Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2023/Failed

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment | 2023

Failed

edit

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The British 1st Division was formed in 1809 and is still active today. Due to its long history, several articles have been created to adequately cover it. This one covers 100-years, from formation through to the end of the Boer War and becoming a permanent part of the British order of battle. The GOCE have given it the once over and it has already passed a GA review. I look forward to further feedback to make the article better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

edit

Article looks pretty good. A couple of comments.

  • During the French Revolutionary Wars and early in the Napoleonic Wars, the largest permanently organised structure within the British Army was the brigade I am not sure that this is correct, or that it is supported by the source. (Why no page numbers?) That the regiments were permanent organisations is beyond question, and even today they are described as the "largest permanent units" [1] but the source says that brigades consisted of two or more battalions or regiments associated on "an often permanent basis" and describes the brigade as the "primary organizational structure". Does that really mean that the brigades were permanent like the regiments? None seem to trace their lineage back before 1902. I think another source is needed here. Or just water it down.
    I only have access to the e-version of this work, which does not include the page numbers. Relooking over the source, the wording I employed was not the best. I probably should have written something more like: "... the largest organised field/combat structure within the British Army was the brigade..." or "... the brigade was the largest formation used in a campaign..." etc. Open to suggestions on a preference or alternative, before making the edit as I agree with your point and want to make sure its worded as best as possible.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds fine. Hawkeye7 [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|(discuss)’6th,diversitu,;canning,syurp,storage,;(grape,just a I’d check on one and they steal cash soon flea market now hi Al,Arredondo,(hi Jjac ijr international, ballots and fright exchange.
    Updated now, FYIEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and by mid-1945 was based in the Middle East Well, yes, but this annoys me, even more so in History of the British 1st Division during the World Wars, which skips from 1944 to 1946. The 1st Division moved to the Middle East in January 1945. There was some thought of sending it to NW Europe, but in the end it stayed in the ME. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Joslen has the division arriving on 2 Feb in Palestine (same citation as already used), so rather than being vague as I was I have updated the article to reflect this. For the latter article, my intent (at some point) is to flesh out from Feb 44 (where it looks like I left off) through to the end of the end of the war, so that skip should eventually disappear. In preparation for the end of that article though, the divisional history ends with them being taken off the line in January. Most sources I have looked at so far, then just glance over service in Palestine. I have found one that stated a return was planned in June for Italy, but the end of the war nixed that; but, I haven't looked much further currently.
    As always, thank you for the review and comments. I have either attempted to address or have left comments for both your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the January withdrawal to the ME, see Jackson et al., Volume VI, Part 3: Victory in the Mediterranean: November 1944 to May 1945, p. 213; for the planned use in Operation Goldflake, see Nicholson, The Canadians in Italy, p. 660. But you can probably find better sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I will be sure to check them out and see what else I can find to flesh that part out, when the time comes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

