening short sentence stating that ship and man returned to England would be helpful.
  • Done
  • "Governor of Bombay". Why the upper case G?
  • My brain likes capitalising things sometimes. Changed.
  • "Having stayed on the East Indies Station after this". Do you mean 'Having stayed on on the East Indies Station after this'?
  • I don't think so?!
In which case I can't work out what what you have written means. If there is no typo then, erm, I'm really at a loss.
  • Having re-read your initial comment I now recognise what you mean. My excuse is that it's late for me!
  • "By this time in mainland India the Third Anglo-Mysore War had begun, and Richardson was after the battle given command of Phoenix's boats to coordinate with the army of Major-General Sir Robert Abercromby in operations on a number of rivers against Tipu Sultan." This seems a rather busy sentence. Consider breaking. And possibly rephrasing slightly.
  • Made an attempt at combatting this.
  • "28-gun frigate". Maybe a footnote to explain what "28-gun" means? (Eg 'This designation indicates number of guns the ship was rated to carry'?)
  • Done
  • "passed his examination for promotion to lieutenant. The captain of Alexander, Captain Thomas West, had expected to give the position filled by Richardson to his nephew". This doesn't really flow. Passing the exam and being promoted were separate issues. If he was promoted after passing the exam, this should be mentioned separately. If not, then perhaps mention the circumstances of Richardson filling a berth in lieu of West's nephew in chronological order?
  • My fault. The position filled by Richardson was that of master's mate; his passing of the examination is a completely unrelated issue, and he was not promoted to lieutenant until later on. Have reworded.
  • "successfully demanded his discharge from Alexander". Is it known who he demanded it of?
  • He had what some might call an argument with West and demanded it then. Have added West's name here.
  • "Hood took Richardson on as a master's mate". That is a major piece of patronage! Is anything further known of how Richardson came to be held so high in Hood's opinion?
  • A mixture of sympathy for his situation on Alexander and a good word put in for him by Strachan, who had command of a frigate in the Channel at the time. Have elaborated.
  • "on 11 October of that year". Suggest deleting "of that year".
  • Done
  • "repeating frigate". A footnote explanation perhaps?
  • The explanation is provided afterwards, I'm not sure there is anything else that could be added to the description of the role.
The explanation, "tasked with ensuring all ships received signals sent out by Duncan", requires a reader to pick out the significance of "signal". If the fail to do this they are likely to have an image of Circe physically carrying written messages. Even if they pick up on "signal", will they associate this with 'flags', and then understand how these might be obscured by other ships, gun-smoke, the wind blowing them straight out towards or away from their intended recipient etc? It would also be helpful to give a reader some idea of what type of orders were being sent and to what type of ships. Or even why anyone might care about this.
Thank you for explaining. I've added an explanatory note that covers most of those points.
  • "with which he served as artillery". I know what you mean, but maybe tweak the phraseology?
  • Reworded
  • "In June 1800 Kent sailed to serve in the Mediterranean Sea, and after an attempt to reinforce Cadiz was abandoned due to disease in the port in December, she subsequently supported Abercromby again, this time in going to Egypt to begin the British response to the French campaign in Egypt and Syria in 1801." This sentence seems a little complicated.
  • Split up
  • "was by this point first lieutenant of Kent". I thought that a "flag lieutenant" was the "first lieutenant". No?
  • The flag lieutenant was part of the admiral's retinue on a flag ship. In a nutshell they were the admiral's aide, and were also in charge of his signals during battle. The first lieutenant was the senior lieutenant in a ship's company, and in most circumstances was the captain's second in command.
Apologies. I think I was confusing it with flag captain.
  • "and as such he fought at the Battle of Abukir". Er, as what?
  • Reworded - the Battle of Abukir was the aforementioned landing.
  • "confirmed in his rank as a commander". I suspect that the nuances of "acting" and confirmed in" will be lost on many readers.
  • Reworded
  • "He subsequently fought at the Battle of Suriname on 5 May 1804, where the Dutch colony of Surinam was captured; Alligator assisted in bringing the 64th Regiment of Foot ashore; Richardson then went ashore himself and with a mixed force of sailors and soldiers attacked two Dutch forts from inland, subsequently using them to fire down upon New Amsterdam." Another busy sentence.
  • Split up and reworded
  • "In reward for this", Read "straight" this means in reward for being praised in despatches, I am assuming that was not the case.
  • Reworded
  • "Caesar became flagship to the now-Rear-Admiral Strachan, and Richardson his flag captain." Is it known if Caesar also had a first captain?
  • She did not.
  • "Strachan's squadron was tasked with hunting a French squadron under Admiral Jean-Baptiste Philibert Willaumez that had escaped from Brest, and after failing to catch that squadron in a chase that took them to Brazil and the Leeward Islands, Richardson served in Caesar in the blockading force off Rochefort until the squadron was sent to chase another French squadron in February 1808, this time of Rear-Admiral Zacharie Allemand, in the Mediterranean Sea." A big sentence.
  • Split up
  • "after failing to catch that squadron ... until the squadron was sent". Different squadrons I assume, but this is not clear.
  • Reworded in the previous split
  • "destroyed by the squadron against the shoreline". I am unsure how many readers will follow this.
  • Reworded
  • "Under him Richardson fought at the Battle of Les Sables-d'Olonne on 23 February 1809, where three French frigates were destroyed by the squadron against the shoreline, and at the Battle of the Basque Roads on 11 April of the same year, where the fleet's fireships assisted in destroying four ships of the line of the same fleet of the frigates." Separate sentences for each battle may work better. And is it possible to do something about "four ships of the line of the same fleet of the frigates"? ('from the same fleet as the ...'?)
  • Split up and reworded
  • "completed construction of his battery". Can one construct a battery? Perhaps one could construct earthworks or emplacements for a battery to shelter or deploy in or fire from?
  • Reworded
  • "While serving in the Channel ... off the Gironde". But the Gironde is nowhere near the Channel.
  • Reworded
  • "with his health in a "very dangerous state". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • Not sure if I've done it in the correct fashion, but have included source

That's all I have for a first skim. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review and copy edit! I believe I have responded to all your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second look
edit
  • "usually made up of long guns." So explicitly ruling carronades?
  • Unless the whole armament was made up of carronades, e.g. with HMS Rainbow, carronades were not included in the count of guns at this stage. See for example HMS Triton; a 32-gun frigate that had eight carronades on top of that.
  • "had expected to give the position filled by Richardson to his nephew, and ordered his officers to find a reason to remove Richardson from the ship to ensure this." This is still unclear to me. If the captain had expected to give the post of master's mate to his nephew, why didn't he just do it? And once Richardson was in post, surely it is too late to talk of "ensuring" the original plan works out? It already hasn't. (If you're following me.)
  • Have reworded slightly, it was a mistake to word it as if the plan had been in place before/as Richardson assumed his post. Assume West required a good reason to either demote or remove Richardson from the crew; paperwork is king in the navy. The quote is "he made no scruple of telling the officers that he meant to get rid of him, by some device, in order to made room for a nephew".
  • "having ninety-two casualties." Is the total crew known?
  • 866, added.
  • "but in December their plan". Who are the "they" referred to in "their"?
  • Reworded to more general "a plan", just a mistake by me
  • "the 14-gun gun brig Teazer". Why is the link not to brig?
  • Winfield, Marshall, and O'Byrne all refer to her specifically as a gun-brig.
  • "with the wars over". Wars plural?
  • Reworded to avoid saying "war(s)" too many times, removing the issue

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Supporting. Let me know when it is nominated at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

edit

HF - spt

edit

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm just now getting to this; work got crazy for awhile.

  • " and fought on land at the Battle of Callantsoog and the Vlieter Incident" - this in the lead implies he fought on land at the Vlieter Incident, but the body doesn't seem to make such a claim
  • Removed "on land"
  • "Soon after this Vestal was sent to China to convey Charles Allan Cathcart" - recommend glossing who Cathcart was. I would have assumed a politician based on the diplomatic role until I got to the aide-de-camp part
  • Added. He was going to China in a political role, but was also a colonel in the army.
  • " a small cottage and thirty-six acres of land and visited his relative" - provide a conversion into ha?
  • Added.
  • "and was the last to be completed." in Note 6 - is this truly relevant?
  • No, trimmed note.
  • "and a vice-admiral on 17 December 1847" - recommend specifying in the text the he attained vice-admiral of the white
  • Done.

Sourcing looks generally okay; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've responded to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, support by Vami

edit

I am satisfied that the sources used on the article are authoritative and reliable. ––♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

Mostly a few minor prose issues:

  • Suggest tweaking the 2nd sentence of the lead to "Richardson's naval career began when he joined..."
  • Done.
  • In the early career section: Cathcart was heavily ill before he began the mission and his health declined more on... suggest: "Cathcart was already ill when he began the mission and his health declined further while on..."
  • Done.
  • In the early career section: British vessels in resistance to their attempts... suggest "British vessels during their attempts..."
  • Done.
  • In the early career section: They served in a number of rivers to assist Major-General... I'm not crazy with this wording. The solution will depend on what is in the sources, but assuming their work was in a transport role, I suggest something like "They were used to transport troops up a number of rivers in support of Major-General..."
  • Made an attempt at rewording. No sources I have provide details on what the role actually was. Marshall says "employed for several months in boats sent up the different rivers to co-operate with the Malabar army under Sir Robert Abercrombie" and O'Byrne says "for several months employed in the boats in co-operating, up different rivers, with the army under Sir Robt. Abercrombie".
  • In the early career section: Richardson heard of the plan to either demote or remove him... previously only removing him has been mentioned.
  • Removed.
  • In May 1797, Richardson now being the first lieutenant of Circe, his ship was caught in the Nore Mutiny. something not quite right here; should that be "In May 1797, Richardson, now the first lieutenant of Circe, and his ship was caught in the Nore Mutiny?
  • Reworded.
  • Richardson was sent ashore with a division of seamen is division the best term to use here, I'm wondering if the casual reader may be think of Division (military). Perhaps contingent may be better?
  • Done.
  • Richardson as one of his aides de camp. link aide de camp.
  • Linked in sentence beginning "Cathcart was already ill..."

Wow, for a naval officer, a lot of his actions were fought on land. Anyhoo, that's my review done. Zawed (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for your comments! I've responded to them above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks all good, I have added my support. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2022 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Brazilian military junta of 1930

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): FredModulars (talk)

Brazilian military junta of 1930 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-class review because I believe it satisfies the A-class criteria. It is about the military junta which ruled Brazil between the deposition of President Washington Luís and the ascension of Getúlio Vargas to the presidency at the end of the Revolution of 1930. While the junta is essentially just a footnote in history, it shouldn't be forgotten as the pacifying body which ended further bloodshed and put the nail in the coffin for Luís. It received its GA review in September and a copyedit this month. FredModulars (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • No issues now but please do not upload images with contradictory licensing like you did here. If the source claims CC licensing it's safer to rely on that rather than assume it's public domain, which would depend on the publication date. (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Thanks. When I first uploaded the images, I had to rely on the date and assume it was public domain, which is why this specific one went unused because I couldn't prove it was PD in the US or even Brazil. When I realized today that the Legislative Assembly of Sao Paulo uploads all their images under CC licensing, I changed a few images to the CC licensing but forgot to remove the PD licensing I originally put. Sorry about that. FredModulars (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

edit
Part I
edit

Nice work on the article. Following are few suggestions:

  • First Brazilian Republic is linked twice in the lead.
    I can't seem to find the second link. Removed the first link. I think the second link is more appropriate (also since "Brazil" wasn't exactly the First Brazilian Republic when they governed it).
  • "when President Washington Luís" — try to avoid linking two adjacent words together. More importantly, do we need a link to 'President' here, when 'presidency' in the immediately previous line was un-linked?
    Removed the link to President.
  • Getúlio Vargas is linked twice in the lead.
    Removed the second link.
  • "the Alliance" — I'm not sure why this is capitalised.
    Changed to "the alliance"
  • "and José Isaías de Noronha decided" — our article calls him just 'Isaías de Noronha'. Why is full name used here?
    I've checked most of the sources and they use the abbreviated Isaías de Noronha, so I've changed it to that.
  • "but acquiesced to" — a complicated word there for casual readers ... Suggesting to replace with an simpler one. Feel free to ignore this suggestion, though.
    I'm not sure if another word would convey the same meaning, though I have tried to reword the sentence to accommodate this: "...but negotiated with revolutionaries to transfer power to Vargas on 3 November 1930 after his arrival in the capital."
  • "after they arrived in the capital." — why not just write "after they arrived in Rio de Janeiro."
    Changed to Rio de Janeiro.
  • "nominated another man from the same state, Júlio Prestes, as his successor" → "nominated Júlio Prestes, another man from the same state, as his successor"
    Changed.
  • "Their plans would include agricultural schools" — why 'would include' rather than 'including'
    Not sure how that would fit unless the sentence was reworded. "Their plans including agricultural schools."
    Ah, sorry. I meant "Their plans included agriculture ..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to included.
  • "many of their promises would be realized after Vargas took power in 1930" — I don't understand this. How can promises be realized after someone taking office.
    Their plans would be executed after Vargas took power, though we might be thinking of different definitions of realized.
  • "and in the National Congress Rio Grande do Sul" — comma after 'National Congress'
    Done.
  • 'Rio Grande do Sul' is over-linked in the 'Background' section.
    I see two, I have removed the second link. If there are more, please tell me and I'll remove them.
  • " the Democratic Party (PD)," — why is abbreviation defined when it is never used again in the article?
    Not sure, and it confuses the reader since it's a Portuguese abbreviation. Removed.
  • "the popular Cardinal Sebastião Leme" — WP:SOB
    Removed the link to Cardinal.
  • ""What! Then Your Eminence doubts" — is the capitalization done in the source as well?
    Yes.
  • Will continue with 'The junta' section.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part II
edit

Continuing:

  • We have both 'first' and '1st' used in the prose.
    The only time I see "1st" is in the 1st Military Region. That is an actual military organization, and 1st should be used here.
    Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and, just from their faces, it became clear the president's position was untenable." — this either needs to be removed, or needs attribution as to who believes it. It reads a bit like a news article to me.
    Removed "just from their faces."
  • "The president" — can we replace it by "Luís"
    Done.
  • ""Only in pieces I leave here," Luís said to his ministers." — I don't know if there any MOS guideline, but we shouldn't be starting a sentence by a quote ...
    Changed.
  • "in a firm and dry tone" — is it important to mention this poetic detail? Upto you ...
    Not really. Removed.
  • "to violence.[22][16][24]" — Ref#16 should be before Ref#22
  • "in the capital.[31][18]" — same as above
  • "a new government.[34][18][26][32]" — same as above
  • "the same day.[24][36][34][31]" — same as above
    Rearranged (all above).
  • In the 'Government' section, I feel that the table takes a lot of place, making it difficult to read the adjacent text. Can we center align it at the end of this section?
    Done, thanks for this suggestion. It looks a lot better now.
  • "Tasso Fragoso, head of the junta" — his being head is mentioned before
    I'm not sure if you're referring to Tasso Fragoso's role in heading the military coup, how he was the main person conversing with Luis, or mention of him being head in the coup. Either way, it hasn't yet been established (in the body) that he was head of the junta.
  • "Bahia's capital" — pipe " 's " out of the link
    Done.
  • "Skidmore, Thomas E. (2010). Brazil: Five Centuries of Change (2º ed.). United States: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537455-1." — There is no link pointing to this citation.
    Some of the text was incorporated from 1930 Brazilian coup d'état when it was merged into Brazilian Revolution of 1930 and this article. Some sources were carried over, but this was never used. Removed.
  • "New York, New York" — the former should be "New York City", also, why isn't it linked?
    Changed to New York City. See the last ref (#44), it is used once in "Aftermath and legacy."
    I meant, shouldn't we link New York City? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked.
  • Some information about how this junta affected the Brazilian military junta of 1969 would be nice.
    These two bodies are entirely independent. Both were military triumvirates, one navy and two army representatives, forcefully removing one president, and stopping another from assuming office. The correlation, however, doesn't equal causation. If you'd think it would help, I could add something along the lines of, "In 1969, another military junta assumed power under similar circumstances of the 1930 junta." I'm not sure it would be necessary, though.
    I'd expect at-least a mention that another junta happened 39 years later. Upto you though, how you put it. Also, this suggestion is entirely optional. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I'd like to do it, it would be neglecting the "junta" that acted during the Campanha da Legalidade and the other short-lived one right after the 1964 coup, both not official "presidents" but still juntas. The 1930 junta and the ones of the 1960s are disconnected, and one has nothing to do with the other. Sorry, but I think it would better be left out.
    Fine, no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks. Your concerns have been addressed. FredModulars (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this article for promotion. Great work! Expecting to see this at FAC! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. FredModulars (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

edit
  • Is it known why Luis broke with the tradition of the rotating presidency with Minas Gerais?
    Yes. Added
  • It might be beneficial to mention what Prestes was advocating for after the Liberal Alliance's platform is explained.
    Added.
  • Pessoa's death was the spark that led the opposition to take up arms. Remove "was the spark that".
    Changed to "Pessoa's death was the catalyst that led the opposition to take up arms."
  • and renewed part of the military commands. What does this mean?
    Tried to clarify it: "and replaced some military commanders."
  • Is it known how Luis' removal and the installation of the Junta was received outside of Rio de Janeiro and the provinces controlled by the revolutionaries? Similarly, did the international community have time to react and did it have a response to the events?
    The reaction by revolutionaries is detailed in "Government," which is the only reaction I could find. I remember reading some limited correspondence between US diplomats in the "Office of the Historian" for the US Department of State. I will see if there is anything worth mentioning, for much of it was tied to Vargas, revolutionaries, and the government.
    I was able to find a statement made by the foreign minister that was sent by the US Ambassador to Brazil to the Secretary of State, but nothing else. There is information regarding the United States's, Great Britain's, and other South American countries' recognition of the provisional government of President Vargas, but nothing relating to the junta.
    Ok, good to see what the junta's position was officially regarding foreign relations. I'm surprised that there isn't more to be found about Brazilian reaction to the coup aside from Rio de Janeiro and the revolutionaries. Though, I suppose this all happened very quickly. Supporting promotion, though I suggest you expand reactions if you find the material with which to do so. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comments and support. I'll try to take a deeper look into this, though I am unsure if I will be able to find much reaction from the other Brazilian states since they do not receive much attention in history, especially during the Vargas Era. FredModulars (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if you can add publishing locations for all book sources, if possible.
    Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Will review this one soon; ping me if I forget to get around to it. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This oligarchy, between Minas Gerais and São Paulo," - it wouldn't hurt to clarify that these are the two states - when it talks about Minas Gerais doing something in the sentence, it was easy to assume that it was a person not a location
    Clarified: "This oligarchy, between politicians from the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo..."
  • Do RS state if Pessoa was assassinated on government orders?
    He was not. Clarified the motive for the assassination.
  • Dry powder doesn't seem to be a familiar term. Is this a way to refer to blank rounds?
    Yes, I believe so; changed to blank rounds.
  • Why was de Moura unpopular?
    Added why: "...who was appointed by the junta, was unpopular because Moura had commanded federal forces fighting rebels in the Paraná–São Paulo area."
  • I believe the non-English sources should indicate in parameters the languages that they are in.
    Done. FredModulars (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't give much more than a prose review here, as I don't speak or read Portuguese and am not familiar with Brazilian history, but nothing really stood out to me as problematic. Hog Farm Talk 06:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Hawkeye7 - pass

edit
  • Removed some warnings, standardised ISBN format
  • Sources are high quality
  • Not familiar with Brazil or Portuguese either (although I've been there)
  • fn 29, 30: 30 has "moderating power" but 29 says "pacifying junta" not "pacification junta".
    That's my bad. I probably confused it with a source (Dulles) which refers to the junta as the Junta Pacificadora. Changed to "pacifying."
  • fn 35, 45: okay
  • fn 47: Cannot find this on p. 53; please re-check
    I believe it is there: "Although Vargas was increasing his support among senior professional officers - Tasso Fragoso became Chief of Staff..." on page 53, Bourne. FredModulars (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fine - passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking on the source review, Hawkeye. FredModulars (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Glasgow, Missouri

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Glasgow, Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The companion article to Capture of Sedalia, for those who remember when I took that one through. Price sends a force across the Missouri River to capture some guns supposedly held in Glasgow, at the same time as another group of Confederates is sent to go get horses and cattle out of Sedalia. The defenders of Glasgow - a mixture of Union infantry, local militia, and armed civilians - hold out for awhile, and destroy some of their supplies to keep them out of Confederate hands, but eventually surrender after being largely surrounded. The weapons cache turns out to be much smaller than expected, and the Confederates parole their prisoners before leaving. Unlike Sedalia, the regular Confederate troops mostly behave themselves in this one, although guerrillas commanded by William C. Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson show up later to rob the civilians. Hog Farm Talk 07:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

edit

I've done copyediting of the article, let me know if you have any concerns.

  • There's a lot of stuff in the Context and Prelude sections that seem more relevant to Price's raid than this battle specifically. I think some of it could be trimmed. The last paragraph of the article also contains info that does not seem directly connected to the topic, and could probably be shortened.
    • I've trimmed over 500 bytes from the intro and have roughly halved the last paragraph of the aftermath.
  • "asmany of the Union troops previously defending Missouri had been transferred out of the state, leaving the Missouri State Militia to be the state's primary defensive force" I removed this as it was causing a run-on sentence and wasn't necessary to explain why the offensive could draw Union troops away from the eastern theatre. If it's important, it could be mentioned in a separate sentence.
    • Fine with me. It's probably significant for the overall article on the raid (explaining why Price met a lot of ineffective barely trained troops at stretches), but less so here
  • The correct spelling is guerrilla, not guerilla
  • Is it known how many men were recruited in Little Dixie?
    • I've added a couple estimates
  • Sedalia: I removed "quickly", this is already implied by saying that the capture only took 1 day
    • Works for me
  • "south of tow" What does this mean?
    • Spelling error for "town"
  • "prominent pro-Confederate civilian" If the guy is notable, shouldn't he be redlinked? Otherwise is it WP:DUE to mention?
    • I've redlinked. He's the subject of this 1870 biography, as well as some coverage here, some coverage in a journal article here, and the footnotes in the journal article suggest additional (probably offline) coverage.
  • "which was shallow enough to be crossed, " removed as it should be implied by the fact that they crossed it
    • Makes sense
  • "edited by preservationist Frances E. Kennedy" this does not seem worth mentioning unless the editor is notable
    • I see this was removed in your copy-edit; I do not object to the removal. The book is possibly notable, but Kennedy is not

That's it! (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: - Thanks for the review! I've tried to address these all as best possible. Hog Farm Talk 05:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—pass, sourcing looks adequate although I'm not sure I would accept https://civilwaronthewesternborder.org/ at a FAC review. While the project is credible, the lack of a byline and cited sources makes me question if it is a high-quality rs. One wonders how the author found this information, is it simply that there is no known report of looting or is there proof that none occurred? (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the statement. Sinisi implies that everyone behaved themselves, but doesn't say outright that there was no looting. Lause mentions the later looting by Quantrill but doesn't say anything about if the Confederate regulars took part or not. I'll have to try to get ahold of Kirkman and Monnett again and check those sources. Hog Farm Talk 06:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great job with this. A few comments:

Lead and infobox
  • comma after Missouri in the first sentence
    • Done
  • "the Confederate leadership"
    • Done
  • link brigade
    • Done
  • suggest consistency with "Price's Raid" or "Price's Missouri Expedition" in the infobox and campaignbox
    • Went with Missouri Expedition throughout the article, as the consensus of recent RS is that it was more than a raid
Body
  • you need to explain that Thomas Caute Reynolds was the new governor
    • Footnoted
  • suggest "Price expected that the offensive would achieve several objectives: create a popular uprising against Union control of Missouri; divert Union troops away from the principal theaters of combat, as many of the Union troops previously defending Missouri had been transferred out of the state, leaving the Missouri State Militia to be the state's primary defensive force; and aid McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln in the election." or break it up into a couple of sentences
    • Done
  • say from what direction Price's column entered the state, to provide context, also indicate the initial direction of advance and changes in direction throughout
    • Done
  • suggest "but" would be better than "and" here "on September 27 failed, but the Union garrison abandoned the fort that night."
    • Done
  • suggest "Meanwhile, Union troops were following Price westwards."
    • Done
  • suggest "which was 20 miles (32 km) north of Boonville and across the Missouri River." or similar, giving the direction
    • Done
  • suggest "was sent <how far> southwest to Sedalia"
    • Added (Sinisi just calls it south)
  • "Clark's column consisted of 1,700 men in his own brigade[21] (under the command of Colonel Colton Greene)[22] and that of Colonel Sidney D. Jackman, as well as part of Harris's Missouri Battery." is rather confusing. Were the 1,700 men all from Clark's brigade? How many men from Jackman (was he a regimental or brigade commander)?
    • Clarified that this the 1700 is Clark and Jackman, and that Jackman commanded a brigade. I'm not finding a numerical breakdown between the two brigades, though.
      • I've actually been able to find a statement where Collins quotes Price as saying that it was 500 of Jackman's men, so added
  • it isn't clear from the preceding sentence that Jackman even went on the raid, so "Clark and Jackman were selected" is also confusing.
    • Should be clearer now
  • suggest "The column pushed north then crossed the Missouri at Arrow Rock on the 14th"
    • Done
  • "tin-clad boat" needs a close citation to the source
    • Done
  • where were Price and the main body at the point Clark asked him for more guns?
    • Haven't seen anything that notes this so far
  • "Price sent Shelby with 125 men" Shelby hasn't been introduced as yet. Presumably the 125 were cavalry? Any idea what regiment they were from?
    • Linked Shelby and noted they were cavalrymen. Secondary sources don't identify the unit, and Shelby's official report is vague on the matter
  • suggest "to a point on the western bank of the Missouri across from Glasgow."
    • Done
  • how was the defensive line at Glasgow oriented? west to east south of the town?
    • Yes, east to west. Clarified
  • so the unfinished fortifications were near the points held by the 43rd Missouri where the roads crossed Greggs Creek?
    • Reworded significantly. The previous text had been inadvertently conflating interior and exterior Union lines
  • "Clarks' main body south of town forced its way across Greggs Creek" across the whole length of the line, or in particular areas? Both roads? Fords?
    • Not explicitly stated, although I've added that the creek was shallow enough to be crossed
  • "Meanwhile, the 10th Missouri Cavalry's drive from the north had been stymied" presumably by the MSM at Bear Creek?
    • Yes
  • was the promontory on the river? Suggest explicitly stating that ie "anchored on a promontory on the river flank, and at a schoolhouse on the inland flank"
    • Not clear. I've actually removed this sentence, as I think it's better stated now that the original descriptions of the line don't conflate the inner and outer lines.
  • "The fire spread" to other buildings?
    • Done
  • link Sidearm (weapon)
    • Done
  • suggest "The Confederate retreat continued as far as Texas." to avoid repeating "reached"
    • Done

That is all I have. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peacemaker67: - I've tried to address all of the comments above. The description of the Union line may still need some work, as the sources are vague in places and I had to rework a good chunk of the prior wording, as it was conflating the interior and exterior lines. Hog Farm Talk 05:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

edit
  • Ah whoops wrong section. I meant the first two lines of the Prelude section. On my monitor (1440 px) it says it's a sandwich issue. Hopefully this is a little bit clearer. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: Can you move File:Abraham Lincoln - a history (1914) (14761985221).jpg a little bit more bellow? I only have one line sandwiched between both images. If that's not possible then I am satisfied with this result. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is the best we can get. No worries I hope Wikipedia will solve this issue. For instance, if you have a bigger resolution and you click on the campaignbox it will create a sandwich with the left image. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

edit
  • Claiming my seat here. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • his advance from St. Louis westwards to Jefferson City. Link Jefferson City.
    • Done
  • many men, including Bloody Bill Anderson and his guerrillas, Guerillas is redundant, as guerilla warfare is linked in the previous section.
    • Removed the link, which is what I understand as the requested change
  • While the Confederates reached West Wind, the steamboat's engines had been rendered nonfunctional, and they had to return to Shelby. An act of deliberate sabotage?
    • Sinisi is unclear, while Monnett and Lause don't mention the matter. Maybe Nichols will have detail on this.
  • Did the Union garrison not have artillery?
    • Nm Nichols says they didn't; this could be made explicit. He also specifies that Union CSA artillery damaged the town and the steamer (which factored into the Union surrender) and that Anderson's guerillas, while present, did not partake in the fighting. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had just kinda assumed Nichols had nothing significant to say here because Glasgow wasn't really a guerrilla action. I can't really get a good gbooks preview of that, but a friend is gonna pick a copy up from their university library later this week for me
  • Is Glasgow Battlefield a preserved historic site? This magazine and this book have some stuff to say about markers and reenactments. Nat Geo makes reference to a Stump Island Park preserving some of the battlefield. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a couple sentences from Missouri Life and the Weeks book (I actually have an old paperback copy of a previous edition of Weeks, which contains of all things a warning about talking to specifically Missourians about the Civil War). I'm not convinced that Stump Island Park is of any significance; it appears to just happen to be near the site. What I've found indicates that it offers a boat ramp, public bathrooms, and "primitive camping" with no mention of the relation to the battlefield.
  • Steamboat Disasters of the Lower Missouri River specifies that 15 homes and the Presbyterian church were lost during the events of the battle, 150 horses seized, and states that it was rumored that West Wind's engine remained at the bottom the river until it was raised for scrap during World War II.