edit

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

  • "which rebuked the British and German troops," - I suspect you mean "which repulsed the ..."
  • The 'Waterloo campaign' section seems excessively detailed compared to the section on the Peninsular War; I don't think we need so much detail on this division's role at Waterloo
  • " between the British Empire, the South African Republic, and the Orange Free State" - the tensions would have really between the British government or similar, not the empire.
  • "The reformed division consisted of the 1st and the 2nd Brigades, each containing four infantry battalions" - did it include any other units (artillery, cavalry, logistics, etc?) Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EnigmaMcmxc: I'll be travelling overseas from mid this week, and may take a few days to respond to your comments here. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit
  • "During the French Revolutionary Wars and early in the Napoleonic Wars.." Could you give year ranges for these conflicts, as you later do for the Seven Years' War?
  • Wikilink line infantry.
  • "..the division was considered a social but not a military elite.." The grammar doesn't seem quite right here, and I'm not really sure what it means.
  • "Charles Oman, a historian of the Peninsular War, wrote the division followed these orders and that.." Add "that" between "wrote" and "the".
  • "The division then recklessly charged.." This POV needs inline attribution, otherwise it looks like the encyclopaedia is opining that this charge was reckless.
  • "..which rebuked the British and German troops.." This isn't a common modern use of "rebuke", I'd suggest finding an alternative phrase.
  • I'm confused, the Peninsular War section finishes "The troops marched to Bordeaux, from where they either returned to the UK or were transported to North America to take part in the ongoing War of 1812." and then the Waterloo campaign section starts "At the end of the fighting, British and Hanoverian troops moved into the Southern Netherlands..." At the end of what fighting? Presumably not the Peninsular War, because we're told that the troops returned to the UK or North America. The end of the War of 1812? This needs clarification.
  • "..the division suffered 232 killed and 819 wounded, and four men were reported missing." Because these numbers are being compared to each other, they should all be in the same format, so switch "four" to "4".
  • "Clive Ponting, a historian of the conflict, wrote Cambridge.." Again, "wrote that" please.
  • "..were killed or wounded or reported missing." I think this would be better as "..were killed, wounded or reported missing."
  • "..the Secretary of State for War St John Brodrick set.." As "Secretary of State for War" is a position and not a title, Brodrick's name should be in commas: "..the Secretary of State for War, St John Brodrick, set.."

A nice article overall, just a few prose quibbles to resolve. Good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

John Bullock Clark

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

John Bullock Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This was previously nominated back in August but was withdrawn without commentary after I got really busy off-wiki. A politician, lawyer, and militia officer, Clark saw combat experience in the American Civil War that included leading a militia unit into battle against the United States Army while still a sitting member of the United States House of Representatives. Hog Farm Talk 16:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit
  • "Conard, Howard L., ed. (1901)" could do with an OCLC identifier if there is one.
    • added
  • "Vandiver, W. D. (1926)" is out of order in the References, and should drop below the two Sheridan sources.
    • Fixed
  • "Vandiver, W. D. (1926)" could also do with an ISSN (0026-6582, I think).
    • added
  • Consider archiving online sources.
    • done
  • "The child of Bennett and Martha Clark, John Bullock Clark Sr. was born in.." It might just be me, but I find it odd to include "Sr." when talking about him being born, as he presumably didn't come to be known as this until much later.
    • changed
  • "Allardice refers to him.." Who is Allardice?
    • Glossed
  • "..of the state by the early 1839." Not sure if it an ENGVAR thing, but "by the early 1839" doesn't sound right to me; I'd get rid of that "the".
    • "the" removed
  • "During the election, Democratic newspapers spread claims that the Whigs had spread false party ballots in parts of the state that listed the corrected Democrat candidates except substituting Clark for Reynolds." I had to read this a couple of times, because I initially thought it was using "that listed the corrected Democrat candidates" to show which parts of the state they were spread in. Try rephrasing it.
    • "corrected" was a typo for "correct" - is this clearer with the error corrected?
  • Be consistent whether you use "pro-slavery" or "proslavery".
    • Have standardized to pro-slavery

Not much wrong with this. Generally, I wonder if so much detail is necessary on the general Civil War manoeuvres and stuff, but I'm broadly content that is provides useful context. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above; everything should be fixed now. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PM