Gog the Mild

edit

Looks familiar. Ping me when Indy b is done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - looks like Indy's done now. Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. If I have not started in 2-3 days, could you ping me? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. This is likely to be my next FAC, so feel free to be particularly harsh. Hog Farm Talk 19:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wah-ha-ha-haaa! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late on the 12th". The MoS would encourage 'Late on 12 October'.
    • Done, except going with the prevailing style of mdy.
  • "the Union soldiers were sworn not to serve". Is that grammatical in USEng?
    • I think so? Although my grammar can be pretty backwoods, so I'm not really sure
  • "suggesting a better figure of about 650". What is better about it?
    • Rephrased, would be more accurate
  • "32 wounded and eight to eleven killed". Could we have these numbers either all spelt out or all as numerals?
    • Spelled out all
  • "Confederate casualties at around 50". I realise that you are just stating the sources, but a single regiment reported 53 casualties. This doesn't make sense.
    • Removed, since around 50 is clearly an incomplete number based on poor Confederate reporting
  • What is "The Civil War Battlefield Guide"?
    • I've attributed the author for the statement, not the book, which probably makes more sense

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

@Gog the Mild: - All of these should be addressed. Hog Farm Talk 21:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What! All of them?  
  • The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2022 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (101–309 and named)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (101–309 and named) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the counterpart to the List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (1–100) list, and rounds off the entire list of all British infantry brigades during the Second World War. It even includes, much to my horror, a brigade that is not listed by Joslen (blasphemy?). The list has been given the once over by the GoCE, and all items raised so far in the review of its counterpart have been implemented. Look forward to further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: I reviewed the sister list at ACR and most of those points have already been dealt with for this list. I have only a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7:

  • Suggest moving the sentence that starts with "At the outset of war, the army had 24 infantry brigades" and the one after it to after fn 11, although it does seem to contradict the quote
  • Then break the paragraph in two at this point.
    I re-reviewed Frasier and made some tweaks to the point being made, and I have moved the text that you highlighted. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The expression "garrisoned in the UK" sounds odd, as they weren't really a garrison in the UK.
    I have switched it up to 'stationed', although I believe the two or three main bases where major formations are based in the UK are called garrisons.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there seems to be rather more. Struck this comment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "engaged in lopsided affairs due to not being concentrated" Are talking about the divisions or the brigades here?
    I have made a few changes here to clarify that it was discussing brigades.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't say what the difference was between an infantry brigade, a lorried infantry brigade and a motor brigade was.
    So, Joslen does not state specifically what either are. However, a few sources do explain the difference between infantry, lorried, and motor battalion, which basically leads to the naming convention, if it can even be called that. Not mentioned in the text on this particular article, trying out the initial change here first before making it on the other, the 7th Motor Brigade was formed with a bunch of motor rifle battalions. After the last had left, it was renamed a "lorried" brigade. But then it reverted to just an infantry brigade when it later fought in Italy. I don't know if this means the brigade lost the extra trucks it had in the desert, or if they just dropped the name. On the flip side, the 61st brigade despite being formed with a bunch of rifle motor battalions, didn't get given the "motor" name. When they were reorganized as regular infantry battalions, the brigade was renamed a lorried brigade.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 164th Infantry Brigade: typo "uly"
    Tweaked!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great work pulling this together. A few comments:

Lead
  • for "formations", link Military organization#Commands, formations, and units
  • "Brigades were flexible formations and rarely maintained the same subunits" as a general rule, in a Commonwealth context a "subunit" is a company-sized force element subordinated to a unit of battalion or regiment size. I think you mean infantry battalions here?
  • "Those numbered 100 and below are located within their own list."
  • "based around a cadre of soldiers"
  • "The new formation, referred to as the second-line, would then be expanded until it reached full strength."
  • "The retraining of members of the Royal Artillery also saw the creation of many additional infantry brigades."
    I have made edits to address the aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • suggest "however, these were administrative structures and not operational units"
  • suggest "The fighting unit of an infantry regiment was the battalion"
  • suggest linking brigadier at first mention in the body
  • arrant space in 144th Infantry Brigade
  • "corps-level" as it is a compound adjective - but couldn't a brigade be directly answerable to a corps or higher-level command? Army, Army Group?
  • suggest linking division at first mention in the body
  • suggest linking Territorial Army at first mention in the body
  • suggest "to maintain the peace and defend the British Empire" rather than "police", as they rarely performed a policing function in the common use of the word
  • I am not sure what is meant by "the British Army did not field force of brigades and divisions except on paper", it seems to be missing some words
    I have made edits to try and address the aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the responses down to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "cobbled together from"→assembled from, a quote here seems unnecessary, and cobbled together is a bit too informal
  • "one each based"→"and one each was based"
  • suggest "The majority of these were assigned to the 201st through 227th Independent Infantry Brigades (Home)"
  • "303rd to 308th Infantry Brigades"
  • suggest "The [[116th Infantry Brigade Royal Marines|116th]] and the [[117th Infantry Brigade Royal Marines|117th]] Infantry Brigades Royal Marines"
    Tweaks have been made on all the above points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and their units returned to their parent battalions" this hasn't been explained. Suggest you explain that the crews for these AT guns were drawn from the infantry battalions of the brigades
    I looked through numerous sources and could not find something that pinpointed this. I think I overshot my position referencing the returning to their parent battalions via Joslen, so I have removed it. French notes, for example, that they were formed in 1939. Another source implies that the infantry manned the guns, but does not outright state it. Another stated that they were formed by the battalion AT platoons, which were made up of men who had been trained on AT guns prior to their formation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "This included brigades, in the UK, being reorganised into brigade groups, which involved attaching artillery, anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank guns, machine guns, and engineers to them." to avoid the repetition of "This included"
  • "This change was then implemented in formationsbrigades overseas"
  • I don't understand what "and were engaged in lopsided affairs due to not being concentrated with other formations" means
    Several examples were provided of brigade groups being engaged and mauled by divisional forces. I have reworded the sentence, does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with each battalion having enough transport capable of moving each platoon's weapons, equipment, and supplies" why is a platoon being used here? Surely the reference should be to the battalion? And does this mean they had enough transport to move the troops as well, or just the weapons, equipment, and supplies? If the latter, is this really "highly motorised"? Perhaps for the time period in comparison to other countries?
    I want to make sure I am not misinterpreting, specific to this point. The other sources reference the marching and additional transport as the war moved on. French is the one who specifies the platoon-based vehicle etc.: "In 1934 Montgomery-Massingberd ordered the wholesale mechanization of the artillery and first-line transport of the infantry on this basis. Beginning in 1936 each infantry platoon was issued with a ... truck ... and able to carry all of its weapons, equipment, packs, and greatcoats. ... Sufficient reserve companies of motor transport were also to e provided to lift one infantry brigade in every division."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the infantry walkedmarched"
  • "was referred to as a lorried infantry battalions"
  • suggest "A variant was the motor battalion, drawn from the army's rifle regiments. They were fully motorised but varied in organisation compared to the other infantry battalions."
    Rest of these points tweaked per your suggestionsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the table. Will check that shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • watch the nbsp in unit links that you haven't introduced an additional space
    I think I got them all. But please feel free to highlight any I have missed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest consistently ending the Notes with a period
    Tweak for consistencyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in general terms, I find the table hard to follow. There are numerous brigades where there is no establishment date that are marked as existing, and the date in the second column is after the date in the third column. It seems to me that at least the year of establishment (even if it is pre-war) should be included, and perhaps the columns made chronological from left to right. Happy to discuss this further.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking to work on the additional points (and the remaining one from the initial list) over the next few days.
    Regarding the last point, the list started life as an overhaul to what was just one long list of links focused on the Second World War. There are a lot of Hart's Annual Army List and the War Office's Monthly Army Lists online, but I would not be able to swear by the accuracy of providing a year of formation for the pre-1939 brigades as they do not necessarily state when one brigade was formed, transferred, or disbanded (you have to do a bit of digging and cross-referencing). In the immediate post-war period, there does seem to be a lack of documentation (online, at the least) for appointments and formations being created/disbanded.
    Does the entry for the 113th Infantry Brigade provide a case example of what you are finding confusing? In this example, the brigade was formed in 1939, along with the other 2nd-line brigades. It was active prior to the war starting, so has been marked as "existing" in the list. The next (third) column over indicates that it was disbanded in 1944. Back in the second column, we have that second formation date for when it was reformed, and a N/A as it was not disbanded prior to the war ending (no ideas when it was actually disbanded). Is it wording? Layout? Suggestions for making it easier to read?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just waiting on feedback on the changesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 and EnigmaMcmxc: Are we OK to promote? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, yes happy for ACR. The table might need work for FL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. There is a very heavy reliance on a single source, albeit a good one. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 - I've closed this one as promoted - but since the article was moved mid-ACR and the ACR is still at the old name, will that throw the bot off? Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 4 March 2022 (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) 22:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tom Eastick

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Tom Eastick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another prominent South Australian soldier. Tom Eastick was a part-time Militia officer in the interwar period who commanded an Australian artillery regiment at the Battles of El Alamein in 1942 then commanded the artillery of Australian divisions in New Guinea and then Borneo in 1943–1945. He took the Japanese surrender in Sarawak, and was military governor there after the war ended. He was prominent in ex-service organisations in South Australia, and was knighted in 1970 for his volunteer work. This one has been recently expanded and went through GAN earlier this month. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Buidhe, I've added a couple of new images, could you check them please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks fine. (t · c) buidhe 01:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

This article is in good shape, but I have a few perhaps nit-picking comments:

  • "Tom was promoted to captain " - I think we usually stick to last names?
Thanks, a leftover from a para split where the last names mentioned were those of his sons. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the following year a Royal Australian Air Force pilot adjusted the fire of Eastick's battery during field firing." - can you be clearer on how this was an innovation? Didn't the AFC spot artillery fire in World War I? (presumably this was the first time it had been done in Australia or similar?)
This is not spotting, but call of fire adjustment directly by the pilot acting as an observer. Presumably with radio direct to the battery. Not sure that was even possible in WWI when truly mobile two-way radio wasn't developed until 1923 (in Victoria by a cop, and that was in a car and took up the entire back seat). I note that an Austro-Hungarian pilot apparently controlled artillery fire in the 1915 Battle of Gorlice via morse code. Not sure how to clarify this, the ADB entry says "A second innovation with which he was associated was the control of artillery fire from aircraft: in 1927 a Royal Australian Air Force pilot adjusted the fire of Eastick’s battery during field firing." Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno to be honest! A bunch of sources say that the AFC spotted artillery fire in France (e.g. [11]), but I'm afraid that I don't know how this was done. Chris Coulthard-Clark's book on the early years of the RAAF The Third Brother notes that the RAAF spotted artillery for Army for the first time in 1922, and this continued infrequently during the 1920s (pp. 210-211). He notes on page 211 that an artillery spotting exercise took place in Adelaide during 1926. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to assume that the ADB author, David Brook, a historian of guns in SA, has it right, and use his wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough ;) Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its original members were mainly Militia artillerymen" - presumably they'd all volunteered for the AIF?
Yes, it was an AIF unit from the beginning - clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the 9th Division, including the 2/7th Field Regiment, began returning to Australia to prepare for operations against the Japanese closer to home" - at the risk of nit-picking, this implies that the division moved gradually to Australia when it actually moved as a single unit (see Operation Pamphlet).
changed to "returned". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The regiment disembarked in Melbourne a week after its visit to Fremantle" - the division stopped over in Fremantle, but only the West Australian personnel disembarked, I think.
Correct, adjusted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 9th Division was at that time reforming and training on the Atherton Tablelands in North Queensland" - I'd suggest nothing that this was after it had also served in New Guinea
Sure, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the 9th Division be listed as one of the units Eastick commanded in the infobox? Maybe not as it would have been being disbanded at this time.
He was commander of the divisional guns, not the division as a whole. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that "He then administered command of the 9th Division until February 1946" though? Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. Not sure I would include "administration of command" in the infobox though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, unless Johnston makes some kind of note of this in his history of the division. By that time there wouldn't have been much of the division left. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was he the commander of Central Command (in the lead) or its headquarters? (in the body of the article)?
Well spotted. The source says "commander, Headquarters Group, Central Command" fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for bringing the problem to public notice" - was it a 'problem'? The source (the very left wing Tribune) says that this was a witch hunt with the premier acknowledging the men weren't doing anything against the public interest.
changed to "issue". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a suggestion for further development, there may be material on Eastick in the volumes of the official history that cover El Alemain and the final campaigns. Long provides a bit of coverage of the post-war occupation forces, for instance (I'm very slowly working on an article on this at User:Nick-D/Drafts7 which might have some useful pointers). Steve Gower's Guns of the Regiment might also be worth checking.
I did skim the OH, but will take a closer look. Indexing isn't the best. Will also check Gower. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed the AWM a few years ago to suggest that they post single PDF versions of the OH volumes now that download sizes aren't a problem, and they responded to claim that this wasn't technically feasible for them. Which is a shame as searching the PDFs often works a lot better than using the index. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it is a bit of a problem. While I've been able to add quite a bit on the pre-Alamein period from Maughan, it turns out Eastick isn't mentioned in the Alamein chapters of Vol III, or the New Guinea chapters of Vol IV other than to state in a fn that he was CRA 7th Div. I think getting into the weeds of divisional artillery support provided during the various campaigns is really out of scope for a bio though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Being the CRA of the 7th and 9th Divisions would have been an odd job given that they fought in widely dispersed units in terrain that was difficult for artillery to operate in for most of the time. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a bit under-illustrated. The AWM has quite a few other photos of Eastick that could be used (for instance [12] and lots of when he led Sarawak Force. It might also be worth checking his NAA record to see if it includes mugshot photos, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Without sandwiching, I reckon there is probably only space for one other image on the left. I'll take a look though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is his pers file isn't digitised, probably due to his post-war service. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is a bit random which are and aren't digitialised. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Happy New Year @Peacemaker67: A few more nitpickers! Pendright (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Upon return from the Middle East he commanded the artillery of the 7th Division during the final stage of the Salamaua–Lae campaign and then during the Markham, Ramu and Finisterre campaigns in New Guinea between August 1943 and April 1944, and then held the same role for the 9th Division during the Borneo campaign in 1945.
  • Upon return from the Middle East -> this seems to fit the definition of an introductory phrase?
comma inserted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last clause lacks a subject
split off into separate sentence, which I think fixes this problem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastick was military governor of the Raj of Sarawak after taking the Japanese surrender at Kuching, and was commander of the Headquarters Group of Central Command in South Australia from 1950 to 1953.
Need a "he" in the last clause
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was the state president of the Returned Sailors', Soldiers' and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia (the Returned & Services League from 1965) between 1950 and 1954 and again from 1961 to 1972.
Why is Airmen's singular possessdive?
It isn't. It is plural possessive. Airmen is already plural, 's makes it possessive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in 1953, and knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1970, in both cases for his volunteer work on behalf of ex-servicemen.
is 'in both cases' necessary?
Probably not. deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlt life:

  • Having served for four years in the compulsory senior cadets, in 1918, Eastick enlisted as a part-time soldier in the Australian Field Artillery of the Citizen Forces.
  • for could be dropped
  • Why the comma before 1918
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On 31 October of the following year, Eastick married Ruby Sybil Bruce, a saleswoman and youngest daughter of Mrs A. H. Bruce, at the Baptist church at Richmond, and after a honeymoon at Port Noarlunga,[3] they lived in the northern part of Colonel Light Gardens known as Reade Park.
  • "at" the Baptist chruch -> "in" the Bapist chruch
  • Drop the comma after Noarlunga
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The business venture went well until the Great Depression began around 1929, after which difficulties mounted.[1]
Should mounted have some elaboration?
There is nothing in the source to add. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following year Eastick was temporarily promoted to lieutenant colonel and appointed as the commanding officer of the 13th Field Brigade.
Could use a comma after year
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service in the Middle East:

  • Eastick's regiment arrived in the Middle East in December 1940, and was garrisoned at Qastina in Palestine where it conducted training with World War I-vintage QF 18-pounder guns and QF 4.5-inch howitzers.
"World War I-vintage" -> Hyphen?
Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In March 1941 the 9th Division was moved to Egypt, but due to lack of vehicles, the 2/7th Field Regiment did not join them until the following month.
Could drop the comma after vechicles?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially deployed to a staging area at Ikingi Maryut,[1][7] in late May it moved forward into defensive positions at Mersa Matruh.[9]
Join the two clauses with an and or a but?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At that time, a troop of the regiment was sent to the Siwa Oasis at the edge of the Great Sand Sea.
Could substitute one "at" in this short sentence.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the beginning of September, the rest of the regiment – less another troop that remained at Mersa Matruh to calibrate its newly received guns[11] – moved forward to a position between the Axis-controlled Halfaya Pass and the Allied-held fortress of Sidi Barrani.[7][1]
The above two sucessive sentences start with "at" -> Think about replacing the second one with "in"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastick took over the control of the artillery in the coastal sector, which included anti-tank and light anti-aircraft batteries.
The definite article before control is unneeded
Yes, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2/7th Field Regiment again supported the 20th Brigade during the Second Battle of El Alamein in October and November 1942, firing 65,594 rounds across the 13 days of fighting.
Add the word "by" before firing
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The regiment also participated in the pursuit of the enemy as they withdrew, reaching El Dabaa.
For me, these two clauses do not tie toghether very well?
Better? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 15 December, Eastick was mentioned in despatches for "gallant and distinguished services in the Middle East during the period November 1941 to April 1942",[15] which recognised the high level of efficiency reached by the 2/7th Field Regiment under Eastick's command during that period.[1]
"during that period" strikes me as redundant?
Fair enough. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service in the Pacific:

  • The 9th Division was responsible for administering the Japanese surrender in British Borneo including Sarawak, Brunei and Labuan Island, and the Natuna Islands.
Add a comma after "British Borneo"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastick was appointed commander of Kuching Force, responsible for the latter zone.
Replace the comma with and
Did something different, hopefully better now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastick was responsible for: accepting the surrender of the Japanese in his zone and interning them; releasing and evacuating around 2,017 Allied prisoners of war (POWs) and internees, including 400 stretcher cases and 237 women and children; and establishing military control in the zone.[24]
The colon is unnecessary
I disagree, it is a list of tasks and one of the individual list items has an internal comma. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was recalled to service in January 1950 with the rank of brigadier, and was posted as the commander of the Headquarters Group, Central Command, in Adelaide.
Drop the comma or add a subject to the last clause
Dropped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 1950 to 1954 he was the state president of RSSAILA,[1] and in Queen Elizabeth II's 1953 Coronation Honours he was appointed a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG) for his work with the organisation.
Could substitute one "he"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Pendright, sorry it has taken so long to address these. All great points as always. See what you think of my responses/edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting with kind regards! Pendright (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

Lead

  • was appointed as a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order.: should that "as" be there?
Good point, it is more natural without. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Early life'

  • The Citizen Forces were renamed the Militia in 1929. In 1930, Eastick was promoted to major.: a couple of very short sentences, can I suggest combining them? Perhaps: "In 1930, Eastick was promoted to major in the Citizen Forces, which had been renamed to the Militia the previous year."
Went with something similar, thoughts?

'Service in the Middle East'

  • supported by the whole of the divisional artillery, part of the First Battle of El Alamein.: it seems to that there should be an "as" in front of the "part".
Good point. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Service in the Pacific'

  • Suggest noting Kuching was the capital of Raj of Sarawak; helps explain the name of Kuching Force.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the surrender of the Japanese, it is stated that Eastick flew to Kuching and then sailed back there, without indicating that he left.
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me, just a few nitpicks. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Peacemaker67: just a ping to check you have seen this? Zawed (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate, not sure how I missed these… onto it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, I have been incredibly busy in RW. I promise to get onto this imminently! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zawed. Thanks for your comments and my apologies for the delay. All done I reckon, have a look at my responses and edits and see what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey mate, these all look good so have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Will do soon. Hog Farm Talk 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A Call to the People of Australia, Australia, 1951, nla.obj-2545178137, retrieved 21 November 2021" - is Australia the correct publisher? Even if it's the national government, surely it was by an official department, not the country as a whole
  • Investigator Press is something I've never seen, but it appears to have been a legitimate publisher, so it looks fine

No red flags in source, although that "A Call to the People of Australia" ref looks a bit wonky on the formatting. Hog Farm Talk 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Hog Farm. Australia is the location, not the publisher. Presumably the publisher is the various churchmen and justices that signed it. The citation is what is suggested for Wikipedia by the National Library of Australia website (the source) for this document. I think it just seems odd because it is a stand-alone document and doesn't have all the usual parameters. I have added an additional descriptive field. Investigator Press was a publisher that specialised in local history of South Australia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Breteuil

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

Toolbox

In which the French besiege a French fortification, it is daringly relieved and resupplied by the English, then re-sieged by the French king. This becomes a fair and an affair of honour, so when the heir to the English throne went on campaign the French refused to move. (Eventually they do and it ends with a crushing French defeat and the capture of their king. But that's another article.) See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

edit

Alright, time to review!