edit

Will take a crack at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Body
  • "Historian" isn't a formal rank or position, and AFAIK should be preceded by the definite article. ie "The historian Kenneth..." same later with McCandless, and in a general sense starting sentences with a role rather than the definite article, eg "Democratic politician..."
    • I think I've caught all of these
  • "entered the bar" is rather odd wording. Our article says "admitted to the bar" is used in the US per Call to the bar#United States.
    • Rephrased
  • "except substituting Clark for Reynolds" who is Reynolds? He has not been introduced prior to this point. Also the man at the later link for Reynolds died in 1844?
    • I've moved the link/gloss for this Reynolds up. This is describing an election in 1840, when Reynolds was still alive. I think the fact that a 1848 militia promotion is tacked on to the end of the prior section is causing the time confusion, so I've moved that sentence to its proper chronological location
  • "and he stood as a candidate again in 1852" unsuccessfully?
    • I have to assume so, but the sources don't deal with this clearly. Warner & Yeans only says that he was a state rep without giving the years, Allardice and the Congressional biography only give the years. The only reference I have been able to turn up to this re-election campaign is while as late as 1852, the editor of the Glasgow Times offered a sarcastic reminder to his Boon's Lick readership and to Clark, then a candidate for Congress ...
      • After further research, I think Phillips is in error, so I've removed this. I found several news stories in 1852 asking for him to run, the article in the Glasgow Times that Phillips is citing was written after the election and doesn't claim Clark was a candidates, and I turned up the election returns from 1852 on newspapers.com. The MO House seat in Howard County was won by C. F. Jackson and N. G. Elliott over two candidates named Payne and Patterson, and the US House election was John Gaines Miller vs. James S. Green. Hog Farm Talk 15:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • what rank was Franz Sigel?
    • Added
  • comma after "Battle of Carthage, Missouri"
    • Done
  • there is a link to Thomas Caute Reynolds, is this the same Thomas Reynolds as earlier? If so, link him earlier and delink this example. If not, perhaps differentiate the two?
    • I've distinguished the two in a footnote
  • so he was wanted by the authorities, and what he heard while still in Mexico was wrong? Otherwise why was he arrested and detained when he returned?
    • Allardice isn't clear on this. The only other source I've been able to find that deals with this is Vandiver, and I don't think this is within the small sphere of things Vandiver is usable for. (Among other things, this section of Vandiver praises John Newman Edwards and retells a dubious story about how "Tip", alledgely one of Clark's former slaves, helped get him free from Fort Jackson due to personal affection for Clark) Hog Farm Talk 05:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed a couple of ndashes
Lead
  • I think his military rank makes him notable for that as well, and should be in the first sentence, ie "was a brigadier general in the Missouri State Guard on the Confederate side during the American Civil War and a politician who..." or switch the two roles and mention politician first then soldier
    • I've gone with "was a militia officer and politician who served as a member ...". It seems odd to me to stress only his brief CSA service when his role in the Missouri Mormon War attracts as much attention due to his being the recipient of the Extermination Order. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ersatz" means replacement or substitute. Not sure it is the right word here.
  • "The Confederate Governor of Missouri..." as above
    • But isn't "Confederate Governor of Missouri" a formal title?
  • "was also a general in the" but Clark wasn't in the CSA, he was in the MSG (I'd drop "also")
  • in general, replace Federal with Union, per other discussions on this matter
G'day Hawkeye7. I understand that rationale and it makes more sense, but if we adopt that approach for the Federal or United States side we should also adopt its approach to the Confederates, ie do not use legitimising terms. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV: "Prefer nonjudgmental language". The US Army advises: "describe the political and social situation of the Civil War in a neutral manner." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IB
  • I would consider adding a military person module to the infobox with his rank, wars served in etc
    • @Peacemaker67: - this is done in a draft form right now but it's a bit clunky. I'm trying to distinguish between his purely state service before the Civil War and his MSG service. Clark was never part of the formal US or CS armed forces. Hog Farm Talk 15:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • the IB image is PD and properly licensed
  • File:Missouri State Guard divisions map (cropped).svg needs information on the source used to draw the map. I think that info is on the original file page, just copy it across.