  • Some notes can be transferred to the prose directly.
    • "The citadel, known as the Grey Tower (Tour Grise), had been constructed by the English king Henry I (r. 1100–1135)" can be moved directly to the article
I would prefer reference to events which took place more than two years before those relating to the topic in a footnote. If pressed I would consider it more appropriate to delete them than to move them to the main article.
  • Lede can be shorter by removing details:
    • "However, it made little progress as the town was well garrisoned and had been left by Lancaster with food for a year."
    • "Taking Breteuil became a matter of prestige for John and he refused to take the army south to face the Black Prince."
  • ... which lead to the next point: passive voice. Passive voice is perfectly fine, but misuse can make reading the article difficult. → Misuse of passive voice makes the article difficult to read.
    • "after allocating garrisons the French field army was unimpressive, largely due to lack of money to recruit more men" → "due to lack of money to recruit more men, the French field army was unimpressive (editorial?)"
To my eye/ear your suggested change makes the article more difficult/complex/stilted to read.
Changed to "inadequate" to more precisely match the source.
    • "Meanwhile, the Black Prince, the son and heir of the English King, had assembled an Anglo-Gascon army at Bergerac and marched into French-held territory, devastating the countryside as he went." → "Meanwhile, the Black Prince, the son and heir of the English King, had assembled an Anglo-Gascon army at Bergerac, marching into French-held territory and devastated the countryside as he went."
Any lead can be shortened. This one does not seem excessively long at 16% the size of the main article.
  • Editorial can also be seen in the article:
    • "One of those imprisoned was the notoriously treacherous ..."
Changed to "inveterately".
    • "in addition John probably wished for all of his stragglers and detachments to join his army before offering battle."
I am missing what your point is. This is what the sources say. I assume because they do not claim to know what was happening inside John's head. He paused - relayed as a fact by the sources; possibly to gather his full force - relayed by the sources as a likely, but not certain reason.
  • Some sentences can be shortened for brevity:
    • "John took personal charge of this second siege, which commenced on 12 July." → "John took personal charge of this second siege commenced on 12 July."
That would not be grammatical.
    • "Évreux was the capital of Navarre's holdings in Normandy as Count of Évreux and Charles took personal command of its siege, ordering several assaults, which were unsuccessful." → "At the time, Évreux was the capital of Navarre's holdings in Normandy. The Count of Évreux and Charles took personal command of its siege and ordered several assaults, which were unsuccessful."
? Charles and the Count of Évreux were on opposing sides.
  • Sourcing: Not sure about their content, but seems good and relevant.
  • Accessibility: Remove center alignment in images,
Why?
  • looking at alt-text Looks good!
Hi User:CactiStaccingCrane and thanks for the review. All of you points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! About accessibility, I don't think centering it is a good idea because this can confuse a ton of screenreaders. I think I need to thank you more for that matter - you spotted a ton of my reviewing mistakes :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA

edit

Drive-by

Hi CPA-5, is that intended to be an actionable comment? If it is, could you elaborate. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I am referring to more than one page. "Wikt:ff" means 'and the pages following'. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It lasted from April to about 20 August 1356 We don't know when this started right?
We don't know exactly, just that it was some time in April. Which I don't seem to have included in the main article. Fixed.
  • It was interrupted on 5 July when a small English army Was this briefly interrupted?
I don't understand the query. As the main article elaborates, the siege was lifted on 5 July and re-imposed on the 9th or a day or two later.
  • Eventually, some time around 20 August Infobox says something different?
Good spot. c. added to the infobox.
  • So just a question but when do you use the name of the monarch like "Edward" and when do you say with an ordinal like "Edward III"? It just because I see the article uses "Philip's Great Council in Paris" and "be taken into Philip's direct control" while Edward get his ordinal "on the grounds that Edward III was in breach".
Yep. I have consistently used Edward's ordinal and consistently not used John's after first mention.
  • nor small-scale fighting in Gascony and the Duchy of Brittany, nor occasional fighting on a larger scale --> "nor both large and small-scale fightings in Gascony and the Duchy of Brittany"?
Erm, that's not grammatical, and you have added large-scale fighting which my tries to make clear didn't take place.
  • In Navarre one of Charles' younger brothers --> "In Navarre one of Charles's younger brothers"
Already removed.
  • Louis, was administering the country; on receiving the news he began raising troops MOS:EGG here. If a physical copy of this article were printed then this information would've been lost.
Already removed.
  • Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre Same as above.
  • dining at the table of Charles, John's eldest son, the dauphin Same as above.
Sorry CPA-5, but I really cannot see what change you are proposing here. Nor what, if anything, you dislike about the current version. Could you unpack your issue a little? Thanks.
  • appealed to the English king for military assistance Upper case for the word king here.
Done.
  • and camped for the night.[note 4][53][54] vs "largest landholders in Normandy.[27][note 1]" Standerdise the notes maybe?
Done.
  • I see three howevers for a short article like this; maybe cut one out?
A "however" every 800+ words seems modest to me. But two edited out.
  • The historian Kenneth Fowler describes the siege as "magnificent but archaic" Modern historian?
I am unsure that their is any other sort. But added for the avoidence of doubt.
  • acknowledged Edward III as king of France and did homage Upper case of King of France because it's title?
I see where you're coming from, but I think not in this case.
  • Is it possible to maximise the rows from eight to three maximum in the citations and Sources from five to three maximum? It looks a little bit chaotic.
Do I understand that you would like the rows decreasing? Which would result in a large number of very thin columns. Which would be illegible. Are you aware that the number of columns for both citations and sources will vary from device to device? It is not something I can set the number of.

That's my review kind of happy to back haha happy late Chrismas and New Year I guess. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. It is great to have you back. And apologies for overlooking this and taking more than two weeks to respond. I have addressed all of your comments, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I did, thanks for flagging it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from FredModulars

edit

Looks like a good article.

  • Infobox says "April – 20 August 1356". In the lead, it's 1346. Which is it?
Gah! 1356. I also have a FAC running on Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 and I keep confusing the two. Thanks for picking it up.
  • Either a comma after John II in the lead or no comma before or after.
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", intended to bring a temporary halt to the fighting" I know British English has some comma rules which contrast with American English, but shouldn't there should be a comma after fighting?
Not IMO, but I see where you are coming from, so added anyway.
  • "While French attention was focused on the north" comma after north since it's a dependent clause unless, again, there are different rules.
Really? Americans are strange. Added.
  • Shouldn't Edward of Woodstock be mentioned in the lead? For instance, "Meanwhile, Edward of Woodstock, commonly known as the Black Prince, the son and heir of the English King"
He is mentioned, "by the Black Prince's smaller force". As he gets a minor walk on part I see no need to rehearse his background in the lead. I don't do so for more central figures.
  • Why do some figures (e.g., Phillip VI and Edward III) have their birth/death years and others don't?
It is normal to include the reigns (hover your mouse over the "r.") of monarchs who were alive during the period they are mentioned at first mention in the main article. (Or sometimes all of them.) There is even a template just for this. And, oops, I forgot John; now added.
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Not sure if it's the browser (I use Safari), but the "r." and "c." just become question marks when I hover over them.
No worries. I always think that reviewers should feel free to poke at everything. Either there is an easy answer or not. Either way, no problem.
On several devices I get a question mark with a little box next to it containing "Reigned".
That's great. Thanks FredModulars, your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First comment about 1346 in the lead hasn't been changed yet.
That is strange. Definitely fixed now!
  • "Charles, who was also the duke of Normandy," capitalize duke.
My reading of MOS:JOBTITLES is that it shouldn't be capitalised in this case.
  • "was announced by the French on 14 May." Since we haven't said that it's 1356 since the last section and it's not mentioned again for two paragraphs, it might as well be added it here.
Fair enough, I am probably too close to it. Added.
  • Cotentin and looting are double linked.
Cotentin - fixed. Looting - one is to explain "looting" and the other (via a redirect) "sacked". The MoS does not forbid double linking, but says "as a rule of thumb, only link the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article", and this seems a case where it would be helpful to a reader.
Alright.
  • There's no period at the end of Note 2.
Well spotted. Added.
  • Again optional, but it feels strange for the lead and the text to say the same exact thing. ("The French army was heavily defeated by the Black Prince's smaller force and John was captured, along with most of his court and much of the nobility of France.") Perhaps reword this sentence in either the lead or the body.
Shortened in the lead.

That should be it from me. FredModulars (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again FredModulars, all good stuff. Keep it coming. Your comments to date addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good article. Great job. I support this A-class nomination now that these minor issues have been dealt with. FredModulars (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Johannes Schade

edit

I have the vantage point of somebody who is not an expert in the matter. The siege of Breteuil is difficult to introduce to the general reader because of the complexity of its context. Breteuil was defended by the Navarrese and besieged by the French, but the siege must also be seen in the wider context of the Hundred Years' War as the Navarrese were at that moment allied with the English against the French (if I understand it right). The article's Lead, Background, and Prelude sections introduce the Hundred Years' war well and sometimes, I think, with more than sufficient detail, but these sections do not explain well enough (IMHO) the conflict and rivalry between John II of France and Charles II of Navarre.

General remark: the article sometimes capitalises template names with a leading uppercase and sometimes as all-lowercase. I would recommend to always start template names with an uppercase letter as some of them are awkward to use in all-lowercase, e.g. {{CSS image crop}} (and other templates starting with CSS) and {{TOC limit}}. Just for the benefit of a more consistent look of the code.

Another general remark: do you not believe that it is good to prevent line breaks between day and month, e.g. 15&nbsp;January? The regretted User:Twofingered Typist from the Guild of Copy Editors always insisted on that.

Johannes Schade: thank you for the support. I have not yet read your comments below, but would like to apologise for having not addressed your general points above. I didn't respond in order and didn't scroll up past "Lead" when checking. In particular, your desire to have more information on Navarre, the person, and the Navarrese context. Actually this really means how Navarre fitted into French politics, but still it does seem light. This is probably because none of the sources (surprisingly) deal with this. They universally approach and analyse the siege as part of the Anglo-French war. So I feel a little constrained that I may stray into OR. Nevertheless, now that you have mentioned it it seems clear that some more could usefully be added and I shall see what I can come up with. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
edit
Investment. This military term "investment" is introduced in the lead sentence as a synonym of siege, seemingly just to avoid duplication. It is not used anywhere else in the text. See WP:REDUNDANCY. There should be a better way. More to follow, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johannes Schade. I look forward to your further comments and shall probably wait until you have completed your first pass before responding. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog (if I may call you so), I am glad you accept criticism so graciously. I will go on with it as you prompted me to do. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. Somewhetre before this sentence the text should explain that the Navarrese were allied with the English. The sentence ("It was interrupted on 5 July when a small English army commanded by Henry, Earl of Lancaster relieved and resupplied it") would be better in active voice: Lancaster did all these thinks and should be the subject of the sentence. As the sentence stands now, the pronoun "it" is used to refer first to the siege and then to the town. Lancaster (i.e. Henry of Grosmont) had been created duke in 1351 and should therefore be called "duke" rather than "earl". Perhaps Lancaster should also be called "the King's lieutenant" (as in the title of the book) to introduced him to the reader. The article Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356 should probably be linked.
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. Bergerac is quite certainly unwanted detail at the lead level (and probably even later in the body). It is likely that most readers will not know where Bergerac is (I still don't). Propose "had assembled an army in Gascony".
3rd paragraph. "At some point in August": too sudden jump from the Black Prince's campaign to the siege of Breteuil.
Background
edit

Much detail, concerning the Hundred Years' War could be dropped from this section and formulations could be straightened and shortened. About all we need to know is that the English King and some of his nobles were vassals of the French King for properties held in Normandy and Gascony, that Edward III claimed the French crown and started the war in 1337.

That is factually incorrect. Twice actually. Which suggests to me that a fuller explanation is both needed and may be helpful.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Edward spent the year 1356 in England and was therefore absent. We need more background on Navarre. The Battle of Crécy (1346), the capture of Calais (1347), the truce of Calais (1347), the treaty of Guînes (1354) are not essential to explain the siege of Breteuil.

I honestly fail to see how Edward's location is relevant.
As the French king was present, I wondered where the English one was.
"We need more background on Navarre." The person or the country?
Sorry, I should have been more precise, I meant the person.
Again I disagree re how much background is helpful. I have read trough and trimmed a little in the light of your comments.
Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prelude
edit

This section could probly be much shortened and integrated into the Background section above.

I am sure that it could. I am less sure how that would benefit a reader.
You are right, my formulation is bad, but I am sure you guessed what i meant. Apologies, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1st paragraph. Most of the 1st paragraph treats events that happened in 1355 in far-away Gascony and concerns the Black Prince. I find that these events are not relevant enough to be included here. This is quite obviously the case of the famous Black Prince's chévauchée of 1355 (to Narbonne).
The only reason Breteuil is notable, compared with the siege of hundreds of other fortifications during the war, is because it delayed John's response to the Black Princes 1356 campaign. Which in turn led to the most important battle of hte war. I consider the Black Prince's activities to be vital context for a reader to understand this.
2nd paragraph, "#tag". I feel that opening an explanatory footnote with "{{#tag:ref|" looks archaic. Would you not agree that using {{Efn}} makes for a much more user-friendly code?
No.
Dear Gog the Mild, please, just for me to learn: when should "{{#tag:ref|" be used rather than {{Efn}}? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I have no interest in producing tidy code and, thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't require me to. Just to produce "tidy" text. I shall play around the next time I use footnotes and see if I can produce a similar effect with efn to #tag. If it works as readily I may swap, either is merely a means to an end.
2nd Paragraph, Quotation. If the quote "the King of France was severely hated in his own realm" is really needed, it must have a citation (probably Froissart?).
? It is. Cite 27.
2nd paragraph: Charles. Talking about "Charles" (unqualified) can be confusing because the Dauphin and Navarre were both called Charles. With regard to Charles, the futur Charles V it is probably best introduced as "Charles, the Dauphin", and called him "the dauphin" afterwards. Could King Charles II of Navarre be called just "Navarre"?
I was trying to avoid usages such as 'Navarre one of Navarre's'. And phrases such as "sent to Navarre for reinforcements" becoming ambiguous. But you are right and I have come up with a work around. However, with "Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Charles of Navarre" I really don't like 'Philip of Navarre, another younger brother of Navarre' and so propose leaving it as is as the least bad option unless you have a better idea - which would be welcome. I have left the Dauphin as "Charles".
2nd paragraph: On 5 April 1356"...". The events of this day are relevant and many of the protagonists that are important for the siege are involved. It should perhaps be made clear that Navarre was detained until 5 April 1356 and was therefore absent from Lancaster's chevauchée and the siege og Breteuil.
Good point. Done.
2nd paragraph, last sentence: The statement about Louis raising troups in spring 1356 stands in isolation. I would say it is irrelevant unless it can be linked up with Lancaster's chevauchée or the siege. This is the only mention of Louis. Is it useful to introduce him?
I am missing your point I think. But it is not a sentence I feel strongly about, and so deleted.
First Siege
edit
1st paragraph., 2nd sentence: "The Cotentin area in the north-west was pro-Navarrese ...". This is a bit of an understatement, the Cotentin and a band of land along the west coast of Normandy belonged to Navarre. See the map in the article "Guerre de Cent Ans en Normandie" of the French Wikipedia.
Is this intended to be actionable?
Sorry, I should have been clearer: I thought you should have said "belonged to Navarre" instead of "was pro-Navarrese", but I see now that a somewhat naïve reader could interpet this as meaning that Cotentin was part of the country called Navarre. I had not really thought of that and always used Navarre for the person. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1st paragraph: "Chartes concentrating an army" -> "Chartes assembling an army".
Done.

Was the arrière-ban called to assemble at Chartres? The text does not seem clear on this.

Indeed. Which is why the article isn't either.
Cliff Rogers does not seem to be notable (Wikipedia has no article on him). I feel it would be better not to mention him in the article's main text and not to use a direct quote from him. This is clutter to the general reader. His name will of course appear in the references. That is where he belongs.
Professor Rogers is one of the pre-eminent experts on the period. Wikipedia is, notoriously, not a reliable source. Rogers was Professor of History at West Point, editor of The Journal of Medieval Military History, a contributor to The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, he was a Fulbright fellow at the Institute of Historial Research in London, an Olin Fellow at Yale, and a Leverhulme Visiting Professor at the University of Wales, Swansea. He was a recipient of the Bachrach medal from De Re Militarietc. Etc.
Sorry, again my ignorance, apologies, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to Maurice Druon's Les Rois maudits, the French had taken the town and the castle at the end of the first siege and Lancaster took it back and installed a Navarrese garrison commanded by a man he calls "Sanche Lopez" (https://archive.org/details/lesroismauditsro0000druo/page/1504/).
Er. You are aware that that is a work of fiction?
I think I habe indeed gone terribly wrong here and beg your forgiveness. However, it is a fact that the Rois maudits is widely read. You have read it and so has BUIDHE, seems it, and finally even I have read it. Many of your readers see this part of French history through the eyes of Druon. The fiction parts are few and usually quite easy to separate. Druon seems to be never wrong on historical facts. He also has the advantage that it is easy to read. Froissart is his main source but much more demanding. I would think that about everything we know about the Siege of Breteuil comes from Froissart, but you seem to reject Froissart as well, perhaps because of WP:NONENG. My apologies for having exasperated you, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not only have I never read it, I have never heard of either the book or the author.
It is considered a classic in France and everybody knows it. You may have seen the article about it: The Accursed kings. I am sure that you, with your detailed knowledge of the times, would immensely enjoy reading this book. It is a well told, easy and very enjoyable read. Druon starts it with the motto "L'histoire est un roman qui a été". Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez is also found in a slightly different form in Froissart.147 "à Breteuil messire Sanse Lopin". According to Jonathan Sumption, the castle had not yet fallen and Lancaster chased the besiegers away. There is a bit of a contradiction.

Well, yes it is. But I prefer to go for the account by the history academic rather than the historical novel which is supposed to make things up. (I find having to justify not sourcing to fiction exasperating.)
You have a weighty argument against Druon and me, but what about Froissart? Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh pur-leeze! Froissart was a paid propagandist for the wife of the English King. He wasn't even consistent himself. As I wrote in another article "Froissart's third version of his Chronicles more than doubles his estimate in the first." (Of the English strength at Crecy.) Or as Kelly DeVries says in the wonderfully named "God, Leadership, Flemings and Archery: Contemporary Perspectives of Victory and Defeat at the Battle of Sluys, 1340" "each of the three redactions of his work come to different conclusions." (Regarding the Battle of Sluys.) I could go on. I let professional historians who sup with very long spoons sieve his words, then weigh their words.
Wise words, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Say that Montebourg is in Cotentin.
Why?
Sorry, my ignorance. I did not know where it was, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relief
edit
Looting, "On 24 June the English set out from Montebourg, burning and looting their way through western Normandy." Cotentin was friendly territory belongig to Navarre. Would they really have looted western Normandy?
Rogers describes Lancaster in Carentan as "ready to set forth into enemy territory". Burne states that St Lo was occupied by the French.

Is this in [35][45][46]? It does not seem to be in Fowler [45] which is accessible, nor in the accessible part of Rogers. Would it have been possible to place the three citation marks so that one could have better WP:INTEGRITY?

It would, and I often do, but I would then get reviewers forcefully requesting me to group cites at the ends of sentences for reader friendliness. Eg "Several intrusive reference placements, never been a massive fan of mid-sentence refs when I firmly believe that readers can wait until the end of a clause before getting linked up to the info they might need."
I see. You are surely right.Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 44, "Rogers 2014, p. 341, 341, n.70". I suppose "n70" means "note 70"? I do not think it is necessary to abbreviate. Why not "note 70" (or should it be "Note 70?"). I cannot know what is in the source because the PDF given for Rogers stops a page 272, and page 341 is therefore not accessible.
Sorry, my ignorance again. Apologies, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found that User:Buidhe used "fn." for footnote in her FA Genocide denial, "Armenian genocide" section, 3rd paragraph, end-of-paragraph citation: {{sfn|Avedian|2012|p=814 fn. 102}}. Does that create a precedent to follow? With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think any of these options is ok, as long as its consistent. I've seen n., fn., and written out, or just giving the page number the note is on. (t · c) buidhe 09:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second Siege
edit
I feel that it is seldom helpful to mention the names of historians in the main text of Wikipedia history articles.
I am inclined to disagree. (Obviously, otherwise I wouln't have done it. Could you point me to specific examples where you feel it inappropriate?

Exceptions are probably disputes between notable historians, especially when the opinions of these historians are quoted in the main text. Jonathan Sumption is notable (article), but Fowler has no article.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Sumption probably has an article because he later became a supreme court judge. Wikipedia notability has little to do with whether they constitute a reliable source - see WP:RS.


Artillery? The Wikipedia article Artillery maintains that the defenders used a cannon during the Siege of Breteuil: "Cannons were only useful for the defense of a castle, as demonstrated at Breteuil in 1356, when the besieged English used a cannon to destroy an attacking French assault tower.[13]". It provides a citation Lee (2008). The text is a bit wrong as the Navarrese, not the English defended the castle. Druon also mentions the use of artillery: "Messire de Lancastre avait laissé des bouches de canon à Sanche Lopez ..." (https://archive.org/details/lesroismauditsro0000druo/page/1515/). He seems to take this from Froissart who writes "Si s'étoient pourvus selon ce de canons, jetant feu et grands gros carreaux pour tout dérompre." (https://archive.org/details/chroniquesdefro17froigoog/page/n161/ p. 153). It seems therefore quite sure that the siege is an example of early use of artillery, which I think is worthwhile mentioning.
Artillery was fairly common at the time. In my FA on the Siege of Berwick (1333) I note it as the "the first town in the British Isles to be bombarded by cannon". By 1356 they were too commonly used to be classed as unusual. Plus, a source I consider much more authoritative states that the tower was destroyed by flaming arrows.
Do you think that source has proven Froissart wrong? I wondered whether perhaps bothg versions should be presented. But please accept my apologies for having maintained it was unusual. You have demonstrated my ignorance and proven me wrong. But why is the Siege of Breteuil then mentioned in the article Artillery?Johannes Schade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the source for that claim, which is Military Technologies of the World. A very broad brush work. See the contents page here. You can see, I think, why I prefer the opinion of a specialist in the period. Perhaps the author of MTotW was a fan of Froissart and mistook him for a reliable source; who knows?
Aftermath
edit
Should not the date of the Battle of Poitiers be given? This was the 19 September 1356, only a month after the fall of Breteuil.
Added.
Sources
edit

The first two of the four volumes of Sumption's "The Hundred Years War" can be read at Internet Archive. Their descriptions in the source list should therefore include URLs. Thus:

Done.

The ISBNs are given in these two books have 10 digits. The ISBNs in the source list of the article all have 13 digits. It seems that ISBN-10s have been converted to ISBN-13s. The how-to guide (WP:ISBN) says "However, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it." The template documentation for Cite book says "Use the ISBN actually printed on or in the book." Is there somewhere a guideline that prescribes the 10 -> 13 conversion?

Not that I am aware of. WP:ISBN notes at the top that "[i]t is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting."

I feel that volume numbers should be Arabic, even if the books gives them in Roman. We do not give publication years in Roman, even if many older books do so.

I disagree. The volume number is part of the title. It is not our job to unilaterally change the titles because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Further reading
edit

It might be useful to indicate under "Further reading" that the Siege of Breteuil is described in the 7th volume, "Quand un roi perd la France", of the "Rois maudits" (The Accursed Kings) by Maurice Druon. Read at: https://archive.org/details/lesroismauditsro0000druo. It might even be OK to cite Druon despite being a work of fiction.

It is absolutely and completely NOT ok to include a work of fiction. As for citing to one, words literally fail me.

Please forgive my excesses, often I am not sure what is good usage in Wikipedia and take the occasion to learn. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That could be great to include in a "cultural depictions" or legacy section if there are secondary sources covering the work's treatment of the siege, but I would not put a fiction book in further reading and certainly wouldn't cite it. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not, with very rare exceptions, believe "Culture" sections are appropriate or helpful in historical articles. When I start work on an existing article one of the first things I do is remove any such already there.
Already covered I think.
Hi Johannes Schade and apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I have addressed your review comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Will take this one on. Hog Farm Talk 14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all reliable for what they are citing, and a reasonable breadth of the academic views on the subject seems to be reflected. The sources appear to be formatted correctly, although Michael Prestwich can be linked since you're linking authors. Everything that I would expect to be sourced is sourced. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Léon Degrelle

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Léon Degrelle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is an article is about an infamous turncoat, Nazi collaborator, and later apologist - Léon Degrelle, a traitor to his God, his country, and to history. Degrelle began his professional life as a student and journalist, quickly becoming the biggest name in Belgian far-right politics. Thereafter, he became a big name in European far-right politics. And after joining the Wehrmacht and then Waffen-SS, and escaping to Spain in the death throes of the Nazi empire, world far-right politics. I am nominating this article for A-class now on the path to FA. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Brigade Piron

edit

Many thanks for your work on this article. I hope I am still sufficiently objective to be able to highlight issues for improvement. Some thoughts below.

  • Use of minor sources: I think there are a number of sources currently used in the article which may owe more to their online availability than because of their relevance to the article. This isn't a criticism of the writers - I certainly do the same myself - but does suggest that some of the more important sources on which these are based have not been consulted and this may become an issue at A/FA stage. I have particularly in mind:
  1. Goodrick-Clarke: currently used for three factual citations with little obvious relevance to the subject of his book.
  2. Black: Cited only once, and apparently superfluous anyway.
  3. Knegt: Cited only once, again, on a purely factual point with little obvious relevance to its subject.
  • Sections: I was involved in selecting the current section titles in the current sections for "Political agitation in German-occupied Belgium, 1940–1941" and "Eastern Front, 1941–1945". Although I cannot think of anything better, I think the current solution is a little awkward and a better division of these sections and sub-sections might be found - I would welcome thoughts on this.

More to follow. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Goodrick-Clarke and Black and will a fully reading of Knegt how many more times it can be cited in this article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Knegt as well now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: Any additional comments? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vami, thanks for this. I do have some reservations about the "Political Agitation in German-occupied Belgium" section. I think if the content from the period immediately after the German invasion of Belgium was migrated into it, it might gain a kind of coherence. At the moment, it is predominantly descriptive narrative and not particularly encyclopedic? —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've also moved the quote box, but in all likelihood I will swap its location with the Rex flag's as the quotebox doesn't really fit where it is presently. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding. With the caveat that I have made edits myself to address my earlier comment about the structuring, I support the nom! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Will take a look at this soon, give me a ping if I forget (which happens so much more often after that concussion last winter). Hog Farm Talk 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord, sorry to hear about the concussion. Hope you're healing up well aside from the memory impairment. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It happened back in (I think) February, doing fine except for that and some later afternoon drowsiness. I don't know the exact concussion count for me because I didn't see a doctor for official confirmation a couple times I should have, but three is probably a good guess. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after his failure at Namur, Degrelle was admitted into the prestigious Catholic University of Leuven to read law" - Is the link on law necessary?
  • "a small Catholic publishing house named after the popular youth cult of Christ the King, in 1930" - Maybe this is because I'm Baptist and am not as familiar with Catholic terminology as I ought to be, but the link goes to the specific title of Christ. Is there an organization intended to be linked to, or is this referring to a practice of youth showing particular attention to that title/attribute?
  • "In mid-1935, Degrelle morphed Christus Rex into the Rexist Party (Rex),[20] an authoritarian, populist, and strongly clerical faction" - is it worth establishing here that it was part of the far right?
  • I'm finding it a bit unclear from the article exactly when he became openly anti-Semitic. Was this when he began meeting with the Nazis, or did it start earlier?
  • "Following the January declaration, the German military administration" - the German military administration was already linked at the top of the political agitation section
  • Auschwitz is overlinked in the Holocaust denial section

I think that's all my comments. Degrelle is one of the most odious people I've ever read about. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

edit

Claiming my seat here. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was a ringing defeat of the Catholic Party,[28] which lost a significant amount of its voters to Rex,[29] but as such owed much to protest votes against the Catholic Party.[30] So the votes for Rex were mostly protest votes against the Catholic Party and not on the Rex Party's merits? Could be slightly reworded for clarity?
  • Degrelle's momentum was decisively broken, and though he provoked Van Zeeland's resignation in October 1937, Due to the finance scandal?
  • How did Rex conclude an agreement concerning the merging and recognition of its party without the consultation of its leaders?
    • Ah. I worded that badly. The answer is because the Flemish branch was pretty much already amputated from the main party, and the Germans had 0 time at all for Degrelle or any of his designs. So they cut him and Rex totally out of the talks. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • by the end of the year he was persuaded to name the Walloons a Germanic people. Did Degrelle sincerely believe that Walloons were Germanic, or was he just playing politics within Germany's nonscientific racial ideology for his own benefit?
    • Degrelle only ever played the game to advance his own agenda; I cannot say for certain that he did not buy into SS hocus pocus, however, as none of my sources say as much. Himmler never trusted Degrelle, though, and perhaps that is telling.
  • On 8 July, Degrelle's brother, Edouard, was shot and killed in his pharmacy in their hometown. Has it been factually determined whether this was an act of political violence or simply a random act?
  • On 15 May Madrid contacted London about deporting him, but not back to Belgium. In response, Brussels, which made Degrelle's repatriation and prosecution a top priority, asked for British and American support in talks with Spain. Washington and London were ambivalent about the matter, however, as Degrelle had not been named a war criminal by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, but were moved into an active role in June by Belgian protests. Better to refer to the relevant governments directly rather than use place metonymy.
  • Since he ultimately lost the libel case, was he forced to pay any money?
  • More just a question of curiosity, but did Degrelle have anything to say about the Royal Question (including the murder of Julien Lahaut) or the end of the Belgian colonial empire (including the Congo Crisis)? Both were moments of some note in mainstream Belgian politics, or was he more concerned with more niche neo-Nazi causes by the 1950s and 1960s?
    • In my reading (mostly English sources), I saw no mention or discussion of either topic beyond the fact that the King wanted absolutely nothing to do with Degrelle. And I don't know if he found time between writing and publishing screeds denying the Shoah or German war crimes to write more of them about the collapse of the Belgium Empire. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

edit

Buidhe

edit

Source review - pass

edit
D'oh! I forgot that Himmler was the Reichsführer!
  • In "Degrelle and a party of Rexists interrupted a meeting of Catholic Party leaders at Kortrijk, denounced them as corrupt and ineffective" "denounced them as corrupt and ineffective" is cited to page 143 of Conway 1990. Conway does support Degrelle thus denouncing, but not, as suggested in the article, during a specific meeting. Or I have missed it. Could you either clarify how you are reading the source or tweak the article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Johannes Schade (talk)

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to improve the quality of this article to FA-level and my FA-mentor, Gog the Mild, recommends to submit it to Military History A-Class first. Johannes Schade (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right off the bat I am seeing issues with collapsed templates and WP:DONTHIDE. Besides, some of the detailed genealogy info in such templates may be duplicative, WP:UNDUE, or better presented in a different format such as prose. For FA status, you will need an inline citation for all content, such as "Donough and his siblings grew up to be Catholics." (t · c) buidhe 08:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Buidhe. I wondered why you deleted the Timeline and the two collapsed family trees under MOS:DONTHIDE, but left the two collapsed tables listing his brothers and sisters? Did you just forget to delete them or are there reasons? MOS:DONTHIDE seems to have exceptions. Some FAs comprise collapsed Ahnentafels and navboxes. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an article that cites many sources, it can be helpful to organize the "sources" section by type of source in order to aid navigation. You can see an example at The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia#Sources, a featured article (this is optional). (t · c) buidhe 08:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Buidhe. I followed your advice and subdivided into "Books" and "Journal articles". I find it makes it more difficult to find a source. I remember them by author. Now I have two lists to search through alphabetically or must remember whether this source was in a book or in a journal. In addition MOS:APPENDIX says that "Books" should be a level 3 heading. The one in The_Holocaust_in_Slovakia is level 4 (==== Books ====). I once tried a similar subdivision scheme and was called to order by another user because "See also" had become a level 3. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found it was Nikkimaria who objected to the heading Appendices, but I have read up and though and think I understand. There is no problem with ==== Books ====. I agopted the way how Gog the Mild does his reference headinsg and adopted that for Donough. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes have been improvements but I am still seeing many OR/SYNTH issues. For instance, "His father carries the distinctive epithet "oge",[29] which is anglicised from Irish óg, young.[30]" the sources seem to say that his father's epithet was "oge" (although you should probably remove "distinctive") and that Irish word óg means "young", but no source that says his father's epithet comes from the Irish word or is anglicized. Therefore, this is WP:SYNTH. (t · c) buidhe 02:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Buidhe. Please understand me right: I appreciate your efforts and your input has already improved the article. However, do you seriously doubt the origin, derivation, or meaning of the epithet? At that level of scrutiny, the 322 citations will explode into thousands (if they can be found). Donough stands at 16 words per citation. Your FA "Holocaust in Slovakia" has 23w/c, Gog's "Battle of Inverkeithing" 44w/c. Of course, we can always delete: the only good Indian is a dead Indian. I do not speak Irish, perhaps you do. Isn't "buidhe" from Irish (or Scottish Gaelic) buí (yellow)?. I will ask an(other) Irish-speaking Wikipedian for advice. This problem must have arisen before. Thanks, best regards and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My username is indeed Scottish Gaelic buidhe which can mean "yellow" but also "glad, grateful, fortunate, or lucky"[13] I can speak Scottish Gaelic (not Irish) although am a bit rusty atm. Knowing what I do about Gaelic languages I am confident that the epithet "oge" does indeed come from Goidelic "óg", but that doesn't exempt me from WP:NOR policy and the need to cite reliable sources for all statements in the article. It doesn't matter exactly how many refs you have per text as long as all content is directly supported by the sources, rather than inferences you have made. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Buidhe. I think that we agree that the missing citation is the one that demonstrates that the "oge" in the English "stands in for", or "is" the Irish "óg". I have consulted User Guliolopez, who like you objects to "distinctive epithet". He says "oge" is a generational suffix. So I changed "distinctive epithet" -> generational suffix. He referred me to some articles about people named with Oge: Conn Oge O'Donnell, Donn Óge Mag Oireachtaigh, Niall Oge O'Neill, and Rory Oge O'More. Unluckily they are starts or stubs. The problem does not seem to have been solved before. The article "Suffix (name)" explains "In Irish, 'óg' (young), sometimes anglicised as 'oge', may be used to distinguish two related people who might otherwise have the same name.[10]". This article cites the Irish dictionary in [10] and cites it with the quote "Óg adj (in names): Séamas Óg; James Junior [..] óg adj. young; junior" in the note. So I changed to this more specific and adequate note-quote. Guliolopez also suggested to simply delete. It seems that many WP:NOR discussions end in deletions that make the article worse. The reader, I feel, e.g. a Japanese one, in an A-class article deserves an explanation of "oge". WP:NOR is not the only requirement. The subject must also be understandable and sufficiently covered. How should the Nigerian reader be supposed to understand "Cormac Oge" without an explanation? I added another citation but it is not very good. I will try a bit more. Johannes Schade (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2021
  • Dear Buidhe. I am on a learning curve. Until now I had not really seen Wikipedia writing under that angle. Now I see that in addition to having the reader in mind, I must also consider available citations and keep close but not too close to the wording found in the citations (but beware of WP:CLOP). I added about 30 citations since the beginning of this review. For example, the latest addition is in Section "Honours and Parliaments", 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence where it says "religious freedom". This is the only citation in this sentence. It did not have a citation before. I took the citation from Wallace (1973) because of concerns about the antiquity of my sources. I could have taken a similar one from Cusack (1871). Does the citation fully support the sentence? e.g. I wrote "religious freedom", Wallace just said "religion". Do I need a second citation to cover "freedom" (using a different source protects against WP:CLOP)? Should I change my wording, or delete? The treatment of the Graces in Cusack and in Wallace is very similar. It looks to me as if there are no new insights due to "later scholarship" in Wallace in this regard. Should the later source always be preferred? Am I doing the right thing? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Buidhe. I am not so sure I understand your latest edit this morning 04:12 12 March 2021 with the edit summary "this still appears to need citatino". What a ghostly time to work! I believe you are in England. Having been pinged by BlueMoonset with regard to DYK, you moved your {{cn}} from section "Restoration and death", last paragraph, end of last sentence, to the middle of that same sentence. The sentence now reads, "The succession then reverted to the 1st Earl's second son,[citation needed] Callaghan, who succeeded as the 3rd Earl of Clancarty.[358]" The history to this is that you added the {{cn}} at the end of this sentence at 14:25 27 February 2021 when there was no citation in this place. I added a citation at 10:02, 28 February 2021 and hoped you would check the citation, find it adequate, and remove your {{cn}}, which I respectfully left there. Instead, this morning, you moved it to the middle of the sentence as described. Do you really mean that this sentence needs a second citation in this place? His son Callaghan appears, as should be, in the list of his sons with a citation that says he is the second son. Should I repeat it here? If you feel it would be better I will of course do so. It is easy enough. However, WP:WTC says "If the article mentions the fact repeatedly, it suffices to cite it once" and WP:CITEKILL talks about "needless repetition". Perhaps it does not apply in this case? With many thanks for your effort and patience, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I don't think we're in the same time zone. I'm not seeing the assertion about "second son" clearly stated in the source, but perhaps it's there and I just don't understand the format. If you think it is adequately cited, please feel free to remove the tag. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Buidhe. Thanks for the remark. I had another look at the citation for "second son". Cokayne (1913) says "CALLAGHAN (MACCARTY) EARL OF CLANCARTY etc [I.], uncle and h., being 2nd s. of the 1st Earl." using abbreviations "h." and "s." I suppose that your remark about "format" refers to these abbreviations. I will therefore explain such abbreviations in all the genealogical quotes, changing the above quotation to "CALLAGHAN (MACCARTY) EARL OF CLANCARTY etc [I.], uncle and h. [heir], being 2nd s. [son] of the 1st Earl." I hope I understand you right. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Reserving a spot. Some quick first thoughts.

  • A lot of information seems to lack referencing. Eg several notes; three of the four paragraphs in "Restoration, death, and timeline" don't end with citations. This last gives me pause regarding the source to text accuracy of the rest of these paragraphs where a lack of adequate referencing would not be so obvious.
  • The age, I could say antiquity, of the majority of the sources also gives me pause. I am not ruling out a 1779 or 1789 source per se, or even 1689, but when 57 sources are more than a century old I have to ask if there are not more recent replacements for at least some of them. Having recently taken two articles from this period to FAC I sympathise, but it does not seem to me that the latest scholarship, of which there is quite a bit, has been fully represented. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Gog the Mild. You are of course right: the latest scholarship should be included, but how is this done? Their books and articles sit in ivory towers behind pay-walls or can be consulted only in the big libraries of the capital, or perhaps at Universities. I am not an academic and live in Bangor Northern Ireland. I have the impression neither I, nor my Nigerian reader can read what today's scholars write. I looked at your FA "Battle of Inverkeithing". Nice article, beautiful young sources, 21 one them, the oldest from 1954. But, except the one website, I cannot click and read any of them. Websites have their own problems, as we know. Donough has 100 sources, books, some articles. Antiques, I admit, but they can all be clicked and read in Internet Archive, Google Books, JSTOR or elsewhere on the web, even by my Nigerian friend. How did you find and where did you read these 20 opaque sources? With many thanks and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was recently asked a similar question on my talk page, to which I responded:

    I never do serious work on an article unless I own a hardback RS which covers it. Often several. This or these frequently serve as the "spine" of the article. After that Google Scholar is helpful, as is Academia. Google Books can be very helpful - sometimes - if you know how to use it, but time consuming. Sometimes books oft cited on Wikipedia or in other books or articles can be useful. Unfortunately the chaff to wheat ratio is high, one reason I like to write several articles from a similar period - to maximise the output to input. And the more articles I write on a period, the more books on it I stumble across and a virtuous cycle emerges.

    For example, click for access to Woolrych or here for Ashley. My article - if you look closely at the sourcing - uses The Civil Wars: a Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660 a lot - £7.04 on AbeBooks with free deivery. I also recommend getting access to JSTOR via TWL, and scouring the Internet Archive. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only needed a very few hardcopy materials for the articles I've written and brought up to good and featured status, although that has a lot to do with the topics that I write about. The vast majority of the academic papers and books I've cited can be accessed with TWL and/or by volunteers at RX. (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Gog the Mild. Thanks for good and kind advice. I try to run my hobby on a zero budget. I will look for more recent sources. If I find the same information in an older and in a younger source, which should be cited (e.g. DNB vs. ODNB)? Is it worthwhile (improves the article) to replace an older with a younger source to support the same fact? You remark that "57 sources are more than a century old"; can you please define this in terms of a goal to attain like "reduce the number of >100 years old source to less than 25" or to "less than 50% of the sources" or "Cite at least 20 sources less than 10 years old" or whatever make sense for you. At present the article uses 112 sources with an average publication date of 1917, meaning that more than half of them are >100. Looking around in FAs of aristocratic biographies I find not more than 25% of such old sources, e.g. in Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I allow myself up to £5 a month, but rarely go near £60 a year. Well now, what you are trying to cover at A class is "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". So for many basic facts - eg a date of birth - an elderly source may be fine. And a non-exhaustive look at this article suggests that the sources have been used judiciously. The problem is that one doesn't know what new knowledge has been published if one hasn't looked at many more recent sources. Anything startling can probably be spotted via the likes of Academia and JSTOR. Often what changes the the centuries is the tone, which is a bit ineffable. I am loath to attempt to apply an arbitrary target to this.
Bear in mind that many FAs promoted ten or more years ago are currently being reviewed. See the list of former featured articles. So many of those you are looking at may not be up to current FAC standards. Sourcing is frequently an issue. Eg note this exchange. Note that for FAC the requirement is "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".
So the question for a wannabe FAC is not so much one of statistics, as has most of the (modern) scholarship been covered in the article?
I am not sure how much this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Wise. You are spot on and very helpful. You bring us back to where we should be. Luckily, in this case I can give an answer: the latest scholarship central to the subject is found in the article "Donough MacCarthy" of the Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB), published in 2009 (on paper) and also online. If there were any significant advance since 2009, it should theoretically be found in the online version, which is cited in the article. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Mild. There are now 140 sources, 81 146 sources, 80 140 sources, 71 of them >100 years old. What is outstanding? Or do you feel there are still so many problems that I should retract the candidate? With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Mild. I have replaced some more "old" (>100 years) sources with "new" (<100 years) ones. The old ones are now a minority (68 of the 141). I believe I covered modern scholarship among others in form of 6 DIB and 16 ODNB articles. I hope I have now complied with your "age" objection. What is outstanding? Or do you feel there are still so many problems that I should retract the candidate? With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, did you want to continue/complete this review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Break
edit
  • "He rebelled against Charles I, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, demanding religious freedom as a Catholic and defended the rights of the Gaelic nobility in the Irish Catholic Confederation, but later supported the king against his parliamentarian enemies in the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, a part of the Wars of the three kingdoms, also known as the British Civil War." This is an overly long sentence, perhaps best split into two, or even three.
    • Split in two.
  • "He sat as a member of parliament in the House of Commons of the Irish parliaments of 1634–1635 and 1640–1649 where he opposed Strafford, Charles I's authoritarian chief governor,[b] and in 1641 contributed to the governor's fall. In 1642 when the rebellion reached his estates in Munster, he joined the Irish Catholic Confederates, sat on their Supreme Council, and fought in the Irish Confederate Wars against the government." Likewise.
    • Split in two.
  • "the peace of 1646 between the Confederates and the king." Upper case K.
    • Done
  • "a medieval Prince of Desmond." Lower case p.
    • Done
  • "as will be seen further down." Delete.
    • Done
  • "("possibly an idiot")" I am not sure that this is best in brackets and the MoS states that for quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
    • The source says "living (possibly an idiot) at this time". Dropped the quotation, replaced by "probably insane". What do you think?
  • "He possibly had been married once before and had a son". Then both are given as a fact "this first marriage and this son are ignored by the major genealogical sources. So were they "possible", or definite but ignored?
    • This marriage is mentioned by O'Hart only, who gives us neither the name of the woman nor that of the the child, but the story has the ring of truth. I changed to give it as definitive based on this source.
  • "His marriage with Eleanor made him". "with → 'to'.
    • Done
  • "Donough and Eleanor had five children, three sons:" Don't give them as a list, put them in prose. (I know, but the MoS insists.)
    • Does it? Without doubt you know the MOS much better than I do, but MOS:LIST has a section about "embedded lists" (lists appearing in a text) so they are not forbidden in all cases. MOS:LIST mentions the case of works of an author (Charles Dickens has a long list of works). It then discusses list vs. prose on an example of skyscrapers. The one does not exclude the other. I present the children in a list, but of course they also appear in the prose in events concerning them, e.g. the daughters at the time when he arranges marriages for them. The FA (29 Sep 2018) Caroline of Ansbach presents her children in a table. I still regret that other important list, the timetable, that Buidhe deleted right at the beginning. I often would like to consult it to quickly verify by date what happened when, without wading through the prose. But then I remember: it's not there any more. Thanks for all your efforts, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—and two daughters". Likewise.
  • "He was elected as one of the two "knights of the shire", as county MPs were then called,[112] for Cork County[7] in the Parliament of 1634–1635,[113] the first of Charles I." Mention somewhere that this was the Irish parliament.
    • Done
  • "all pomp". Suggest being specific or deleting.
    • Deleted
  • "who had taken up office in July 1633." Delete "up".
    • Deleted
  • "as King James I had created more than 30 pocket boroughs to that effect". What does "to that effect" mean?
    • From the French "à cet effet". Deleted and rephrased by inserting "Protestant".
  • "concede certain rights to the Irish Catholics against payment." Could "against payment" be rephrased in modern English?
    • Replaced with "if paid well enough"
  • "had agreed upon a list of 51 articles". "upon" → 'on'.
    • Done (I removed "list of", which is needless).
  • "(about £23,800,000 today)" I assume that this is not in the 2006 source given? If not, give your source. And don't use "today", give a specific year. (To future proof the article.) Likewise for similar cases later.
    • As you guessed rightly, I have no source for "(about £23,800,000 today)". I invoked the Inflation template by "(about £{{Inflation}} today)", but had a very poor understaning of the template's use. Having read up better, I corrected to "(about £{{Inflation}} in {{Inflation/year}})[1]", which I hope might find your approval. Thanks for querying. This is important.
  • "The Graces had been proclaimed, and a first instalment had been paid." Why the change in tense? From "was" in the previous sentence to "had" here.
  • "The Graces had been proclaimed, and a first instalment had been paid." (2) When?
    • 1628 added a citation from Gillespie 2006. However, perhaps I go into too much detail here. Sir Donough seems to have been just a backbencher in this parliament. Wikipedia has articles about the [[Graces]] and the Parliament 1634/5 albeit both still at Start class.
  • "while Wentworth was apprehensive of the demands that would be made on him in this regard." I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
    • The source uses the word "apprehension"; changed to "while Wentworth expected trouble when he refused". Further away from the source but more understandable.
  • "despite having become a baronet" → 'despite his having become a baronet'.
    • Done. My English here shows that it is 2nd language.
  • "Strafford (i.e. Wentworth)". Should this not come at the mentions of Strafford in the previous paragraph?
    • Moved the reminder about the name change to the previous paragraph where it appears now as "Strafford, as Wentworth was now called,".

References

  1. ^ UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved May 7, 2024.
Break 2
edit
  • Link Impeachment.
    • Done
  • "He had to quit his seat in the House of Commons". Perhaps a footnote explaining why?
    • Added "The advancement made him lose"
  • "Lord Muskerry would be his name for 16 eventful years". Delete "eventful".
    • Deleted the whole sentence as too talkative and off the strict chronological order.
  • "On 3 March 1641, the lords replaced Sir Donough's father as member of the lords' delegation in London with Thomas Roper, 2nd Viscount Baltinglass. On 22 March Strafford's trial before". Either put commas after dates or don't, but be consistent.
    • Removed the comma.
  • " the lords replaced Sir Donough's father as member of the lords' delegation in London ... On 22 March Strafford's trial before the House of Lords began". This gives the clear impression that Strafford's trial was before the Irish House of Lords. Was this the case?
    • Added "at Westminster"
  • "This eleven years' war" → 'These'.
  • "Wars of the three kingdoms". Upper case T and K.
    • Done
  • "an armed force of his tenants and dependants attempting to maintain law and order." Delete "attempting".
    • Done
  • Link citadel, bastion and mines.
  • "The Confederates had rebelled against the government." Delete. We know this. It happened several paragraphs ago.
  • "when the King would regain control." → 'when the King regained control.'
    • Done
  • Cite 126, and probably others: the MoS states "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis."
    • Thank you very much for telling me I wondered about this.
      • Done
  • Is a "save-conduct" the same as a safe-conduct?
    • Should have been safe-conduct.
      • Done
  • "and oblivion for their rebellion". Would something like 'a full amnesty' be better than "oblivion"?
    • Yes it would.
      • Done
  • "Inchiquin declared for the Parliament". Delete "the".
    • Done
  • "He decided to step up the help for the Irish Catholic Confederates." Do we have any details as to what form this help took?
    • He sent the nuncio with weapons and money as is explained in the sentences that follow immediately after this statement.
  • "the pope Urban VIII" → 'Pope Urban VIII'.
    • Done
  • "Their 11-year old eldest son Charles was also present at this occasion." Delete "at this occasion."
    • Done
  • "Bristol had fallen in 1645". Give the month.
  • "The Confederates armies therefore kept their full strength." I don't see how this follows from the foregoing. As the first sentence of a section it sits even more awkwardly.
    • Prepended "As the Confederates sent no troops to the King,". Is this WP:SYNTH? I have no citation for it. We are allowed to use routine calculation but apparently no logic deductions, even if simple enough.
  • "They got pay and weapons from the nuncio that enabled the Ulster army to win the Battle of Benburb over the Covenanters on 5 June 1646." "got" → 'obtained'; "over" → 'against'.
    • Done
  • "The Confederates lacked however the money to pay the army." Move "however" to the start of the sentence.
    • Deleted
  • "Muskerry replaced Glamorgan end of May" → 'Muskerry replaced Glamorgan at the end of May'.
    • Done
  • "Rinuccini came end of June" → 'Rinuccini arrived at the end of June'.
    • Done
  • "However, when on 1 July 1646 a chance shot through a window killed the Parliamentarian commander,[341] Muskerry pressed on[342] and the castle capitulated on 14 July.[343][344] The garrison was evacuated to Cork by the Parliamentarian Navy.[345]" Run this on from the previous paragraph.
    • Done
  • "Link capitulated.
    • Done
  • "on 28 March 1646 and on 20 July 1646." Remove the first "1646".
    • Done
  • "Muskerry got it ratified". Perhaps a little more detail on this?
    • I will have to ask you some time for this. I will need one or more additional citations
      • A new citation From Dunlop in the Cambridge Modern History shows that the ratification was by a vote in the Supreme council. Changed the text to clarify this.
  • "However, Rinuccini objected to this peace". Suddenly a lot of "however"s. Suggest removing this one.
    • Done
  • Delete "not surprisingly".
    • Done
  • "He replaced Muskerry with Glamorgan". "He" → 'Rinuccini'.
    • Done
  • "a Catholic garrison into Dublin". Remove "into Dublin".
    • Deleted as Muskerry was not involved.
  • "Ormond refused. However, O'Neill had to abandon the siege soon afterwards due to a lack of cooperation between him and Preston." → 'Ormond refused but O'Neill abandoned the siege soon afterwards due to a lack of cooperation between him and Preston.'
    • Deleted. Rereading myself I found I let myself go in general Irish history that is not directly relevant to the subject.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3
edit
  • "where the troops acclaimed him as their leader; this was called the mutiny." The last five words don't really make sense to me. Why "the" mutiny? Then there is no follow up.
    • Changed to "a" and explained the context better but probably need another citation.
  • "where the troops acclaimed him as their leader". So did he actually become leader?
    • Added a sentence and citation from Warner showing that he did.
  • "He submitted a remonstrance against Owen Roe O'Neill." Who is he?
    • Deleted
  • "he was forced to resign from the command". How - by what/whom.
    • Reformulated. The Supreme Council did.
  • "but only for a few days to save the form." What is a (the) "form"?
    • Reformulated. ... to show that the mutiny had been suppressed.
  • Sometimes you use 3000, sometimes 2,000. Is there a reason for the apparent inconsistency?
    • Will use comma separators only >= 10,000
  • "to Queen Henrietta Maria in her court in exile". "in her" → 'at her'.
    • Done
  • "On 3 April 1648 N.S." Don't use NS. Use one style cosistently throughout (whichever the RSs tend towards) if necessary explaining in a footnote. (See note 1 of Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) for an example.
    • Done. Beautiful article, the Finisterre. Converted to O.S. (in the footquote Corish, 1976, gives the date in N.S., breaking your rule).
  • "a Catholic Lord Lieutenant should be appointed"; "to appoint Ormond as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland". Lower case Ls.
    • Done
  • "He returned to Ireland in June to prepare for Ormond's return, who landed at Cork on 29 September 1648." Bad grammar. Maybe 'He returned to Ireland in June to prepare for Ormond's return; Ormond landed at Cork on 29 September 1648.'?
    • Done
  • "Muskerry was made Irish Lord High Admiral and President". Lower case L, H, A and P.
    • Done
  • "and the power handed to". 'and power handed to'?
    • Done
  • "On 30 January 1649, Charles I was beheaded". Link to Execution of Charles I.
    • Deleted the sentence as stuffing not directly relevant to the subject.
  • "The Nuncio left Ireland on 23 February 1649.[399] On 2 August 1649". No need to repeat the year after the first mentio in a paragraph.
    • Done. Thank you very much for the rule, which I did not know. Deleted the sentence as stuffing not directly relevant to the subject. It is in Giovanni Battista Rinuccini.
  • "On 3 April 1648, Inchiquin changed sides ... who landed at Cork on 29 September 1648 ... In November 1648 he signed". Similarly.
    • Done
  • "to pay off some of the Parliament's debts". Insert 'English'.
    • Done
  • "Muskerry fought the last three years of this campaign in Munster". If you are going to use this phrasing, you need to have already stated when the campaign ended.
  • "to hurry back to England where the Third English Civil War had started." This conflict is not known as "the Third English Civil War", see English invasion of Scotland (1650). And it started when Cromwell led the New Model Army into Scotland, not while he was still in Ireland.
  • "Muskerry disbanded his 5,000 men strong army." Delete "men" and insert a hyphen.
    • Done
  • "He returned to Ireland late in 1653 to recruit". For whom or what? (The Venetians?)
    • I found no source that explains his purpose.
  • "At the trial". "the" → 'his'.
    • Done
  • "having been responsible for murders of English settlers in 1642 at three occasions" → 'having been responsible for the murders of English settlers in 1642 on three occasions'.
    • Done
  • Break up the subsequent sentence.
    • Done
  • "the killing of a man and a woman unknown" → 'the killing of an unnamed man and woman'.
    • Done
  • "again allowed to embark to Spain" → 'again allowed for embark to Spain'.
    • 'again allowed for embark to Spain' sounds strange to me. I assumed you mean to correct my 'embark to Spain' -> 'embark for Spain'.
  • "again allowed to embark to Spain". What 5,000 Irish? They seem to spring from nowhere. Were they following him around while he visited his relatives?
    • I found no source that traces the origin of these 5000.
  • "as he was called now" → 'as he was now called'.
    • Changed to "as he now was". I follow in this Woolrych (2002) e.g. p 132 “Lord Finch, as he now was, had dealt …”.
  • "and were compensated if found necessary and as far as possible". Is it possible to be more precise?
    • Deleted
  • "3rd or the fourth". Be consistent.
    • Done
  • "but these works could also have been conducted by". "conducted" → 'carried out'.
    • Deleted
  • "His eldest son, now the Lord Muskerry". Delete "the".
    • Done
  • "The elder, Helen, married first John FitzGerald of Dromana as his second wife after the first wife, Katharine, daughter of John Power, 5th Baron Curraghmore, had died in 1660;[488] and secondly William Burke, 7th Earl of Clanricarde." Is it known when either of these took place?
    • I found no sources that give more exact dates.
  • "as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland". Both Ls should be lower case.
    • Done
  • "Clancarty became the proxy of Lord Inchiquin". Explain briefly in line what this meant.
    • Done
  • "Lord Clancarty sat on the committee that ... Lord Clancarty submitted" etc. Just 'Clancarty' after first mention.
    • Done
  • "On 11 December 1662, the lords passed". Upper case L.
    • Done
  • "had seen to it that Clancarty received last rites from a Catholic priest". "had seen" → 'saw'.
    • Reformulated: called in a Catholic priest

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
edit

I am doing a little copy editing as I go. Shout if anything alarms.