That's it. Consider this a content and image review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PM67 - just wanted to let you know this is still on my radar ... still trying to get consistent internet access after moving; hopefully should be resolved later this week. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: - sorry for the delay here. I think everything should be taken care of. Hog Farm Talk 23:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • References are nicely and consistently formatted, and are in alphabetical order (which seems strangely difficult for people lately)
  • Reputable sources are used that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
  • Spot checks:
    • fn 7a, 8, 14, 55 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

edit

Looks good. Some comments:

  • Should his notable relatives be noted in the Infobox?
    • This is done
  • "He entered the bar in 1824" In Australia we would say "was admitted to the bar"; "entered" in this context sounds like he went drinking
    • Rephrased; I'm going to claim WP:LIMITED for this phrasing be too close now to what Warner & Yearns have as I don't think it's avoidable without being stilted
  • Should Militia be linked to Militia (United States)?
    • Linked in the lead; it's already linked in the body
  • Lead: "With the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861, Clark, who was wealthy and owned 160 slaves, became a leading secessionist in Missouri." Body: " By 1861, Clark was wealthy and owned 160 slaves... Clark was a leading Missouri secessionist." Source: "Clark was a strong secessionist and a leader in the state's secession movement. Clark's own comments deserve quoting at length: 'While insisting that the best course was to stand by the union, I had, nevertheless, always said that when war did come I would go with the South... That Spring [of 1861] ... I was worth a million [dollars]. On my place there were 160 slaves, seventy of them men.'" The question is whether he became a secessionist only after the war began, as the lead claims, or before, as is implied by the body. It's hard to imagine him being a leader if he only became a secessionist after the war began. The source is poorly written. (His support of succession doesn't sound "strong" in the source, although after the war many people may have back-pedalled on their support.)
    • I've adjusted the lead version. Warner & Yearns is silent on this matter. Piston & Hatcher calls his "one of the state's leading Secessionists". Vandiver claims that Clark became a secessionist after the Camp Jackson affair and ensuing riot but I don't think Vandiver is a suitable source for such matters. As to "It's hard to imagine him being a leader if he only became a secessionist after the war began", Sterling Price who commanded the entire State Guard, had originally opposed secession. Essentially Nathaniel Lyon managed to piss a bunch of people off between the Camp Jackson affair and stating the he was okay with seeing "every man, woman, and child in the State dead and buried" at the meeting that ended the Price-Harney Truce, so a number of people who were on the fence moved over to secessionism at that time.
  • "In October, Jackson and the deposed Confederate government of Missouri voted to secede and join the Confederacy" How can it be the Confederate government of Missouri before it voted to secede and join the Confederacy?
    • Rephrased
  • Consider putting his postbellum career into a separate section
    • I'm not convinced that there's enough material there to make it worthwhile to do so
  • "After the Confederate defeat in 1865, a reward was issued for Clark's arrest" You could mention that it was $10,000. Alas, the source does not tell us why they wanted him arrested.
    • Added the dollar amount; I'm not finding anywhere why they wanted to arrest him

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - replies are above. I don't have a good answer for as to when he became a secessionist, although the 1850 election comment from McCandless about "most likely to disrupt the party and the Union" seems relevant as well. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks fine to me. I don't usually deal with articles about the 19th century because it is outside my area of expertise; US politics is highly controversial and subject to ArbCom sanctions; and historians of the period are apt to look at me with disdain and say things like "I'll bet your primary sources are typed." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Donner60

edit
  • Comment: I noted above two changes that you made in response to Peacemaker comments that were not previously noted. I think that now shows all comments
  • Comment: I assume "grade" v. "rank" is of no relevance to an appointment as a state militia general; the Eichers are sticklers about the distinction, as you know, but I don't see any mention about it in the case of state militias.
  • The Eichers give December 6, rather than December 7, as the date of termination for Clark's tenure as a state militia general. I assume that this is a typo, in fact, it may even be my typo since I think I gave you the citation to the dates when you were drafting the article. I changed the date.
  • I would have made the same comment as Hawkeye7 about splitting the last paragraph off as a separate later life section but you have addressed that and I won't take issue with your conclusion.
  • Since you have addressed all the comments in three other reviews and I have found nothing else that I think needs to be addressed, I am supporting promotion and will change the assessment on the talk page accordingly. Donner60 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Erwin Böhme