  • "Wentworth's (later Strafford's) title was first Lord Deputy and then Lord Lieutenant." Lower case titles.
    • Done
  • "Her age can be deduced as it is known that she died in April 1682 aged 70." This doesn't make sense. Her age is known because it is known?
    • Changed to "Her age when she married (about 20) can be deduced as John Lodge states that she died in April 1682 aged 70."
  • "Fermoy and Muskerry were both viscounts". Link viscount.
    • Done
  • Note t: link Second Anglo-Dutch War.
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild. I was astonished to see "variously" added. I think, if it had been there, you or another editor would have removed it as "superfluous" in the interest of a terse, concise, sober, encyclopedic style. In Wiktionary the word is exemplified by "My caravan served variously as a changing room, office and bedroom". There also "My caravan served as a changing room, office and bedroom" seems to be good enough. However, if you feel it is an improvement, so it is. Perhaps it is just my poor 2nd-language English. With many thanks for your patience with this long-running review. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk)

Hi Johannes, I am starting into what I hope will be a final run through. Where I can I will copy edit directly into the article, but please feel free to flag up here any changes you disagree with or don't see why I have made. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sir Donough" Just 'Donough' after first mention.
MOS:SURNAME says "Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name; exceptions include royalty, e.g. Prince Charles or Charles". That is why I did not drop the Sir, but I think you are right. They just forgot to add this as another exception. Perhaps you have enough influence to have this added.
Done
Then use his surname, or his title at the time (as you do elsewhere). It is the occasional use of "Sir" which should be avoided.
Dear Gog the Mild. If my use of "Sir" was consistent. I changed his name whenever he was advanced. I called him "Donough" at birth and in the context of his parents and siblings, then "MacCarty" as an adult, then when he was knighted in 1634 I called him Sir Donough MacCarty on 1st use, then "Sir Donough". I did not change when he was made a baronet. When in 1641 he succeeded his father, I called him 2nd Viscount Muskerry on 1st use and "Muskerry" thereafter until when in 1658 he became earl. I called him then 1st Earl of Clancarty on the 1st use and "Clancarty" thereafter. Now I encounter your objections and also found MOS:SIR, which states "Honorific titles used with forenames only (such as "Sir Elton", "Sir David", "Dame Judi") should be avoided" (they seem to target modern celebrity than 17th-century aristocracy). Nevertheless I must comply. I now continue to call him MacCarty until he becomes Viscount. I hope this is correct Wikipedian. I will also have to do this across all of my watchlist.
"Wentworth let 10 articles be voted into law ... except articles 24 and 25 ... which he rejected." How did he do this. What power or influence did he exercise?
Due to Poyning's Law the Irish parliament could only vote on laws proposed by the Irish Privy Council and agreed to by the English Privy Council had. I feel that it would go too far to explain all this in the biography discussed here. He was only a back-bencher in the parliament of 1634–1635.
Perhaps replace "Wentworth" with 'the Irish Privy Council' then. Or 'the Irish Privy Council chaired by Wentworth'? (I assume that was the case.)
I fear many readers will not understand "Privy Council" without some introduction. I replaced Wentworth with Lord Deputy. Hope you agree.
I removed the entire sentence in further simplification of the section about the 1634 parliament trying to make the biography less bloated, as discussed.
"About 1640 his father built a new townhouse on College Green, Dublin." Strafford's father?
Donough's father. Done
Moved this out of its chronological place to later when the subject loses the townhouse by forfeiture in order to reduce random factoids, as discussed. The problem being that the citation refers to its building, not to its loss, which is inferred (WP:SYNTH?). However, I might be wrong. MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL prescribes "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order". Is avoiding random factoids a sufficiently good reason? (still learning).
"which are usually divided into the Rebellion of 1641, the Confederate Wars, and the Cromwellian Conquest". Could we be told which time periods the latter two cover?
All these three are linked, where the reader can find this information. Do you object to the term British Civil War? We could of course just drop this term or even the entire first two introductory sentences. I felt it was nice for the reader to introduce the three terms here. I use them as heading of the subdivisions of the "Irish Wars" section. I do not like the term "Wars of the three kingdoms" it sounds terribly vague.
"also known as the British Civil Wars". Do you have a source for this?
Eventually David Plant http://bcw-project.org/
What I or you like is often irrelevant. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and such things should reflect the consensus of high quality scholarly sources. I have read reasonably widely on the period and participated in a debate on renaming Third English Civil War - see its talk page - which I currently have at FAC and have only seen it occasionally. Checking, Kenyon & Ohlmeyer also use the term, so fine.
I tried to find the term British Civil Wars in some of Kenyon's or Ohlmeyer's writing but failed. However, the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow) in 1972 published proceedings of a conference under the title "Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil Wars" (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u4lnAAAAMAAJ).
"Castlehaven calls him an old man. He was turning 49 in that year." I don't see the relevance of this to the rest of the paragraph. (Or to anything.)
I thought it useful to remind the reader of his advancing age. It explains some of his reluctance to assume military leadership and tells us what people thought of him.
You go from his participation in a battle, to an insult by a rival to mentioning his age (which will not seem advanced to most readers). It seems to leap around a bit. 'Muskerry turned 49 that year and may have been feeling the strains of campaigning, as Castlehaven, a rival, referred to him as an old man' or similar? If it is the case and can be sourced of course.
The reason why this is all together in that paragraph is chronology: it all happened in 1643. It is sourced (don't you read the footquotes?).
Given that I have commented in some details on the footnotes I am disappointed by this comment.
I thought it should be included because it is really about the biographical subject rather than the general historical background, which still IMHO still takes too much place in this somewhat blown-up biography of a minor figure.
I am inclined to agree with both of those. But putting it with the battle because that is the chronology makes it look like a random factoid. I could just about agree that this meets the A class criterion of "The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear", but it doesn't meet the FAC "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" which you have suggested is the standard you would like to meet.
Thanks for your remark. Your proposed sentence "Muskerry turned 49 that year and may have been feeling the strains of campaigning, as Castlehaven, a rival, referred to him as an old man' or similar" is very nice. The first part "turned 49" is I think allowed under WP:CALC, but I failed to source the second part "feeling the strains". The third part "old man" is sourced in Castlehaven as "the old General" which I hope is sufficiently close. I put "Castlehaven found him slow and called him an old man, hoping that the "slow" will make it link up with the battle action described in the sentence before it.
Link magnate.
Done. Ó Siochrú uses the word, I still wonder whether it is correct in the context. Is a magnate not an Hungarian? Could we use "big landlord"?
No, magnate is fine.
"The articles of the cessation"; "The Cessation allowed the Confederates". "C" or "c"?
Cessation. Done.
"Parliamentarian". "P" or "p"?
Parliamentarian. Done
If so, why not Royalist? And Covenantor? I have just spotted that you are also inconsistent with C/covenantors.
You would surely know better than I. I feel royalists have existed at many times in many countries and are not one single well-defined movement, but the Covenanters were. The Wikipedia article Covenanters capitalises the word. I will follow that example.
"signed the First Ormond Peace again on 29 July 1646. The peace was thus concluded twice: on 28 March and on 20 July 1646"> I make that three times. Or is one of those a typo?
Good catch! There is no typo but Webb says 29 July, Coonan 20 July. Changed to "in July".
"comprising 17 members of which Glamorgan, Fermoy, and Owen Roe O'Neill". Something is missing here.
"comprising 17 members of which were Glamorgan, Fermoy, and Owen Roe O'Neill".
I have tweaked this.
I simplified omitting that there were 17 members.
"the Queen"; "the queen". Which?
Changed to the Queen. Done. There are 3 queens mentioned in the article. The 1st is Queen Elizabeth in the section "Religion". She is linked and used only once. The 2nd queen is Queen Henrietta Maria of England, widow of Charles I. She is introduced in the section "Decline of the Confederation", 2nd paragraph, linked, and mentioned a couple of times as "the Queen" in the context of Muskerry's visit to the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The 3rd is Marie Louise Gonzaga, Queen of Poland, introduced in section "Exile and prosecution" and mentioned only once. I believe the reader is unlikely to get confused.
"He returned to Ireland late in 1653 to recruit". What or who was he recruiting for?
I do not know and none of the cited sources says it. It could possibly have been for the Venetians and his arrest would be the reason why he never served them, but this is pure speculation of mine.
I cite Burghclere (1912) so his recruiting is not OR. Why do you want to remove it? Is Burghclere not a RS or too old?
"and his 5000 Irish" ?! Some background on where these came from, where they were and what they were doing perhaps?
I do not know and none of the cited sources says it. It could possibly be the 5000 that surrendered with him at Ross Castle, but this is speculation.
5000 Irish going into foreign service at the end of the war is not astonishing. It happened in the 1650s and then again in 1680 with the Irish Brigade (France) (about 5000 men). All I say is quite well supported by citations: Clark (1972), Bagwell, Cusack, and Prendergast. Admittedly none of them gives much detail and all are quite old. However, this is not OR. Why do you want to remove it? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that you are ORing, nor that 5,000 Irish going into foreign service is unusual. You state "He returned to Ireland late in 1653 to recruit ..." Then move on. Recruit who for what a reader will be asking. Fruitlessly. Domestic servants? For a travelling circus? Who knows. You don't even mention that he is recruiting men (assuming he is, you don't say; perhaps recruiting comely ladies for his personal harem?) for foreign service, which above you suggest you can source. I am suggesting that you give a reader more detail on why he returned to Ireland or delete "to recruit".
"Muskerry and his 5000 Irish in Polish service". My objection is just to the sudden introduction of "his 5000 Irish". A reader is likely to skimming back up the article to see how they missed previous mention of them. I have no doubt they existed but they need introducing. If they simply spring into existence in the sources, then say so.
"returned with £20,000 for the King". Perhaps worth mentioning that this is not the same person as the last time "the King" was mentioned?
Charles II is mentioned just before in the same paragraph.
Link "Protectorate". And why an upper case P?
changed to lower case "protectorate". Done.
I reconsider. Is not Cromwell's Protectorate a proper noun and would keep its capitalisation even when used as a qualifier? The article The Protectorate uses "Protectorate Parliament" and "Protectorate England". The article Knights, baronets and peers of the Protectorate used "Protectorate baronet" and "Protectorate baronetcy".
"now called Clancarty House". "now" meaning 1660, or meaning 2021?
The house on College Green does not exist any more. This is 1660. Changed to "which became "Clancarty House" to avoid the "now".

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Gog the Mild. Thank you so much! Johannes Schade (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reread all of my notes and your responses above and am content other than where I have commented in this post. Except for the "recruiting" and the 5000 Irish who seem to appear. I can guess what happened, but if you can't source it, it may be best to trim or remove it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just three issues left. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild. Thank for your wise remarks, that put into perspective what we are trying to reach. I had my nose too near the screen. I am working on it. Besides, I said "footquote" as in WP:FOOTQUOTE. I really appreciate your efforts. With many, many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "The titles were probably bought" to "The titles were probably purchased". I wondered why. Is "purchased" not the pretentious Norman-French speak of the upper class that we try to avoid and replace with Plain English. The noun "purchase" might be sometimes unavoidable as a "buy" can be confusing. WP:PLAINENGLISH is an essay but it claims the MOS recommends Plain English (I have not found where). I am still busy simplifying and chafing off needless detail and not ready. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert, but I think it usual to use "buy" for simple, everyday purchases (sic) and "purchase" for larger, more important ones. Such as "house purchase". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gog the Mild. Thank you for your kind reply. You are of course right and I will not revert.

Dear Gog the Mild, I wondered whether dates should drop the day and the month according to how much precision is needed in the context. Such simplification seems to be evidently acceptable in the lead as all its dates are repeated in the body. However, should dates be simplified in the body, e.g. in section "Early life, marriage and children", 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, I simplified the date of his paternal grandfather's death from "23 February 1616" to "1616" to be concise and make the article less bloated as the day and month appear irrelevant in the context. The full date can still be found in the citation's footquote. I searched MOS and guidelines but found nothing. With regards and many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest, it is at an editor's discretion and depends on context. Your change seems reasonable to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a cite for British Civil War (BCW mentioned in the title of the article):
*{{Cite journal|last=Ó Siochrú |first= Micheál |date=2007 |title=Atrocity, Codes of Conduct, and the Irish in the British Civil Wars 1641–1653 |journal=Past & Present |issue=195 |pages=55–86 |jstor=25096669 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25096669/}}
Thanks for your patience. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild. I hope I have now removed the last obstacle by introducing "his men" when he tries to serve Venice (it can be sourced) and mentioning such men again when they are proposed to the Poles. I have cleaned out about 200 words by simplifying dates and dropping unwarranted detail, You probably know that citation from Saint-Exupéry: "La perfection est atteinte, non pas quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retirer". Most of the removed content can still be found in the biographies of his father and his eldest son. Sometimes, It is of course alo true that gaps in the content can persist after the last superfluous word is removed. I feel, conciseness can interfere with readability and the "engaging prose" requirement that, as I see it, asks to guide the reader, to provide introductions, transitions, reasons, keeping things together despite MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL by using flashbacks.—The article certainly still has issues with the content e.g. I feel that not being a lawyer, I do not treat the war crime trials well. The entire checking of for WP:V needs still to be done if I understand it right. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting.
That made me smile - I don't have time to write a succinct article, so I have written a long one.
Suggest "employ Muskerry and his men (5000 of them) in Polish service" → 'employ Muskerry and his following - 5000 men - in Polish service', but I don't insist.
Verifiability gets a relatively light touch at ACR.
I agree that concaseness and readability can sometimes be in opposition.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, Johannes, thanks for your efforts with this article. I found the subject a bit beyond me, to be honest, but I took a quick run through for some bold adjustments. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a few maintenance tags that should be addressed, or removed (if they have already been addressed) e.g. "citation needed" and "original research"
  • after a siege of three weeks.Template:Sfn O Callaghan: citation error
  • two hostages to garantee --> "guarantee"?
  • having having been responsible --> typo
  • the end of this paragraph needs a ref (even if it is a duplicate) for A-class: This eleven years' war in turn formed part of the Wars of the three kingdoms, also known as the British Civil Wars
  • as above, this should be referenced: He then sailed on to France and joined the Queen at her court in exile at the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye.
  • as above, The Prince of Wales stayed in France and no treaty was signed
  • as above, marked the effective end of the resistance to the Cromwellian invasion.
  • He was allowed to embark for Spain: probably best to replace "He" with "MacCarty" here to vary the language a little
    • Dear AustralianRupert. If you find the article difficult to understand, it should be rewritten to become more understandable for an Australian user. This is my first A-Class nomination. I feel I should not remove CN or OR tags after having made a change. The reviewer will evaluate my change and decide whether the tag can indeed be removed. At least that is how I understand the procedure. I struggle to find the right citations, but have added some. Thanks for pointing out the typos. Best regards, many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, Johannes, thanks for your edits so far. It isn't so much the wording that I find difficult to understand; it's the topic -- not something I know much about, is all (not much you can do about that, as the locus of that issue rests with me...). Regarding the cn and or tags; I would suggest that if you have made a good faith effort to address them that you can remove them, normally; however, if you are uncomfortable with that, no worries. Please just ask buidhe if they are happy with your changes in relation to those tags, or if more work is required. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, against the king demanding religious: probably best to name the king here as it is the first mention
  • No children from this marriage are recorded in the major genealogical sources: needs a ref
    • How to demonstrate the absence of something? I do not think that a ref can be found that says the marriage was childless. The best I could do would be to say "No children from this marriage are recorded in the cited sources" and then give the pages in the 112 sources cited where I can prove they are not mentioned. However, 112 citations at the end of this sentence would not look pretty. I have added two (2), which are the ones where I think such a mention would be most likely. On the other hand, for some of his five sisters no citation was found showing that the mother was his first wife. It is therefore possible that some of his sisters are from his second wife, notably Helen, the fifth.
  • using Gaelic as his medium as this was still the predominant language among the rank and file.: needs a ref
  • This was for now an empty menace, as his estates lay within the territories held by the rebels and the government could not seize them: this needs ref
  • reactivating the southern front around Cork, where the Munster army was deployed.: this needs a ref
    • The reactivation of the southern front was a direct consequence of Inchiquin's changing sides from royalist (in peace with the Confederates) to Parliament (in war with the Confederates). I gave a cit for his change of side. I try to position the citation to the most relevant place, not necessarily at the end of the sentence. The position at the end of the paragraph also has the disadvantage that the reader cannot know without reading the source whether the cit pertains to the last sentence or to the entire paragraph.Johannes Schade (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donough MacCarty married Eleanor Butler,[80] a Catholic, the eldest daughter of: suggest splitting the sentence is a bit complex.
  • —and two daughters: probably best just to join the two lists " had five children, three sons and two daughters" (the names make it clear who the sons are and who the daughters are, IMO)
    • Unless precise birth dates are available for all children, genealogical sources always list sons separately from daughters. They are focussing on the sons' chances to succeed to the title and in the daughters' chances to become a rich heiress. Both lists are as far as possible in birth order, but the birth order of the children in general is usually unknown. The eldest daughter could well be born before the eldest son etc. To preserve this information the two lists are kept separate here.Johannes Schade (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear AustralianRupert, sorry to have kept you waiting so long and thanks for your patience. I think I have finally cits at all paragraph ends (except for things like "Also see the lists of siblings and children in the text") and would now pass MH B-Class. I suppose we can now progress to sentence-level and the question of how well the cits support the statements. Thank you very much again for all your hard work and your patience, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and had to give it up in 1660, being compensated with land at Shanagarry near Cloyne (East of Cork).[389] and had to give it up in 1660, being compensated with land at Shanagarry near Cloyne (East of Cork).[390]: typo/duplicate sentence fragment. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the infobox says he died on 5 August, but the body of the article isn't quite so sure, offering "Only one and a half months later, on 4 or 5 August 1665,[408][409] Clancarty died..." (best to make this consistent, IMO --> suggest changing the infobox to "4 or 5 August". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, DUBLIN, DECEMBER 1ST 1653. Trial of the LORD VISCOUNT MUSKERRY" (and other examples throughout the article) --> best to avoid all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you say, there are quite a few such all-caps words. They appear in quotations from Burke, Cokayne, Hickson, O'Hart and perhaps others. I kept the capitalisation as it is in the source. I believe one should keep the quotations as near to the original as reasonably possible. The all-caps also helps the readers (and reviewers) to find the quotations in the source. However, you are not the first to want to correct them according to MOS. I had a nice and very polite discussion about this with user Ira Leviton (under Donough on her talk page). She finished by saying she got ä dose of doubt" about whether MOS:ALLCAPS applies to quotations. I believe it does not, just like MOS:DATES does not apply to dates in quotations, which are usually in queer old formats. There have been users who "corrected" such dates. Are you sure? Johannes Schade (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, not a major issue, but yes I believe ALLCAPS applies in quotes, per MOS:CONFORM, which provides "Generally preserve bold and italics (see § Italics), but most other styling should be altered. Underlining, spac ing within words, colors, ALL CAPS, small caps, etc. should generally be normalized to plain text. If it clearly indicates emphasis, use italic emphasis ({{em}}) or, in an already-italic passage, boldface (with {{strong}})". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear AustralianRupert. I am astonished. Somehow, I had never seen MOS:CONFORM. You are of course right and I will implement the corresponding changes. I had done about the opposite: preserved the capitalisation but dropped the italics and bolds. Thanks for telling me. Johannes Schade (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries, off Wiki I'd probably do the same -- I actually find a few aspects of the MOS to be counterintuitive and at odds with how I would normally format things at work (particularly with regards to capitalisation). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AustralianRupert. I am not so sure what is left. Should I remove the map? Should I add a citation to the caption of the map? With many thanks for your patience. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Hi, I see this needs a further review. I'm not terribly familiar with this era or with bios of nobility, but I will start one shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Wars of the three kingdoms→ Wars of the Three Kingdoms
    • Good catch. Done
  • In 1641 he contributed to Strafford's fallimpeachment
  • he stood trial in Dublin for war crimes but was acquitted
    • Done (belatedly)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and origins
  • Full name (at birth) when introduced first time in the body. I assume that is Donough MacCarty?
    • Done. However, perhaps not strictly necessary. MOS:FULLNAME pertains to the lead sentence. The article Fidel Castro is cited as example in MOS:BIO. It gives the full name only in the lead. Its body starts with "Castro was born ...". I was trying to be concise.
      • Everything needs to be cited, and there are no citations in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fail to see what you mean. Do you ask for citations in the lead?—Besides, the statement "everything needs to be cited" is obviously false. Beyond WP:BLUESKY (which is only an essay) there is WP:CALC (part of NOR policy) that allows to write e.g. "Smith was born in 1910 and died in 1924.[1] He lived for nine whole years." The first sentence must be cited, not so the second.—but this is just an aside. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is just good practice that everything in the lead is provided and cited in the body (with the rare exception of things that are WP:BLUE), and the concision achieved in removing one word is hardly earth-shattering when the article is the length it is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done (Added his surname. Is that all you wanted? You seem to say that an additional citation is needed, where? for what?)
  • and his first wife Margaret née O'Brien
  • are Dermot MacCarthy and Cormac MacCarthy-Mor likely to be notable? Redlink?
  • is it MacCartys of Muskerry or MacCarthys of Muskerry? Both are used.
    • Done. MacCartys of Muskerry -> MacCarthys of Muskerry. The spelling varies. MacCarthy seem to be more common, but the subject seems to be spelled more often MacCarty.
  • the "Donough listed among his brothers" table is completely superfluous, the content is already included in the prose, but the info about his brother could be brought out and placed after his parents marriage.
    • You are right, but I routinely include lists or tables of siblings and lists of children. I feel it would be incoherent to drop the brothers table but retain the sisters table. What do you think?
      • Or should I drop both? I could in this case as his siblings are listed as children in his father's article. What do you think?
        • Deleted the two tables and replaced them by a sentence of prose linking the corresponding section in his father's article (the disadvantage is that such links are fragile). A note with citations serves to comply with the obligation to source the statement.
  • suggest "Although most Irish remained Catholics under the Protestant monarchs Henry VIII..."
    • Done
  • "and would in 1642 join the Irish Catholic Confederates.[76] He wanted to support the Catholic religion[77] and fight for it.[78]" is really out of place, and belongs at the point in the chronology when these events occur.

− More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life, marriage, and children
  • In 1616,[87] MacCarty's father
    • I removed the comma. I do not understand what you object to. Is it the placement of the citation? It is here because the citation supports the given year, 1616 (WP:INTEGRITY).
      • Done. Sorry, I was stupid. Somehow took me a while to understand. Finally replaced "his" with "MacCarty's", which was clearly what you intended.
  • a better contemporary description for an "idiot" would be "intellectually disabled" rather than "insane"
    • Done. I see there is an article Intellectual Disability, which I linked. It is a pity that "intellectually disabled" is such a mouthful and has this euphemistic reek.
  • According to Irish Pedigrees: Or, the Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation, he had been married once before and had a son from this wife,[4] but this marriage is not mentioned by other genealogical sources.[100][101][102]
    • I agree that the formulation I used is problematic, but should not names of authors and titles of publications be avoided in the main text? Is the citation not sufficient? Is not "according to" to be avoided when it is possible to be more direct? The reported fact seems to be essential and is probably the reason why Donough arrived so late in public life. It was not rare that important heirs engaged in marriages that were not accepted by the family, who then destroyed this relationship by finding some flaw in the marriage procedures or by more brutal measures as in the case of Agnes Bernauer. There is still a bit more detail in O'Hart, which I should perhaps add.
      • You are making an unexplained judgement that the sources that don't mention it are major, and implying that O'Hart isn't major. I presume O'Hart is a genealogical source, so my suggested formulation doesn't make value judgements about the sources, it just lays out what they say. If you didn't want to attribute the minority source in-text, you could just use "One genealogical source states that he had been married once before and had a son from this wife,[4] but this marriage is not mentioned by other similar sources.[100][101][102]"
  • link Earl of Ormond (Ireland)
    • Done

Dear Peacemaker67: Thank you very much for your efforts. It shows that even after user:AustralianRupert and user:Gog the Mild have worked through the text, correcting the spelling, syntax, and grammar and making it more concise, there are still serious flaws and ample room for improvement. However, the task that user:Buidhe started and left unfinished was the WP:V. I think he dropped it because the citations in the text (at the time 322 for a readable prose size of about 4900 words, which I thought was a lot) were hopelessly far from giving sufficient support. He wrote, "It doesn't matter exactly how many refs you have per text as long as all content is directly supported by the sources, rather than inferences you have made." I feel that it is in this area that the need for improvement is most urgent. I do not seem to know how to cite and write so that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are avoided and a reasonably well written text (not a sequence of "random factoids" as Gog the Mild called it) can be supported. I seem to tend to "infer" as Buidhe says. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy and can take a lot of work to get the hang of verifiability. (for me, it really took this). It can be especially difficult when you are trying to put together a large number of sources and the sources don't always provide the analysis that connects different facts. What I would try to do when writing is first get the facts out of different sources, then try to organize them in a logical order. (t · c) buidhe 14:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Buidhe. Thank you very much for your intervention and good advice. Best regards, Johannes, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Buidhe. The timeline (which you deleted) was my way of trying to "get the facts out of different sources, then try to organize them in a logical order" as you say. Is not "organize them in a logical order" already WP:SYNTH unless it is simply chronologically, which is probably allowed by WP:CALC? Perhaps I have sources for most of the facts but omitted the analyses (resulting in "random factoids" as User:Gog the Mild says) or inferred my own (WP:OR!, WP:SYNTH!). As you say, "the sources don't always provide the analysis". This goes with the bias to older and genealogical sources that Gog objected to. Genealogical sources are usually facts only. What I should do is look for citations for the analyses. Analyses are harder to source (and correctly understand and cite avoiding WP:CLOP) than bare facts. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johannes, organizing information by topic (or by time) is not original research. I agree it can be a challenge if sources don't give the analysis but in that case a bit of disjointedness is to be expected. The reason the timeline had to be removed is that it duplicates information in the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will review this aspect at the end. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parliaments
  • When Charles I summoned the Irish Parliament of 1634–1635
    • Done
  • He had been knighted in 1634 - this is past tense, but it isn't stated when in 1634 he was knighted, so perhaps it would be better as "He was also knighted in 1634."
    • Good catch. This tense is usually called "past perfect". The situation is that he was quite certainly knighted to help his election as "knight of the shire" (county MP). However, at the time this was already not a requirement any more but just a nicety. His successor was just an esquire. The problem is that the source for his knighting gives only the year, whereas the source for his election gives the full date. I think this is the kind of thing that user:Buidhe objects to. He would probably suggest to delete all this, or is there a way how to save it?
  • a sentence fragment explaining what the Graces were would be useful
  • 3000→3,000
    • MOS:DIGITS prescribes "Left of the decimal point, five or more digits are grouped into threes separated by commas (e.g. 12,200; 255,200 km; 8,274,527th; 1⁄86,400)." Admittedly, it adds "Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped (either 1,250 or 1250), with consistency within any given article." I tried to consistently present 4-digit numbers without separators. Are there any reasons for not doing so?
  • 9000→9,000
  • "Gormanston, Dillon, Kilmallock" can we have a fuller version of these names please?
    • Done (Removed the names for conciseness. They are given in his father's article).
  • same for "Parsons and Borlase"
  • unbold 2nd Viscount Muskerry
    • Done. I was so convinced bold was prescribed for the first mention of article title terms in the body in the MOS (under MOS:BOLD under Article Title Terms?) but I can't find it any more. I am astonished user:Gog the Mild has not caught this.

I think I picked this usage up from Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry, where Baron Stewart, Earl Vane, and Viscount Seaham were already bolded in the oldest version, dated of the 11 August 2004 by 62.254.32.9. In Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava user:Proteus bolded the title Baron ClaneboyeDufferin. The articles Charles FitzGerald, 1st Baron Lecale and Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly also show bolded titles in the body. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidance is MOS:BOLD. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Peacemaker67. It is as you said. I reread MOS:BOLD and see now that the existence of a redirect justifies the bolding. In Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry there are in fact redirects Baron Steward, Earl Vane, and Viscount Seaham, but all three point to Marquess of Londonderry rather than Charles Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry so I would say the bolding is not justified. The case of Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava seems similar. I contacted the editor (User:Proteus) but do not seem to get a speedy reply. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MOS:BOLD talks about bolding alternative names in the lead, but not about doing so in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lords→House of Lords
    • Done.
  • "Muskerry gave evidence/alleged that Strafford"
    • Made it "witnessed"; shorter than "gave evidence"; not "alleged" as there is no reason to suspect it was not true.
      • "Witnessed" used in this context is an unusual use of the word, which is the past participle of witness, meaning either to see an event happen or to have knowledge of an event from observation or experience, not to relate something you know to a court. You seem to be using it to refer to him giving evidence, which I don't think is correct usage. Given it is in a sentence when the trial in already mentioned, you could just say "Muskerry stated that Strafford had prevented people from seeing the King". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the final para, there is a bit of overlapping use of MacCarty and Muskerry. Shouldn't he be Muskerry after he became Viscount?
  • "His advancement caused MacCarty lose his seat in the Commons where he was replaced by Redmond Roche, an uncle by his stepmother" is a strange sentence. Was it possible in that time for one person to hold a seat in both the Commons and Lords? Perhaps "Due to Muskerry's elevation to the House Lords, his Commons seat became vacant, and it was filled by..."
    • You are right. Gaining the seat at the Lords made him lose the one at the Commons. I had moved the sentence and now moved it back into strict chronological order, which causes a bit this haphazard sequence of factoids that Gog the Mild objects to. WP:CHRONOLOGY seems to demand strict chronological order, but this is contravened in many published biographies where flashbacks are used or events are grouped by theme such as family and career.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. Some might advise I should just silently implement your corrections and obtain your SUPPORT. However, I would in fact not mind an OPPOSE. I need to learn and understand, I therefore discuss your objections when I do not understand them and try to find the rules behind them. This serves not only for myself but also when I review other editors' articles in quid pro quo (or how do you call this? Obviously when I ask for a review I should provide such reviews for others and must learn how to do this. Otherwise the system comes to a halt.). With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Johannes, I certainly hope that you will ask questions when you don't understand what I am getting at, and hopefully no reviewer expects mute conformity. I will go through the above and explain where needed before I proceed. Once I have gone right through the article in detail I will make some overall observations and recommendations as well. I don't know yet whether I will be supporting, opposing or what. I don't decide that until I've been through and my comments have been addressed or alternatives implemented. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. Thank you very much, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that where necessary. I'll crack on with the rest now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irish wars
  • is there no article for this Eleven Year War?
  • "Phelim O'Neill launched the Rebellion" - a sentence fragment explaining the cause or aim of the rebellion is needed to provide context. Not sure about Rebellion→rebellion, but I suspect the latter is correct
  • delete the period between the citations here .[162].[163]
    • Done
  • "He lost the Dublin townhouse, that his father had built about 1640"
    • Done
  • what was "the Spanish service"?
  • suggest "Muskerry was his second-in-command."
    • I used the "second-in-command" but do not understand why the link has a leading colon [:]. I also find that the article Second-in-command does not provide a useful explanation for the reader as it focusses on modern British use.
  • suggest "Inchiquin, the vice-president, took over command of the government/anti-rebel forces"
    • made it "Inchiquin, the vice-president, took over the command of the government forces in Munster".
  • for clarity where there are multiple people with the same surname, use first names rather than or in addition to ranks alone for subsequent mentions, ie Garret Barry or General Garret Barry rather than just General Barry
    • Done

Down to Confederation. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • briefly explain what the Confederation was and why it was formed
  • "old man" as this is meant euphemistically
  • I know that "Muskerry was turning 49 in that year." doesn't require a citation given we have a citation for his year of birth, but I suggest to avoid the para ending without a citation you go with "Castlehaven considered him a slow commander, and despite the fact that Muskerry was only turning 49 that year, called him an "old man".[234]"
  • suggest "His Lieutenant-Colonel, Patrick Purcell, unsuccessfully besieged Lismore Castle, the seat of the Earls of Cork."
  • link parley
    • Done
  • "in September (see below)."
    • Done
  • "Muskerry, like most of the magnates among the Confederates, had his lands declared forfeit." hadn't this already happened?
  • link safe conduct
    • Done
  • "but not Fermoy" → "but Fermoy did not". I prefer this laconic three letter "but not Fermoy" over the more correct and conventional 4-word variant.
    • Done
  • now Purcell is a Lieutenant-General? Or is this a different Purcell?
    • Yes, I think it is the same Patrick Purcell of Croagh who got promotion. There is no article on him but perhaps it should be written one day. There are indeed other Purcells around.
      • Created the article Patrick Purcell of Croagh
        • Sources seem to call him sometimes Major-General (Coffey, 1914, cited in Patrick Purcell of Croagh) and sometimes Lieutenant-General (O'Donoghue, 1860) and "Vice-Generalis" (Prodinus, 1721: Descriptio Regni Hiberniae) in Latin. However, as this text stands now Patrick Purcell is always called Lieutenant-General.
          • Does this resolve the issue?

Down to Nuncio. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, Thank you very much. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, I have recently spent time moving content from the article to his father's article and other linked articles. Speaking to myself I tend to call this "equilibrate between articles". It seems Wikipedia calls this "summary style" WP:SUMMARY. This feels quite important to do, but reviews seem to rarely mention it. Why not?

Yes, it is fairly complex, IMHO. When there are excellent quality articles on key aspects of the reviewed article that can be linked, there is a lot of scope to summarise those aspects in the reviewed article and reduce the detail needed. However, many times the articles on key aspects of the reviewed article are not yet of high quality. This draws editors to develop a more detailed article which covers the material that should be in the linked articles. Of course, in a perfect world, every editor would fix up the linked articles so that they could be more succinct in the reviewed article, but this can lead to going down endless rabbit holes, and few editors are keen to do that when the article they have spent a great deal of time on is currently under review and the clock is ticking. I hope that explains the practical difficulties of WP:SUMMARY. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Peacmake67, Thanks for your comment. I feel there is also the danger of unbalancing the article when some aspects are summarised as a corresponding article exists (e.g. a battle) whereas other, equally or even less important important (e.g. a skirmish) aspects are treated with full detail. Johannes Schade (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

  • "her 11-year-old eldest son, Charles," Charles has already been linked above. I don't think another link is necessary here.
    • Done
  • perhaps "looked after"→"hosted"
  • "official reception by President Mountgarret[279]"
    • Done (removed "President").
  • the link of Glamorgan to Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester is very eastereggy, he was the Earl of Glamorgan then, was he not?
    • The literature about his intervention in Ireland always calls him so. The title was created for him by Charles I in 1644, but it seems to was invalid for some reason. He succeeded his father as Marquess of Worcester in 1646. This name change is usually ignored in the Irish literature.
  • what was "the episode of the Glamorgan treaty"? There is no context or explanation of what this was or meant
  • suggest "According to the treaty, the Confederates were expected to send an Irish army of 10,000 men, about half the Confederate army, to England before 1 May"
    • Done
  • Richard Swanley seems likely to be notable, redlink?
    • Dpne (redlinked)
  • don't pipe Penn's rank with his name
    • Done
  • better to use the first names of the Purcell's rather than ranks (unless they have changed since last mention) in "Lieutenant-General Purcell, Major-General Stephenson, and Colonel Purcell", also is this Major-General Stephenson named Oliver Stephenson?
    • Done. Lieutenant-General Purcell -> Patrick Purcell. There is an Oliver Stephenson who fell in the Battle of Liscarroll in 1642. So this one is a different one.
  • "Vice-Admiral William Penn"→"now-Vice-Admiral Penn"
  • "Rinuccini arrested Muskerry, Richard Bellings,"
    • Done
  • link Nicholas Plunkett
    • Done
  • "with the Marquess of Antrim"
    • Done
  • full contemporary name for Taaffe
    • Done

Dear Peacemaker67. I have to tell you that I am leaving for France this evening to see some relatives of my wife. Back in a week. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Decline of the Confederation. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "but Jones beatdefeated him"
    • Done
  • who or what was Geoffrey Browne?
  • the sentence beginning "Towards the end of 1647..." is very long and complex. Suggest breaking it in two.
    • Done
  • "Ormond escaped from England", it isn't clear from earlier mentions that he had gone to England under duress or as a captive, and therefore needed to escape.
    • Changed to "Ormond left England"
  • "and asking the Confederates if he could become their ally"
    • Done
  • "the privateers Mary of Antrim and St John of Waterford" I am assuming they were privateers, and I would have thought they would be notable.
    • Done
  • was Muskerry one of the 12 Commissioners of Trust? If so, explicitly state that.
    • Done
  • who is Clanricarde? Link here rather than later.
  • "He then sought employment bywith the Venetian Republic for himself"
    • Done
  • link war crimes
    • Done
  • "He was accused of having been an accessory"
    • Done
  • "to France where the Queen mother Henrietta Maria lived" we already know this, but now she is the Queen Mother. Needs rewording.
  • did the Irish troops fight as part of the Polish army against the Swedes? Did Muskerry? This isn't clear.
    • I have not found more information. Muskerry seems to have gone straight back. The Poles might have found him too old and might have found it difficult to communicate with him. The Irish troops probably did as you say, but I have not found any mention in the sources.
  • who were the "Protectorate English"
  • unbold "Earl of Clancarty"
    • Done
  • "now-Admiral Penn"
  • "whose name changed to"→"which now became"
    • Done
  • what was Gallaris?
    • Some place name that I have not been able to find. Nor do I know who "John FitzGerald of Enismore" was. Enismore, Ennismore, Inish More etc. (big island in Irish) is not a rare place name.
  • "Charles MacCarty, Viscount Muskerry", but then he is named as "Lord Muskerry"? Probably don't need to restate that he is the eldest son.
    • I do not understand what you mean. With Muskerry becoming Clancarty, the title Viscount Muskerry became the courtesy title of his heir apparent as I do explain in the text.
      • I don't understand why he is mentioned as "his eldest son, Charles MacCarty, Viscount Muskerry", then shortly thereafter mentioned as "Charles, Lord Muskerry, Clancarty's eldest son". It might be clearer if some explanation was provided, such as when the courtesy title is introduced, saying "The title Viscount Muskerry passed to his eldest son and heir apparent, Charles, as a courtesy title", then (as we will already know he is Viscount Muskerry) "his eldest son, Charles, replaced" and (as his title still hadn't changed) "Clancarty's eldest son, Charles, was killed". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Peacemaker67, the explanation that you ask for appears in the last sentence of Section "Exile and prosecution". I deleted the repetitions except when announcing Charles's death, where a fuller and more formal name is, I believe, not out of place. I still do not dare to call Charles simply "Muskerry" as that was his father's name until so recently and might be confusing.
          • Done

That's it for the prose and MOS review. A query about the huge number of citations – could some of them be combined or moved to the end of sentences to improve the readability? Also, are all the quotes and other material in the footnotes necessary, such as columns and lines? If the material they are supporting can be verified by reference to the page of the source, then they don't appear to be necessary. This is causing extreme bloat in the Citations subsection, which is undesirable. Some of the citations could be combined by cutting out the additional information from the footnotes, eg Ohlmeyer 2004 p. 107 has 18 separate footnotes (with various info about where on the page the info is located, which frankly is completely unnecessary) which could just be one footnote with multiple iterations (like fn 75). There are several other examples where the number of individual footnotes could be seriously reduced without any reduction in verifiability, such as Dunlop 1906 p. 530, Cokayne 1913 p. 215 and p. 216, Bagwell 1909b p. 64 etc. Finally, assuming most of my comments above are addressed, I am leaning towards support, but due to the current state of the footnotes, I wouldn't support this at FAC until it was addressed. Well done thus far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. First of all a hearty thank you for all your hard work. I learned a lot from you, e.g. to always give a full contemporary name at the first mention of a person in the text, even if the name is linked.

With regard to the citations. User:Buidhe would tell you that they are still too few and he is of course right. I know of quite a few that I still need to hunt down and add. WP:INTEGRITY prescribes that we should keep citations near to the supported statements but in the examples given the citations seem to always follow some punctuation. I will look for citations that could be moved to the nearest punctuation without losing text-source integrity. End of phrase rather than end of sentence position seems to be generally well accepted though, I feel. I have not found a rule that prescribes that all citations must appear after punctuation. There is already the counter-example of citation before a closing parenthesis.

As you pointed out, the citations could have been presented with less detail and many could have been combined. My purpose was to make checking as quick and simple as possible for the reader and reviewer. I find that quite often it is not easy to identify which is the supported statement or fact in the text and then to look for a suitable citation on an entire page can be time consuming. Buidhe said "It's not easy and can take a lot of work to get the hang of verifiability. (for me, it really took this)." I looked up and found that this article had a first FA review in which User:Ealdgyth made a thourough source check and Buidhe then retracted the candidate version, put in a lot a lot of work before resubmitting and finally passing. Buidhe said "I have started a page for matching each citation to a quote from the source: Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check. If you think this would be helpful". I feel that what I did with my pages, columns, lines, and footquotes is similar to what he did, only that he did not incorporate it into the final article. If the citations should be simplified as you suggest, then, I feel, this should be done only after the detailed final source check. Besides, WP:FOOTQUOTE explicitly allows footquotes. Best regards and thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think by incorporating what buidhe did in a article talk subpage into the article you went a step too far, and you will need to do what she did and retract the additional detail about where on a given page the info is located. As far as quotes in footnotes is concerned, just because WP:FOOTQUOTE says you can do it, doesn't mean you should, or even that it is necessary. It also says "In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source... readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article." Happy for it to happen after the source review though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put any additional things I find here:

Dear Peacemaker67. I noticed that the ISBNs in the source list wrap on their hyphens, resulting in an odd isolated single digit or X when the ISBN is wrapped on its last hyphen. I tried to prevent this by replacing that hyphen with a non-breaking hyphen but that breaks the built-in link to the Special:BookSources page, throwing an invalid-character error. I did not find a solution to the problem. Even the recent FA Charles Green (Australian soldier) shows that same defect. I could of course drop all the hyphens from the ISBNs, but hyphened ISBNs are more readable than unhyphened ones. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, different sized screens result in different wrapping, so I would leave it as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. You are right to stress that WP:FOOTQUOTE states that "it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source". However, why should it be inappropriate to go beyond and help the reviewer with column, line and footquote? Admittedly, this results in a bloated reference section that almost all readers will ignore. But that is the fate of any reference section how bloated or minimalistic it might be. Wikipedia should present that section closed by default. Most source reviews, even at FA-level, are spot checks done by a single reviewer, whereas the prose is typically reviewed several times from A-Z. This is so because with page-only citations the supported fact and the corresponding passage in the source are both so time-consuming to identify that few reviewers are ready to make the effort. Besides, have you seen that Buidhe's FA Armenian genocide denial uses footquotes? With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at that article, but there is a huge difference in the subject matter involved. The likelihood of someone challenging anything in this article in terms of it being controversial is extremely low (is there really anything that might be contested or considered controversial?), but the Armenian genocide is hugely controversial as a subject, and its denial is also highly controversial and contested. I completely understand why buidhe has used footquotes for material that might be challenged in that article, but there really is no justification for their use here. I consider this level of detail should be moved to a subpage. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One might argue that the persecution of Protestants during the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the atrocities committed during the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland are controversial and not seen in the same manner by Catholics and Protestants. Both subjects are touched on in the article, notably in Muskerry's war crimes trial. It would be unwise for me to reveal whether I am Catholic or Protestant or what I voted in the last election (DUP? Sinn Fein?). Where I live a 500-pound car bomb exploded in Main Street in 1993. But whether controversial or not, I feel that page-only is just not good enough. It comes from the printed scientific journals. Wikipedia can do better than that. But perhaps let us see this at the FA-level if I ever get there.

I had a look at moving citations to the end of the sentence. The first sentence of the "Birth and origins" section is a good example. There are three citations: one for the date, two for possible places of birth, distributed in accordance through the sentence so that it is evident what is what. Do you feel it would be better to regroup at the end? Is there a rule about this in one of the guidelines? Do you feel I should use WP:CITEBUNDLE to reduce the number of citation marks in the text? I have tried this on citation 19. Please have a look. I am not convinced this will work well. I am imitating Buidhe who uses bundling on some of the citations in Armenian genocide denial. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is less important that the massive bloat. There is absolutely no comparison between this article and the Armenian genocide denial article in terms of controversial aspects. I am passingly acquainted with Irish history, and the aspects covered here are in no way controversial today. There is almost a universal academic consensus on what happened during this period of English and Irish history and the reasons why, and nothing that I can see that might remain controversial is touched on here. Even if a controversial incident was covered here, you would only provide this level of detail in the citation and a quote for that incident, not for utterly mundane things like the various spellings of his name (in the case of the bloated citations), or the quote in Ohlmeyer 2004, p. 107, right column, line 29: regarding the nuncio being welcomed at Macroom (regarding the unnecessary quotes). Apart from this, there are still a few unaddressed comments scattered above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67. I hope I have addressed the outstanding issues you mentioned. I also have redlinked Dermod McCarthy (MP) and Andrew Barret (in the succession box) Are points deducted for redlinks? Redlinks seem to be very rare in your FAs (e.g. Uroš Drenović). I learned from you that notable persons should be linked (WP:REDLINKBIO). It seems all MPs are notable. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, I have created a stub for Sir Charles Vavasour, 1st Baronet of Killingthorpe to get rid of the red. Since about three days I experience difficulties editing Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty needing to wait for minutes between changes. With many thanks and apologies, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good, Johannes. I am supporting here on prose. I have serious concerns about the bloated approach to citations (as I have explained above), and would oppose this on that alone at FAC were it to be nominated without it being addressed. It is massive and unnecessary overkill, like using a B-52 to carpet bomb a single foxhole. That said, well done on all the improvements that have been made to the article thus far, and for the considerable work put into it before nominating it here. All the best, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding source review

edit

I would do a source review, as one is needed and this article has been on the list for ten months, but frankly I would fail it as the article stands for the reasons I have identified in my prose and MOS review. Given my view might be a minority one, I suggest that the two other reviewers @Gog the Mild and AustralianRupert: give their opinions on the issues I have raised (specifically the citation bloat and unnecessary quotations in the citations). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little less concerned about the number and density of citations and their including quotations, given that this is ACR. If I examined the sourcing in detail these may be reason to fail at ACR, but on a skim they are not the swift fail they would be at FAC. I am however, as I said at the top of my review, concerned at the age, even antiquity, of many sources. Eg the first three are over a century old; two citations date to a work published in 1680; etc. Given all of this it seemed highly likely that I would be failing any source review I did and so, like Peacemaker67, was leaving it in the hope that you may find a reviewer more sympathetic to your approach. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog. Given AR is rather busy at present, perhaps one of the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: not yet involved might consider doing a source review? I must say that if this is really intended to go to FAC, dealing with an issue here at ACR that would clearly result in an oppose at FAC makes sense to me. FAC coords are far less forgiving of underprepared noms than the Milhist coords (what nom would be left on the list for ten months at FAC?). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it to me. Ping me if in four days I have materialized no review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Steady on about FAC coords Peacemaker, I'll tell Hog Farm! Whom I was going to suggest, but Vami may be even better. Thanks Vami_IV Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to look at this if Vami becomes unable to, but like Gog I'd likely oppose this at FAC due to the very heavy use of older sources, including in places where they aren't necessary or shouldn't be used. For instance, in the royalists defeated the rebels under General Garret Barry in the ensuing Battle of Liscarroll why is the 1882 citation necessary? Surely a modern source somewhere includes a brief description of the battle that would support this. I'd also challenge sourcing Muskerry allegedly panicked, fled, and caused others to flee to an 1898 source, as surely there's a better, more modern source, for allegations of panicky flight. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Vami

edit

For starters, I have never seen sourcing like this. The vast majority of sources are older than even my grandparents, and most in the ballpark of a hundred years in age; when I was first examining the article, I thought the sources being used were being used because they had drifted out of copyright and could be quoted as they are now being quoted. Reading the review, though, I see that is not the case. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Schade: If you didn't already know, you probably qualify for the Wikipedia Library and its partners. If you do qualify, I recommend skimming through Oxford's available resources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. Thank you very much for untertaking a source revue. Admittedly, many sources are very old, but often they seem to be the best sources for the events described. As WP:OLDSOURCES says "older reports ... tend to have the most detail". I find this often true with regard to the present nomination. At the beginning of this review an effort was made in response to Gog's criticism to replace older with younger sources. At the end of this drive the sources older than 100 years were a minority. As Gog said what matters is that "latest scholarship" is included. This drive has not added any insight stemming from "latest scholarship". In the present case the more recent sources are those of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB; 2004) and the Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB; 2009). I have used The Wikipedia Library but almost exclusively for JSTOR, which seems to exclude the most recent articles. It seems therefore practically impossible for Wikipedia editors to include the latest scholarship unless they have access to University libraries. Obviously not my case.
With regard to the organisation of the source list I had it subdivided into books and articles following a suggestion by Buidhe, but I wonder wether a single alphabetical list would not be more user-friendly.
I also wonder whether my way to cite the DIB is correct. I feel I should not have used SfnRef but cited them by year as done with other sources, of course it might result in 2009a, b, c etc. I have recently added some Citation Needed to remind me of places where citations are still missing. There are probably quite a few others, especially towards the end of the article as Gog remarked. I am working on this. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vami_IV†♠. I wondered what the requirement with regard to the age of the sources really is. The Featured Article Criteria (WP:FACR) say (1c) "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". That seems to be all. The term "latest scholarship" does not appear. The term "most recent scholarship" appears in the essay "Guidance on source reviewing at FAC" (WP:FASOURCE). This essay seems to derive its "most recent scholarship" requirement from the "high-quality" requirement of the FACR. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'll review within the next week. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have concerns about the age of the sources because of the possibility of WP:OR, but otherwise I am satisfied by their legitimacy. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. I know there is a problem accessing that URL. Sometimes it fails and sometimes it works fine. I have not understood what is going on. The URL itself seems to be correct. Besides, the citation concerns an fold-out without page number in that source. I had it as "|pages=fold-out" in "Cite journal" but that does obviously not make sense. I discovered that "Cite journal" has a parameter called "at" which seems to be intended for such cases, so I changed it to "|at=fold-out". It is the first time I use the "at" parameter. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. Coming back to the ages of the sources. I must admit that I am not sure that I understand your remark "concerns about the age of the sources because of the possibility of WP:OR" I would interpret you to mean that the risk of being outdated (is this WP:OR?) increases with source age, which surely is true, even if it is rare in history texts. For example, older sources give Donough's father's death as 1640, e.g. Cokayne (1913, p. 214). McGrath (1997) seems to be the first who corrects this to 1641. Besides, George Edward Cokayne (1825–1911) is a famous and normally trustworthy genealogist who wrote many books, surely a WP.RS source, whereas McGrath's work is a Ph.D. thesis. I cite the 1913-edition because this is the most recent available on the Internet. Obviously, even very recent WP:RS sources can be in error. For example, Ó Siuchrú (2009) in Dictionary of Irish Biography, article on Donough (https://www.dib.ie/biography/maccarthy-donough-a5129), states "Cormac was killed in June 1665 at the battle of Solebay", but it is well known that the Battle of Solebay was fought in 1672.

I came across the FA John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, very nice, well referenced and almost all references 20th and 21th century, mostly books. My sources indeed do look old compared to this. I do not know how they do this.

Early in this review I asked User:Gog the Mild about a rule for this and he wisely declined. I think we have to take this source by source and see whether they pass the "high-quality reliable" criterion of (WP:FACR) and what can be done in each case.

Something that needs to be fixed is how I referenced the Family tree. I used citations with huge page ranges, which are quite cetainly not acceptable (WP:FASOURCE makes a remark about excessive ranges). However, I feel the boxes or lines in the family tree shoulds not be encumbered with citation marks. This might be a case for citation bundling. What do you think?

With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami_IV†♠. Still thinking about the source age. Surely, our prime objective is WP:V. Should not an old verifiable source (Internet access) be preferred over a recent one that cannot be verified at all (neither on the Net nor at the local library)? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my counts: the article cites 176 sources, 85 of them are older than 100 years. The FA criteria say: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;" I expected a frontal attack from you a bit like User:Buidhe did at the beginning of this review (10 months ago). Do the 176 sources constitute a representative survey of the literature? Are all 176 sources of high quality? are all statements appropriately supported by the at present 525 inline citations? what of WP:SYNTH when more than one citation is given for a statement? What about WP:INTEGRITY, WP:CLOP, WP:PLAG? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting based on the above and my inspection of the sources and citations. JS has done the best he could with what he could access. The only other comment I could make now is that every reference with an author who has an article links them, when only one is necessary. Good hunting, JS. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Vami_IV. Thank you very much for your kind support. I did not really want to bother you any further, but I fail to understand your remark "The only other comment I could make now is that every reference with an author who has an article links them, when only one is necessary." After some thought I believe you mean that repeated links to the same author (e.g. Samuel Rawson Gardiner) in the "author-link" parameter of the "Cite book" (or similar) templates in the source list violate MOS:REPEATLINK. I beg to disagree. MOS:REPEATLINK explicitly excepts citations, stating "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=The Guardian." Dear Vami, do I understand you right? What do you think? With many thanks for all your effort and patience, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is indeed what I meant and the MOS supports you there. I just think it's unnecessary to have two to four links to the same person in quick succession. I won't retract my support on a nitpick, though, so feel free to leave the links as they are. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Vami_IV. Thank you very much.

Drive-by comment (HF)

edit
  • "This seems to have led Ó Siochrú to call it the 'Battle of Solebay' in error" - This is WP:OR. The source for this is Ó Siochrú, and while that will support them calling it the "Battle of Solebay", it can't be established that that was an error just citing Ó Siochrú without diving into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Hog Farm Talk 14:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Hog Farm. You are of course right. I have tried to fix this. I decided to remove the statement about Ó Siochru's mistake. What I did was in fact quite rude. It is not necessary to do that here. I changed the Efn to just establish the link between the date (3 June 1665), the name of the commander (Duke of York), the name of the ship (Royal Charles), and the name of the battle (Lowestoft). I am not so sure that I have been successful. Please have a look. Ideally, I should find one modern source that does all that in one go. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serial, mostly on sourcing, more with an eye to the future than today

edit

A couple of points. And if anyone calls me "dear" I'll oppose on principle!

  • To clarify, newer scholarship is preferred over that of the 19th century, due in no small part to the widespread usage of the historical method/Scholarly method being in its infancy (or, depending on age, even extant). It's true that they may contain "more detail"; often that's romanticised almost-guesswork, so should be treated cautiously. Always ask: where did this 19th-century historian—or even antiquarian—get their sources from? How much of the detail they provide, for example, could they have gleaned elsewhere, and how much is colorization? If the latter, it's best ignored; if the former, what's the strength of it?
  • I saw online/offline sourcing queried above: please see WP:OFFLINE and remember—futon is a thing!
  • I understand Vami IV's concerns; by my own crude assessment only a ~third of the sources are post-1945, and with the best will in the world, I honestly wonder if that's sufficient (I am less knowledgeable of the stringencies of ACR of course). Remember, at FAC the onus is on the nominator to justify the inclusion of a particular source. This means that, potentially, a source reviewer could end up asking you...100 times? What makes X a high-quality source? You'll get plenty of advice on that between now and then, especially from this project, but it would be as well preparing to defend against it as soon as possible.
  • On the other hand Note use of colorful font to indicate self-awareness that preceding commentary is solely negative... Regarding this particular topic, I note that a scan of the major databases—our own at WP:TWL ([16],[17]), BBIH ([18],[19],[20]), Jstor ([21]) the British Library ([22],[23]), for example—demonstrates that there is almost nothing you could have used but didn't; the poor chap's had almost nothing written on him. So no-one can be in doubt you've used ~everything available to you, and you are to be congratulated on your work, achieving A-class is no mean feat in itself! SN54129 16:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serial, may I respectfully thank you for your interesting remarks without trying to endear myself to you. I am not a historian and a newby compared to your experience. I recounted my sources according to your criterion: 85 out of 176 are post-war. I feel you are perhaps a bit too severe with the 19th-century historians. Just like today some are trustworthy and others not. Samuel Rawson Gardiner can surely not be accused of having published "romanticised almost-guesswork" or having indulged in "colorization". Sometimes one finds contradictions like Ohlmeyer vs older sources about the date of Donough's father's 2nd marriage. It took me some time to realise it. Somebody must be wrong here. I hope I have handled this correctly. I expected that some reviewer would go through the citations with a level of detail similar to the one that has been applied to the prose. I thought I had made this feasable by providing footquotes. User:Buidhe had made a courageous start in this direction. Perhaps she could continue? Detailed source reviews appear to be rare even at FA level. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @Nikkimaria and Buidhe:, would either of you be willing to do an image review? This nom has been here forever and it would be good to get it promoted given it now appears to have a consensus to promote on prose and sources. Any help gratefully appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest increasing the size of the family tree text
Increased the font size from 80% to 90% in the chart and from 70% to 80% in the legend. Hope this is enough. Sorry, user:Nikkimaria, somehow, it seems I was not alerted for your edit.
No worries on the alert, but be aware that MOS:SMALL advises against anything smaller than 85%. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria, thank for you patient explanations. I need them as this is my first image review. I increased the font size of the legend to 85% to comply with MOS:SMALL of which I had not been aware. Thanks for mentioning it. But, are not all our little superscript citation marks smaller than 85%? That seems to be an unavoidable exception to MOS:SMALL. So are the little lifespan numbers at the bottom of the frames of the family tree. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Second_Viscount_Muskerry.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Van_dyck_thomas_wentworth_earl_of_strafford_with_sir_philip_mainwaring_1639-40.jpg, File:Second_Viscount_Muskerry.jpg, File:Liscarroll_Castle_perspective.png, File:James_Butler,_1st_Duke_of_Ormonde_by_William_Wissing.jpg, File:Edmund_Ludlow.JPG
File (1) Second_Viscount_Muskerry.jpg – I added tags {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-Ireland-anon}}
What's the date when this was considered to have been "lawfully made available to the public"?
Dear Nikkimaria you talk far over my head. You said "needs a US tag". I was wildly trying to guess what that implies and did not and still do not understand. I thought I must throw in a tag starting with PD-US and did not understand that {{PD-US-expired}} is not the right one for the case because it requires a pre-1927 publication date and that is why you ask me for a publication date which confused me even further. The painting is poor quality and was probably first published with the opening of the Hunt Museum in Limerick, Ireland in 1997. I took this image from the museum's website and uploaded it using the upload wizard provided in Wikimedia Commons, choosing the option "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because the author died more than 70 years ago". This option seems to be have resulted in the copyright tag {{PD-Art}}. How can this be wrong or insufficient? I still do not understand why a "US tag" is needed and what that could be. With apologies and thanks, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's a brief explanation and if anything's unclear please ask. Under US law copying a two-dimensional image - for example, taking a photograph of a painting - does not result in a new copyright. This is what PD-Art means - as long as the original painting is in the public domain in the US, then the photograph is also in the public domain in the US. However, we still need to have a tag reflecting why the original painting is in the public domain in the US. The PD-old-70 tag covers countries where works enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the author, but the US is not one of those countries, so this tag doesn't cover US status of the painting either. PD-US-expired is a US tag, but we need to determine whether that tag applies to this particular image by determining when this was published - that term has a technical meaning in US law that might not be what you expect with regards to paintings. If we can confirm that it was published by that definition before 1927 then this tag is fine. The same for below - if for example Ormond's portrait was not published until 1983, then PD-US-expired would not be a correct tag for that image. There is a list of US tag here that might help. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the publication date is after 1997 and the painting was published in the US by the website of the Hunt Museum, however how can I be sure of this there might be a book somewhere that shows the portrait, even if I have not found it. . In consequence {{Tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100}} applies as Muskerry's portrait was first published in the US after 1978 when the US joined the Berne Convention (List of countries' copyright lengths) and there is no need for a second US-specific tag. Dear Nikkimaria. Thank you very much for your patient explanation. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When there is uncertainty, we generally err on the side of caution and go with what can be proven. Also be aware that PD-old-100 at Commons is not a US tag - see the note on that tag that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the URL from which I downloaded the photo showing Muskerry's portrait painting:
- https://www.huntmuseum.com/collection/painting-the-second-viscount-muskerry/
This URL is now dead, but the page can still be found on the Wayback machine at:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20200825025103/https://www.huntmuseum.com/collection/painting-the-second-viscount-muskerry/
I now wonder whether {{PD-US-unpublished}} cannot be asserted. No copyright publication of the painting has been found despite the reasonable effort made. By its very nature {{PD-US-unpublished}} can never be proven. Display in the museum or on its website is no copyright publication as there is no sale. Many images on Wikimedia Commons are marked {{PD-US-unpublished}}. For example the portrait uploaded by User:Magicpiano that figures on Jonathan Belcher, a Good Article. If this is not acceptable, must the image be deleted? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File (2) Van_dyck_thomas_wentworth_earl_of_strafford_with_sir_philip_mainwaring_1639-40.jpg – I added the tags {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}. The painting was uploaded by user:Daverdis and is in private collection.
Er, there is an artist named in the description, why would this be considered UK-unknown? If this is in a private collection, when was it made available to the public? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course right. I did not really understand that I was in fact lying by adding these wrong copyright tags. This was not uploaded by me. But why should {{PD-Art}} not be good enough? The Source http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue15/vandyckbritish.htm gives error 404. I found a backup on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20120218094955/http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue15/vandyckbritish.htm and added it on the metadata. National Trust Collections (https://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/500055.2) has an engraving of the painting done in 1739. I think this constitutes a publication and enables us to use {{PD-US-expired}} as it is before 1927.
File (3) Liscarroll_Castle_perspective.png – I added the tags {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}.
When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know when this was published, probably in the 17th century. It is an engraving and therefore made to be printed and distributed in bigger numbers. It might have been used in an 17th-century pamphlet or broadsheet about the war, but I have no proof. However, this makes it quite sure it was published "anywhere before 1927" and we can user {{PD-US-expired}}.
File (4) 1st_Duke_of_Ormonde_by_William_Wissing.jpg – I added the tags PD-US-expired and PD-UK-unknown. The latter is probably not the right one as the painter (Wissing) and the location (National Portrait Gallery) are known. What would be the right one?
What is the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ormond's portrait was purchased by the National Portait Gallery, London, in 1983, but display in a museum is not publication. However, the British Museum (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_P-5-70) has an engraving done 1680–1688 of the central part of the painting; this is publication and allow us {{PS-US-expired}} because published before 1927. What do you think?
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File (5) Edmund_Ludlow.JPG – I added the tags {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}.
As above, this has an author named, so why would it be UK-unknown? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was marked {{Tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100}} but you asked for a "US tag" so I added {{PD US-expired}}, I thought that was what you wanted. The I thought I also needed a copyright for the UK as the country of origin, so I added {{PD-UK-anon}}, the only UK copyright for PD that I knew of. I now wonder whether {{PD-Art}} {{PD-US-expired}} is not what you want here.
I propose to mark it {{Tl:PD-Art|PD-old-100}} and {{PD-US-expired}} because the engraving was published in Switzerland in 1698 as frontispiece of a book.
Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:MacCarthy.png needs a source and tag for the original design
I might be able to find an "original design". Just a second ...
Added the blazoning on which the graphic is based and cited Burke 1866. I added the all to the Description. I am not sure this is the right place. Perhaps it should have gone under Source (wich reads only |Source={{own}})? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does a dead source link mean the photo becomes unusable? I thought we put it into WikiCommons to protect against precisely this risk. Obviously I do not know much about these things, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make the photo unusable per se, but sourcing is part of both our WP:IUP and Commons' commons:COM:EI. Is an archived copy available? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkmaria, thanks for mentioning WP:IUP, I had never read this important guideline. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria. I found a backup of the source on the waybackmachine at https://web.archive.org/web/20160304071143/http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=6126.
  • Dear Nikkimaria. Thank you so much for your patience with me. I found engravings of the Van Dyck and the Wissing, but not for Muskerry's portrait. As engravings were made with the purpose to produce copies, the sale of such engravings constitutes IMHO publication. If this is before 1927 we can use {{PD-US-expired}} "published anywhere before 1927". I edited the metafiles. I hope you agree with this interpretation. I learned a lot from you. With many, many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

edit
 
The Irish wars section
Mate, you must have a very small computer screen. On my smaller screen, there aren't any that are even close. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey mate long time no see? Not really to be honest it's the opposite. I recently bought a new monitor and it's way bigger than the last one. However, I did not know that Wikipedia isn't converting the standard 1070px format into bigger screens or some browsers. So this makes it much more annoying and kinda awkward than it already is so I've manually checked some articles on my laptop whether or not it is a sandwich by the majority of readers. I was already wondering why nobody is saying there is some sandwich going on. But currently, I am now kinda confused, MOS:SANDWICH doesn't say that this doesn't apply to bigger or smaller screen resolutions unless there is a discussion about this in the past I am not sure whether or not this guideline should apply here or not. I hope Wikipedia will solve this issue in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought it must be a bigger screen, not a smaller screen. When checking for sandwiches, I would say, the width of the browser should be adjusted in a way that a full line has about 80 characters. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Eucherius (son of Stilicho)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Eucherius (son of Stilicho) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it relates to my work with Roman/Byzantine people, and I believe it meets the standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support

edit

I'll look at this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "From this, Historian J. B. Bury suggested that Eucherius was born c. 388" - lowercase historian here
  •   Done
  • " Historian Peter Heather suggests" - Again, historian isn't a real formal title, so I think this should be lowercase
  •   Done
  • Is it possible to briefly indicate what exactly the role of tribune of the notaries was? The redlink isn't helpful for explaining, and all the average reader will know is that they're told it was a lower rank
  •   Done
  • Should Gibbon have an |orig-year parameter to indicate that this is actually a very old work, rather than one from 2009? Also recommend linking the title to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
  •   Done
  • The link for ThayerE is dead
  •   Fixed
  • Since the Thayer works are all used as sources, move them up from external links to the sources.
  •   Done
  • "here he described Rome as being the place where Eucherius "first beheld the light"" - is there a secondary source that also has this interpretation? The source itself is a work of Claudian, and this appears to be interpretation of the phrase found in the primary source
  •   Done

That's it for the first pass. Hog Farm Talk 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • Caption: "An ivory diptych believed to be that of Eucherius (left bottom) with his father Stilicho (right) and mother Serena (middle), c. 395". Delete "that".
  •   Done
  • As he didn't take a regnal name, do we need his birth name in the infobox?
  •   Done
  • "(Aged 19-20)" → 'Aged 19 or 20'.
  •   Done
  • "which was written before his death in 404". Delete "before his death". Otherwise it reads as if he died in 404.
  •   Done
  • "historian Clare Coombe" → 'the historian Clare Coombe', to avoid false title. There are other similar cases.
  •   Done
  • "at this time during a narrative of Theodosius' visit to Rome". "during" → 'in'.
  •   Done
  • The first paragraph of "Later life" is rather long. It also has "However" three times.
  •   Done
  • "held by young elites". What is a young elite?
    Changed to "young members of the nobility"
  • "but to guard Gaul such as to allow him to". Delete "such as".
  •   Done
  • Introduce Sarus.
  •   Done
  • "a revolt soon broke out against Stilicho". Delete "soon".
  •   Done
  • Both the lead and the infobox state that Eucherius died on 22 August 408. But the main article doesn't.
    Seems I misunderstood how "soon" the death of Eucherius was from the sources, changed to amend that. Exact date of death seems unknown.
  • This article has the appearance of not much material being stretched thinly. For example, in "Later life" the last half and all of the second make no mention of Eucherius and don't seem very relevant to this article.
    Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly where to trim the fat. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this article tagged as MilHist? What military role did Eucherius fulfil?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Responding to the last comment first per relevancy; I think I slapped it in there as a force of habit more than anything else; I will add that a lot of rulers get added to MilHist, but I'm willing to withdraw this in regards to relevancy if its deemed appropriate. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I rather regret flagging it up now. Can I suggest that we finish this nomination, which is well in hand, without worrying too much which side of the invisible and debatable line the topic falls, but that you double check all future noms for MilHistness©. And maybe that we reviewers be a little more on our toes in that respect. Does that work? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Just saw this; yes, I definitely will be more careful in future. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and support from Vami

edit

Quality of the sources checks out. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check good. Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Michael Herrick

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Michael Herrick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another article for a New Zealand flying ace of the Second World War for consideration for A-Class, Michael Herrick was a little different in that he flew in Europe, shooting down German bombers as a night fighter pilot before being sent to fly with the Royal New Zealand Air Force in the Pacific. He served for several months and destroyed Japanese fighters. He didn't survive the war, being killed soon after returning to Europe. Originally written in April 2020 using his online biography on the NZHistory website and subsequently expanded with some print souces. It has been through the GA process and I have come back and made some revisions and done a little expansion work. As always, my thanks in advance to all those who stop by to provide feedback. Zawed (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "on the RMS Rangitiki": drop the definite article and provide a link to the ship
  • is there any more that could be said about his training or service between 1939 and 1940?
  • "No. 25 Squadron soon moved to Martlesham Heath": do we know when this occured?
  • Despite a bit of scouting on Google books, I'm having trouble pinning down a reliable source for when the move occurred. However, I have literally just bought a book online that might help. It will be sent next week and if it has anything I will add it. I might be able to use it to beef up what the squadron was doing in the period between March to September as well. Zawed (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "equipped with airborne radar": link radar
  • "where it began operating P40s that" --> "P-40s"?
  • "leading a flight": link flight
  • "Japanese destroyers and strafing landing craft": link destroyer and landing craft
  • beachhead on Bougainville --> link to Landings at Cape Torokina?
  • when was he promoted to flight lieutenant and then squadron leader? If known, it should probably be mentioned in the body of the article
  • No worries, even if you don't have an exact date for promotion to squadron leader, I would encourage you to add some mention of the rank in the body as currently the infobox seems to be the only place it is mentioned. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • citation 23 (Gisborne Herald) should have an endash rather than a hyphen
  • in the References, "Auckland, New Zealand" v. "Wellington" -- is "New Zealand" necessary here for both?
  • as above, "London, United Kingdom" v. "Norwich" -- should Norwich also have UK appended?
  • No worries, your changes look good. I have added my support above. Sorry for the delayed response; I have been focusing on spending time with the family since I got home and have been reluctant about getting involved too deeply in Wikipedia again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Lead:

  • Michael James Herrick DFC* (5 May 1921 – 16 June 1944) was a New Zealand flying ace of the Royal Air Force (RAF) during the Second World War. He was credited with the destruction of at least six enemy aircraft.
  • "at least" -> What does this indefinite phrase add to the meaning of six enemy aircraft?
  • His total tally for aircraft shot down includes 2 shared, so there is an argument he destroyed eight. But I think this potentially subjective (some would argue you could take the two halves and combined them to add one to his score, so 7 destroyed). I prefer the chosen wording to indicate that it is the bare minimum, i.e. 6, but could be more subject to interpretation. Zawed (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • <>While I respect your point of view, I should think that "two shared" is more defiitive than "at least".
  • Born in Hastings, New Zealand, Herrick joined the RAF in 1939.
This sentence seems more relative to the first paragraph than it does as the first sentence of the second paragraph?
  • I view the first paragraph as establishing notability, the second as a summary of his bio. (I have trimmed the 2nd para by removing New Zealand, since that is clear from the 1st para). Zawed (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>At this stage, I bow to your point of view. Pendright (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He flew Bristol Blenheims on night operations with No. 25 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, destroying three German bombers.
"during the Battle of Britain," -> Suggest using this as the introductory phrase to the sentence
and dropping the comma?
  • In late 1941, having shot down at least four enemy aircraft, he was sent to New Zealand on secondment to the Royal New Zealand Air Force to take command of its newly formed No. 15 Squadron.
  • "at least" -> Same as above?
<> Same as above. Pendright (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this section, the pronoun "he" is used eight successive times in referring to Herrick, which does not include the use of "his" a few times.
The purpose of using a subject pronoun is to avoid repetition of a subject's name, and ordinaraly a pronoun would refer to a noun used earlier. Instead, here, a pronoun is refering to a pronoun? Semantic satiation

Early life:

  • He was educated at Hurworth School in Wanganui, before going onto Wanganui Collegiate School.
  • He was "first" educated?
  • Drop the comma - an independent clause and a dependent clause are not joined by a comma
  • Could you add a few more details about Herrick?
  • That's about all I can glean from the sources. Zawed (talk) 04:08, 2

December 2021 (UTC)

<>Okay, thanks for looking Pendright (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second World War:

  • He was commissioned as a pilot officer on 7 March 1940,[5] and was posted to No. 25 Squadron which was stationed at North Weald and operated Bristol Blenheims.[4]
  • Drop the comma or add a subject to the last clause?

Battle of Britain:

  • Although its aircraft had been intended for light bombing, in June No. 25 Squadron moved to Martlesham Heath to operate in a night fighting role.
The last mention of No. 25 Squardren is in the lead, so consider the following changes:
Although No, 25 Squardren's aircraft had been intended for light bombing, it was moved to Martlesham Heath in June to operate in a night fighting role.
  • On the night of 4/5 September, despite his aircraft's radar set malfunctioning, Herrick spotted a Heinkel He 111 bomber caught in search lights and shot it down.
  • caught in whose search lights?
  • Add a year after September
  • For his exploit, he was later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The published citation read:
Should exploit be plural?
  • No. 25 Squadron shortly began converting to Bristol Beaufighters and in one of these aircraft, and now operating from Wittering, he possibly destroyed a bomber in December, damaged a Junkers Ju 88 bomber on 8 May 1941 and destroyed a Ju 88 the following month.
  • Replace shortly with soon
  • Add a comma after Bristol Beaufighters -> its an independent clause.
  • Drop "and now"
  • "possibly destroyed" -> Add a citation after the phrase
  • The cite at the end of the sentence covers all the facts recited so to deal with this, I have restructured this section so I end the sentence with that "possible destroyed". That way I don't have two cites to the same source in the same sentence. Zawed (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this time, he had been promoted to flying officer.[11]
By "this" time -> Could this be more specific

Secondment:

  • Promoted to flight lieutenant in March 1942, three months later he was posted to the RNZAF's No. 15 Squadron.
Consider moving "three months later" to the end of the sentence.
  • After a few months it was sent to Tonga, where it began operating P-40s that had been recently used by the United States Army Air Force's No. 68 Pursuit Squadron, with responsibility for the air defence of the island.
Consider replacing at least one "it"?
  • By this time Herrick had been promoted squadron leader and was in charge of the unit; its original commanding officer had been killed in a flying accident.[1][14]
The last "its" could be replaced by "the"
  • The squadron's initial encounter with the enemy took place on 6 May; while escorting a Lockheed Hudson, Herrick and his wingman shared in the destruction of a Japanese float-plane.[15]
Connsider ths instead: The squadron's initial encounter with the enemy took place while escorting a Lockheed Hudson on 6 May, when Herrick and his wingman shared in the destruction of a Japanese float-plane.
  • This is acknowledged to be the first enemy aircraft shot down in the Pacific by fighters of the RNZAF.[1]
This is acknowledged or This was acknowledged?
  • On 7 June, he was involved in a large dogfight that took place when a force of over 100 Allied fighters, including twelve P-40s from No. 15 Squadron, encountered nearly around 50 Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zeroes near the Russell Islands.
"nearly around" -> drokp one
  • In recognition of his services in the Solomons, he was awarded a bar to his DFC; this was gazetted in February 1944.
gazetted by whom?

Return to the RAF:

  • With Herrick's secondment to the RNZAF at an end, in January 1944 he embarked for England, via Canada, travelling on a troopship while in charge of 300 RNZAF personnel who were proceeding to Edmonton for flight training.
  • Move the comma after "at an end" and place it after 1944.
  • Change "at an end" to at "the" end
  • Resuming his service with the RAF, he was sent to No. 305 Polish Bomber Squadron, where he took command of one of its flights.[4]
"his", "he & "he"?
  • Herrick is credited with the destruction of six enemy aircraft, shares in two other aircraft destroyed and two damaged.[8]
  • Replace the comma with and
  • Change shares to sharing
  • The month after Herrick's death, it was announced that he was to be awarded the United States Air Medal, in acknowledgement of his services in the Pacific; the medal was presented to his parents in a ceremony in Wellington in June 1945 by Captain Lloyd Gray, the naval attache at the United States Embassy.
The word "in" is repeated five times?

@Zawed: Finished!

@Pendright:, thank you for another detailed and insightful review. I have made a number of edits in response to your feedback, see what you think. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: Supporting! Always a pleasure working with you. Best of the season! Pendright (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pendright, and all the best to you as well. Zawed (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - pass

The sources are all reliable, the long citations are complete, consistent and IAW MOS, as are the short citations. If you haven't got a third reviewer by the end of next week, ping me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review PM, much appreciated. Will ping you if another reviewer doesn't come along. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

edit
Image moved. Zawed (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

edit

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cannot !support so long as any instance of "enemy aircraft" or "the enemy", excepting of course the quotation from the London Gazette, remains in this article. Are dead men the enemies of Wikipedia?
Lead
  • Born in Hastings, [...] What do you think of un-piping this link? The first sentence of the lead identifies the subject as a New Zealander, but there is of course a Hastings in the country for which Herrick cut his teeth as a fighter pilot.
  • Generally my preference when writing articles is to wikilink locations such as towns so that the reader can follow the link if they wish to learn more about that particular location. Here, just typing Hastings takes the reader to the English town which to my mind reinforces the need for the link, to make it easier for the reader to find. Zawed (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] for his achievements during the battle. Recommend "for his actions".
Early life
  • Michael James Herrick was born in Hastings in New Zealand [...] Recommend nixing "in New Zealand" and just un-piping the link to Hastings, New Zealand.
  • [...] one of five boys of [...] Recommend "one of five sons".
  • Recommend linking "pilot's licence".
Second World War
  • The outbreak of the Second World War forced Herrick's cadetship, originally scheduled to run for two years, to be consolidated. Consolidated by whom?
  • [...] it was involved in convoy patrols over the North Sea. What exactly did these patrols entail? Were they patrolling for U-boats so as to protect convoys, or looking for German convoys to attack?
  • [...] the Luftwaffe [...] "Luftwaffe" should be italicized and linked.
  • [...] repeated the feat [...] These successes [...] For his exploits, [...] I generally have an issue with this language on the grounds of good taste. I of course do not demean the difficulty of aerial combat, or deny that the destruction of an opposing force's aircraft is a success for the destroyer, but to describe them as "exploits" is to render the act of sending men into the grave or captivity is like describing the Boer War as a safari. Somewhat accurate, but in poor taste.
  • I have rephrased this section. I agree that the usage of "exploits" could be insensitive hence its removal although have retained "successes" (although used in a different sentence) as I do not feel that its use in this context is out of place. Zawed (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] he possibly destroyed a bomber [...] Recommend substituting "Herrick" for "he".
  • He destroyed a Ju 88 in June while on patrol over the Midlands. When?
  • He spent a period of time as an instructor [...] How long and when?
  • It is not explicit from the sources, but can be inferred as being around six months from the timeline recited in the article - he arrives in NZ late in 1941 and receives an operational posting in June 1942. Zawed (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Herrick led] a flight of eight P-40s accompanying light bombers attacking Japanese destroyers and strafing landing craft. Were the light bombers strafing the landing craft or was that the P-40s? Both?
  • The following month, Herrick relinquished command of the squadron and left to return to New Zealand. Whatever for? Was he going on leave?
  • The citation noted that it was for "gallantry displayed in flying operations against the enemy in the Solomon Islands". This strikes me as superfluous.
  • Interrogated by Spreckels, he was reportedly advised that Herrick had made a good account of himself before being shot down. What does this mean?
  • I feel it is more neutral/less heroic than "brave fight", but whether it is neutral in itself I'm not sure. I note that no other reviewer has taken issue with it. Zawed (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The month after Herrick's death, it was announced that he was to be awarded the United States Air Medal, as an acknowledgement of his services in the Pacific; [...] The citation specifically noted his exploits in the Solomon Islands area during the period of May to June 1943. This information should be melded together: "The month after Herrick's death, it was announced that he was to be awarded the United States Air Medal for his services in the Solomon Islands."

Reading complete. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vami_IV, I have now responded to your latest comments. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2022 (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) 14:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Ngatapa

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

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

Toolbox

In a change from bios of flying aces and VC recipients, I bring for your consideration for A-Class a battle from one of the New Zealand Wars, specifically Te Kooti's War of the late 1860s/early 1870s. The Siege of Ngatapa was the largest engagement of that war, but "only" involved around 900 combatants and finished up with a war crime. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first article relating specifically to the New Zealand Wars that has come to A-Class, I hope it makes for a change for reviewers. As always, thanks in advance to those who take the time to have a look. Zawed (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Hope to review this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 07:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "(Māori aligned with the Government) " - are we sure government should be capitalized here?
  • Link Ropata Wahawaha in the body
  • I'm not seeing where the "at least 150 killed" in the infobox is originating from

Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 20:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look Hog Farm, I have made some edits and responses above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

It's great to see an article on the New Zealand Wars here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • Can coordinates for the location of the siege be provided?
  • A bit more background on the conflict in the lead would be useful - especially to position this battle within the broader NZ Wars
  • Likewise, a para on how the battle fitted into the NZ wars would be useful in the 'Background' section (for instance, to provide an outline of the conflicts up to the time of the battle)
  • Some material on how the government forces struggled to deal with Maori fortifications throughout the war would be useful (the Osprey book on the topic is excellent if you need a reference)
  • " he was accused of being a spy" - by whom? (the government?)
  • I think on numbers involved it would have been, since many of the actions in the New Zealand Wars were small scale guerilla affairs. It was the largest in Te Kooti's War as he never had such numbers again. However, I don't have a source that explicitly states that. Nick-D, thanks for looking at this. I have responded above. and with edits to the article. Zawed (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
  • Consider adding alt text.
  • All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great to see an article on the New Zealand Wars at ACR. A few comments:

Lead
  • suggest "Te Kooti's War was part of the New Zealand Wars, a series of conflicts between the British, the local authorities and their Māori allies on one side, and several Māori iwi (tribes) on the other, that took place from 1843 to 1872."
  • link Chatham Islands
  • were the " local militia" European settlers, or a mix of them and Māori?
  • suggest "and a series of skirmishes with Māori aligned with the government—known as kūpapa—followed."
  • suggest "retreated to the hillfort—orpā—at Ngatapa."
  • suggest "At the end of the month, the Armed Constabulary—a regular paramilitary force—commanded by Colonel George Whitmore"
  • suggest "by the Ngāti Porou and some Māori members of the Armed Constabulary"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "From 1843 to 1872, there were a series of conflicts in New Zealand between some local Māori people on one side, and British imperial and colonial forces and their Māori allies on the other."
  • could you work in early on that during the wars, the Māori iwi had access to firearms and what type was in use during this conflict? This is sort of assumed knowledge, but could bear being made explicit to provide context.
  • suggest "was the last of these later wars, and marked the final field engagements of the New Zealand Wars"
  • suggest "a hillfort—or pā—in the Urewera hill country."
  • after introducing them, add a sentence explaining that the Armed Constabulary were full-time paramilitary law enforcement or gendarmery
  • suggest changing the piping to "In September, [[Tītokowaru's War|conflict in South Taranaki]]"
  • suggest "Te Kooti then spread rumours that an attack on Wairoa in Hawke's Bay was imminent. However, on the night of 9/10 November, Te Kooti and his Ringatū men instead attacked a number of communities in Poverty Bay, including at Matawhero."
  • suggest "Te Kooti sought revenge—or utu—for his banishment to the Chathams."
  • suggest "Soon afterwards, Te Kooti murdered a chief–or rangatira—Paratene Pototi,"
  • suggest "and sending Whitmore's Armed Constabulary back to the region"
  • what was Makeretu? a village?
Presumably Ashley Clinton? Perhaps "to the rural community of Makeretu now Ashley Clinton, about..." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Zawed (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in what compass direction from Tūranga was Makeretu?
  • suggest "from Tūranga—now known as Gisborne."
  • suggest "200 Ngāti Kahungunu warriors—kūpapa or Māori who were aligned with the Government—arrived in the area"
  • "met the Ringatū forces in open battle" any ideas about casualties?
  • did Ropata Wahawaha bring ammo? How otherwise were they supplied?
  • suggest "to the pā of Ngatapa"
  • "most were killed or taken prisoner"? If it was a small rearguard, "many" seems incongruous. Later it says about 60, so perhaps state that?
  • I have clarified this some; the sources doesn't specify just how many were captured which is why I refer only to "some prisoners" (as I suspect that some would have gotten away). Zawed (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • presumably Tareha Te Moananui refused to continue as part of the anti-Ringatū forces?
  • I'd put 0.8 kilometres (0.50 mi) in m and ft
  • "Pā had been a key to success"
  • "As Māori were usually outnumbered in their conflicts" doesn't follow, Māori fought Māori as well as British and colonial authorities. Could you reword this, perhaps "When outnumbered, Māori often used a well-constructed pā to negate the advantage..."

Down to Siege. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • just check the macron on Tūranga throughout.
  • as a NZC recipient, is George Preece likely to be notable? redlink?
  • "as his men had run out of ammunition" or are we talking about musket balls in particular?
  • "His troops, who had embarked on a ship for South Taranaki"
  • "better-equipped assault"
  • "went to his home region of Waiapu"?
  • so, how many of the Armed Constabulary were kūpapa?

Down to Encirclement. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This affected the supply arrangements, which had placed under stress when the Ngāti Porou arrived at Ngatapa without much ammunition." not sure what is meant here, missing word(s)?
  • suggest "In response, Whitmore briefly pounded the pā defences with Coehorn mortars."
  • "climbed the rock face" which side of the pā was this rock face on?
  • suggest "Some Te Arawa members of the Armed Constabulary also participated in the killings"
  • suggest avoiding the double negative of "not unconnected"

That's all I have. Nice job on this thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, I have finished off the outstanding comments here so this is all ready for another look. Thanks for taking the time to review this one. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked a few minor things. Excellent work, supporting. I have also checked the sources, and the short and long citations are properly formatted, and the references appear reliable. Pass. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 22 January 2022 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Marmaduke–Walker duel

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Marmaduke–Walker duel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A shorter, but I think thorough, article about the worst case of dysfunction in a frequently dysfunctional Confederate high command. Walker and Marmaduke don't like each other, a third general who should have known better makes Marmaduke serve directly under Walker, tensions rise, friends make things worse, and the whole thing culminates with Marmaduke killing Walker in an illegal duel during the middle of an active campaign. Somehow, Marmaduke managed to avoid any serious consequences. Hog Farm Talk 15:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

I'll get to this. (Nudge me if I don't) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Marmaduke was arrested, but later released, and Union forces captured Little Rock." Are these events so connected that they should be in the same sentence? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, split.
  • "a date of rank". Is there a way of expressing this so that non-milhist aficionados wil know what it means?
    • rephrased, is the new version likely to be more understandable
      I think that what "seniority" is needs explaining somewhere. Perhaps in a footnote?
      Footnoted a general explanation of how date of rank was used for seniority in the CSA
  • "After running afoul of Braxton Bragg". What, how, when? Who was Bragg?
    • Details are kinda vague (it was super easy to get on Bragg's bad side), I've tried to flesh things out a little bit. Date isn't exactly clear at all
  • Out of five sentences, four begin with "After".
    • Down to one
  • "supposed to protect Marmaduke's left flank". Suggest 'supposed to protect left flank of Marmaduke's cavalry brigade' or similar.
    • Done
  • "These events led to animosity between the two officers." Three officers are mentioned in the previous two sentences and it is not clear to be which other Walker fell out with. I assume not Holmes for his damning report? But perhaps this could be made clear.
    • Clarified
  • "as he had seniority". And "seniority" would be what?
  • "Davidson drove Marmaduke". I don't insist, but I am not sure that this type of expression is encyclopedic language. You don't mean what you write. You mean 'Davidson's unit [or the men of his unit] drove the unit commanded by Marmaduke [or the men of this unit]'. It would, IMO, be clearer for a reader to say as much.
    • Done.
  • "The terms of the duel specified that both men would be accompanied by". Do you mean 'each man', not "both men"?
    • Done
      "each man would be accompanied by ... two doctors". So four doctors in all, yes?
      Correct
  • What if anything was special about a "round ball"?
    • Clarified - the weapon of choice could fire two types of ammo
  • "all of the rounds had been fired". How many was this? Eg, did each carry a bandolier of 200 rounds?
    • Clarified that it was all of the loaded rounds and then footnoted that the weapon had six shots
  • "Marmaduke simply ignored it". Why "simply"?
    • Removed
  • "The duel and its results deteriorated Confederate morale". This (at least for non-US readers) reads oddly. Perhaps 'The duel and its results caused Confederate morale to deteriorate'?
    • Works in AmEng, but I've changed this.
  • "may have been a net benefit for the Union troops". Again this seems odd. How might a senior enemy officer being killed not have benefited the Union side?
  • "Aftermath": perhaps move the first two sentences to the end of "The duel".
    • Done
  • "The duel": delete "The".
    • Done (assuming you're referring to the section head)
  • "a railroad commission". What was that? Similar to a military commission?
    • I've directly named the thing - the Missouri Railway Commission. I can't find much that directly explains what this is, I assume the literal explanation of railroad-related oversight is probably what it is

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

edit

Alright, here's my formatting review:

  • Add ISBN/ISSN in sources
    • Added
  • Clarify these for general people, such as:
    • line → troop line? (sorry, I'm not really into military)
      • Went with position. troop line isn't a commonly-used term
    • many instances of "men" → "troops"
      • It's actually okay with this context - women weren't allowed to serve in the CSA armed forces
    • Union movements → Union troops' movement [maybe my rookie mistake]
      • Either one works, I have a slight preference for the current one as more concise, but I'll change it if this is felt strongly about
    • ran afoul → go against (idiom?)
      • Changed to "developed a poor relationship with", as "go against" isn't super great phrasing for this
    • ...
  • "where he reported in March 1863" is a bit ambiguous
    • Clarified to "reported for duty", does this help
  • Passive voice are used extensively. While this isn't a bad thing, it can make the article tricky for people to read. Some includes:
    • "Assigned to command a cavalry brigade, he fought in the Battle of Helena." → "He fought in the Battle of Helena, commanding a cavalry brigade."
      • Done
    • "Missing Shiloh due to illness, he served at the Siege of Corinth and the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi" → "After missing Shiloh due to illness, he served at the Siege of Corinth and the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi"
    • Done
  • Some sentences can be shorten for brevity:
    • "During the fighting at Helena, which took place on July 4, 1863" → "During the fighting at Helena on July 4, 1863"
      • Done
    • "Marmaduke's report blamed Walker for his failure to capture his objective" → "Marmaduke's blamed Walker for not achieving his objective"
      • Removed "report" as suggested, but kept in "his failure" because I'm worried that it could be read to suggest that the lack of achieving was Walker's objective
    • "Marmaduke decided not to inform Walker when the Confederates retreated" → "Marmaduke then not informed Walker the retreat of the Confederates"
      • Went with "did not inform"
  • Wikilink "A Colt 1861 Navy Revolver, the type of weapon used during..." in caption; Kent State University Press, Louisiana State University Press in source
  • The article is currently orphaned, so linking it to related articles may be helpful
  • Choppy sentences:
    • "Marmaduke was arrested, but later released. Union forces captured Little Rock later in the campaign. Surviving the war, Marmaduke was later Governor of Missouri."
      • I've tried to improve this
    • "[...] he wrote that Walker failed to protect Marmaduke's flank and did not provide a good reason for this.[10] Marmaduke's report blamed Walker for his failure to capture his objective.[11] These events led to animosity between Walker and Marmaduke.[9]"
      • I've made an attempt at fixing this, is it better?
  • Sourcing: Pretty good, although [6] and [23] raise my eyebrow for sourcing an encyclopedia. It is a ternary source, which is depreciated in Wikipedia. I cannot review much about other sources because I'm not a MILHIST nerd :(

Comments Support from Indy beetle

edit

Because it wasn't enough to have the Union trying to kill them. My comments:

  • Walker, who was concerned about the safety of his own left flank, did not move to support Marmaduke's. In turn, Marmaduke did not inform Walker when the Confederates retreated. Did Marmaduke fail to inform Walker because Walker hadn't supported his flank?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • Price had Marmaduke and both officers' seconds arrested. For dueling? Murder? Violation of military codes?
    • Murder, which I've added.
  • Seems worthwhile to mentioned someone put a historical marker down to commemorate the event.
    • That source isn't RS, but I'll look for another one to use
      • This is a full size photo of the marker, which shows when it was placed (2015) and what organizations sponsored it, which might help if those organizations have their own online databases or postings.
        • I've been able to cite the existence to a news article and the date placed to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas
  • This source notes that the duel was not known in detail until the 1880s, when Crockett wrote about it for a publication. Seems worthy of mention.
    • @Indy beetle: - Are you able to get the gbooks preview for that page? I can't access it, and I want to make sure that I get it exactly right and not accidentally close paraphrase it. Hog Farm Talk 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Page 185 says, verbatim "The duel was not fully rptd. by eyewitness until the late 1880s, when a participant, Col. Robert H. Crockett, published his version in the Arkansas Gazette." It also talks about how Crocket maintained that "the duel was set in motion two days after Reed's Bridge, when certain words were spoken after dinner at Walker's hdq." Do you know what this is referring too?
  • This source notes that the duel led to bitterness between Price and Marmaduke.
    • Cited to my print copy of Castel

-Indy beetle (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
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) 13:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

42 cm Gamma howitzer

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

42 cm Gamma howitzer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is an article about a very big, very heavy, very frustrating-to-read-and-write-about German artillery piece used in World War I and that somehow survived in one example to be used again in World War II. I'm nominating this article for A-Class status today because I think that it's pretty much done, though I don't think I can take it to FAC. Reason being is that one source, and an Osprey source at that, is doing the heavy lifting here, and the Gamma gun lives in the shadow of Big Bertha (howitzer), the other 42cm siege gun. Regardless, as far as I have been able to determine, said Osprey book is the most definitive, comprehensive, and credible source available for not just this gun, but all the German siege guns of World War I. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Pentagonal Brialmont fort, 1914.jpg — It's not clear to me what the UK copyright status is. If there was a credited author for the image, he would need to have died at least 70 years ago.
Hi Vami_IV, would you care to respond to this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; forgot about this. I can't even find the book the image is supposedly from, so I've just removed the image. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, looks ok.

Congrats on your first A-class nomination! (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I can generally tell the broad classes of ACW cannons apart on sight, but I'm not familiar with the more modern pieces. Will take a look at this though. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here; I was writing these up when Zawed posted theirs so there may be some overlap. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

edit
Yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

Generally looks good, a few nitpicks though: Lead

  • It was designed from 1906 to 1910,...: reading the article, this isn't quite right, the design work only took up part of this time, development and construction took up some too. I suggest rephrasing to something like "Design and development began in 1906 and it entered service four years later with the Imperial German Army". The following sentence would need a bit of rejigging. Suggest mention the number of pieces made in the lead as well.

Development

  • When rifled artillery became able to fire out of range of fortress guns,...: I'm having trouble parsing this. So are you saying rifled artillery had a greater range than fortress guns?
  • a 30.5 cm howitzer and a 42 cm gun.: this clearly distinguishes between howitzer and gun, i.e. that they are two different things. It is clear that this article is about the gun, yet the title is "42 cm Gamma howitzer"? Coming back to this I notice there was some discussion at the time of the GA review regarding the title.

Design and production

  • to assemble all seven,[b] 20–25-metric-ton (20–25 t) portions of the Gamma-Gerät.: suggest mentioning the fact it was so large that it had to be transported in sub-assemblies earlier in the section.

Ammunition

  • 42 cm high-explosive shell craters... and 42 cm shells were generally 1.5 m (4.9 ft) long,...: numbers shouldn't start a sentence unless written out.

Service history

That's it for me, looking forward to promoting this one for your first A-Class article. Zawed (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support in light of the responses above. Zawed (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Any more comments? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No more comments. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

edit

Alright, not a MILHIST nerd but I will try my best reviewing :)

I assume CactiStaccingCrane is referring to Wikipedia:TERTIARY. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • All sources used appear reliable
  • Referencing style is consistent
  • All OCLCs/ISBNs link to appropriate pages
  • Found no issues to address regarding sourcing, so supporting in this department.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2021 (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) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (1–100)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (1–100) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Next up in the British Second World War formation lists department, is the first half of all the infantry brigades that were formed or existed during the period. There is a background section to provide some context on the British Army and brigades, before providing a list of just over 100 brigades. The list includes if they existed when the war broke out or when they were formed, when they were disbanded, where they served, what branch of the army they were part of, and some additional notes about their comings and goings. The list ends with the 73rd Brigade, and another list picks up with brigade 103 onwards (there was no brigades between those two numbers). The list has also been given a pass by the GoCE. I look forward to your comments to help whip it into shape.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

edit
  • "Over the course of the war, 140 regular army brigades would be raised, although they would not all exist at the same time, and many were redesignated from one number or name to another." Source required.
  • "By the end of 1939, the Territorial Army had increased to 32 first-Line and 32 second-line infantry brigades." Source required.
    I have added in a source for both of theseEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general comment, I would mention the division a brigade was part of. This will help the readers, who are likely more familiar with the divisions than the brigades.
    Added in a whole new column to accommodate that. I have only added divisions the brigades were a part of for a couple of months, rather than what appears to be temporary attachments for a few days or weeks etc.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid using code names like Operation Corkscrew. Even Operation Overlord should be "Normandy"
    All updated, along with some additional tweaks along that column. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ended the war" is not entirely clear to me. I take it to be September 1945.
    Would something the effect of the "By September 1945, the brigade was X"?
  • 1st Guards Brigade. Double-check the claim that it ended the war in the UK. It was in Palestine in September 1945.
    The 1st Infantry Brigade (Guards)? Per Joslen, they were in North Africa from 22 November 1942 through to 3 Feb 1944 when they were deployed to Italy. He does not record any leaves back to Africa or the Middle East for this brigade, as you see with others. He records that they entered Austria in May 1945, departed back for Italy in June and were then air transported to the UK.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7th Motor Brigade: Did not participate in the Italian campaign, as it was redesignated the 18th Lorried Infantry Brigade before it arrived. Did participate in the Tunisian campaign though.
    Quite! I belive this was a copy and paste error from creating the series around the 7th/18th Brigade. Fixed nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18th Infantry Brigade: Did not participate in the Tunisian campaign, as it was not formed until after the campaign had ended.
    Updated this one too!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 24th Guards Brigade: Most muddled notes: "On 20 November 1940, the brigade was redesignated as an independent brigade group, until 30 October 1942 when it was redesignated as an independent brigade. On 13 March 1944, it again became an independent brigade group until 10 March 1945." The point is that was assigned to the 1st Division, then the 6th South African Armoured Division as its second infantry brigade. After South Africa provided a second infantry brigade, it was reassigned to the 56th (London) Infantry Division. Also, it participated in the Tunisian campaign.
    I have reworded the note somewhat: it became an indy brigade prior to being assigned to the 1st Inf, for example, and maintained that role - per Joslen - until it was assigned to the 56th. The new div column includes the above mentioned divs, and I have also added in the overlooked campaign.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54th, 55th, 56th: should be duplicates of the 161st, 162nd and 163rd.
    While I believe this is about accurate for some, I have not seen it spelt out as such in Joslen. I reviewed some other sources, but none have yet stated as such either. To provide an example of a "normal" entry, the 4th London Infantry Brigade page states "September 1939: A Second Line ... duplicate of 1st London Infantry Brigade". Whereas on the 54th and 55th pages, it states "A Second Line Territorial Army Infantry Brigade. (1)" Note 1 just states that both brigades were being administered by the 54th Div until the 18th was activated. The 53rd page states "Formed in the United Kingdom by redesignation of 163rd Infantry Brigade a First Line Territorial Army Infantry Brigade". Flipping over to the 161-163 pages, provides no further info on what brigades were their duplicates. The 161st is reported as being redesignated as the 163rd on 18 September. The 163rd has probably the most confusing entry I have seen in Joslen: "A First Line Territorial Army Infantry Brigade. On 18 September the Brigade was redesignated 53rd Infantry Brigade; on the same date a new 163rd Infantry Brigade was formed by redesignation of 161st (duplicate) Infantry Brigade - a Second Line territorial Army formation." I know there was a lot of leeway to how duplicates were formed, and the impression I am left with is that the 54th (East Anglian) did it a little differently to everyone else and butchered their paper trail in the process.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 73rd Infantry Brigade" "oversea" should be "oversee"
    Kindly fixed by Nick-DEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Kavyansh.Singh – Pass

edit

Image review—pass

edit

No licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 09:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "they were usually assigned to a Corps-level command": decaps corps
  • "Malta, was redesigtnated": typo
  • "Interal security unit": typo
  • "Japan captured it after the Battle of Singapore" --> "It was captured by the Japanese after the Battle of Singapore"?
  • "The brigade was formed when the expansion of the Gold Coast Regiment" --> "The brigade was formed following the expansion of the Gold Coast Regiment"?
  • "as the 1s (West Africa) Infantry Brigade on 4 September 1941": typo
  • "airborne foramtion": typo
  • "fighting in the Tunisian" --> "fighting in the Tunisian campaign"?
  • "British India, in Jungle warfare": decaps jungle
  • "Italian" --> "Italian campaign", or maybe just Italy in the notable campaigns column?
  • "Tunisian" --> "Tunisian campaign", or maybe just Tunisia as per the above?
  • "On 19 May, the brigade" --> year?
  • "to its prior title on 18 June" --> year?
  • add an endash instead of hyphen for the title of the Martin work
  • Citation 14 (Buter, Gibbs, French, Perry) is the only example of a bundled citation in the article, although there are other instances where it could be employed (for instance 118 & 119) -- suggest consistency
  • "[109][107]": suggest reordering numerically (there are a couple of other examples)
  • subheader "Infantry Brigades (1–73)" -- not sure about (1-73) here given the title of the article and given that the bold title of the table then says "1 to 100"; I would just change it to "Brigades" (decapitalised)
  • "they had concluded the territorial army could" --> Territorial Army
  • "a European War" --> "a European war"
  • "was issued with a company of nine French" --> "was assigned a company of nine French"?
  • " This change then followed suit in formations overseas" --> "This change was then implemented in formations overseas"?
  • "The plan was for the first-line formations to recruit over their establishments (aided by an increase in pay for Territorials, the removal of restrictions on promotion which had hindered recruiting, construction of better-quality barracks and an increase in supper rations)...": I'd suggest trimming this a bit - "aided by improvements in conditions of service"?
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to action all, with the exception of the bundled citation. I wanted to clarify first. I can go through and bundle all citations together, that is not an issue. I thought general practise was something like a max of three inline cites, and thereafter things should be bundled etc.?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    G'day, I'm not aware of any rule regarding how many citations are required to make a bundle. WP:CITEBUNDLE just seems to say "multiple", as far as I can tell. I have seen two or more used in a bundle before. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With that said, all cites in the article have been bundled for consistency.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I hope to be able to look at this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 06:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me longer to look at this than expected.

Through the 35th brigade in the table, will be back later. Hog Farm Talk 16:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 72nd Independent Infantry Brigade - any details about the formation in 1941?
    Joslen does not hold any specific information about its founding. Formed in January 1941, and assigned to Northern Command for about a week. The brigade was then transferred to Northern Ireland, until it was redesignated as a para brigade and transferred to the 6th AB. Anything in particular that you think should be added to this entry?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good - a bit heavy reliance of Joslen, but I think that's unavoidable here. Hog Farm Talk 01:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just wanted to pop-in and state, I will work on your points next week. I think you are correct about the heavy reliance on Joslen being unavoidable. To the best of my knowledge, its essentially the official reference guide for British Army formations during the war, and there are no other works that go into the same level of detail.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy New Year! I am back and have tried to address all commentsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2022/Promoted&oldid=1130440791"