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk)

Erwin Böhme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Erwin Böhme was an early flying ace who won the Blue Max. A close friend of his mentor Oswald Boelcke, he inadvertently caused Boelke's death. Despite this tragedy, he became a 24-victory ace, and rose to become a squadron leader under the Red Baron before being killed in action.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

edit
On my laptop I can see the image File:Holzminden_weserufer.jpg sandwiching tekst with the infobox. The second sandwich is between the File:Nieuport_12_(replica)_AN1543487.jpg's margin and File:Albatros_D.I.jpg which technally sandwich it. Another examples of images' margin is with File:Airco_DH.2.jpg and File:Royal_Aircraft_Factory_F.E.8_in_flight.jpg and with File:A.W._F.K.8_(Cockpit_area).jpg and File:Captured_Albatros_DVa_at_Armentieres_1917.jpg. All of these examples should be adressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On my desktop computer, no sandwiching appears, which tells me your smaller screen size is causing your sandwiching. I made changes based on that assumption.
I moved the photo of Holtzminden downwards, away from the info box. I also lowered the railroad tracks photo.
The photos of the Nieuport and the Albatros D.I are in different paragraphs, so I cannot see how they would sandwich. Likewise with the DH.2 photo and that of the FE.8.
I also lowered the photo of the Albatros D.Va.
When I shrink my screen to laptop size (about 13 inches), I find no sandwiching.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better now. The sandwich issues are now removed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggested improvement.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a full review this weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All probably okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - weak support

edit

I'll try to take a look at this. Ping me if I haven't started in three or four days. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He constructed the Usambara Railway to export raw cedar timber to" --> He supervised construction of the Usambara Railway ... to make it clearer what exactly his role was here
    • Done.08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Specify in the body that the timber plantation was in Tanganyika as well.
  • "Later in March, Böhme began his combat career in the west by engaging Farmans and a Nieuport from the French Service Aéronautique" - but hadn't he already submitted reports for aerial victories in 1915 with Kampstaffel 10, with the Kampstaffel centered on a city where the link goes to a place in France?
    • Indeed, he submitted three combat claims against the French; two of those were unconfirmed, thus no victory. The third is a strange and very rare case--a confirmed victory not on a pilot's victory list.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 2 August 1916, Böhme scored his first accredited aerial victory, downing a Russian Nieuport 12 over Radzyse." - last we heard of his fighting, he was out west by Verdun. When did he get shipped out to the eastern front?
  • " a mature and worldly best friend" - "mature and worldly" may be a bit florid for an encyclopedia
    • Echoes of source material.
    • Consider, Boelcke's life experience was secondary school and the military. During Böhme's extra decade of life, he had earned an engineer's degree, vagabonded about Europe, worked in Africa, then came to the military.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Böhme joined his new unit on 8 September 1916, after a month in transit." - where was this unit stationed?
  • "fled the hullabaloo of the squadron mess" - again, not sure that "hullabaloo" is a great encyclopedic word
  • "cut the tendon to his trigger finger." - trigger finger is linking to a medical condition. Is this intentional?
  • "In 1921, Annamarie's purloined letter to Erwin Böhme was returned to her from England" - I'd gotten the impression that the article was referring to the letter Erwin had written to Annamarie and then pocketed before being shot down. I think the identity of the letter being referred to in different places could be cleared up a bit
  • "2nd Lt. KIA; 2nd Lt. Ronald Wood wounded in action/prisoner of war" - do we not know the identity of the KIA 2nd Lt.?

Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing. I'm getting hung up on the sentence Later in March, Böhme began his combat career in the west by engaging Farmans and a Nieuport from the French Service Aéronautique. It just seems odd to be stating that he began his combat career in the west when he'd already submitted three claims in the west. Hog Farm Talk 19:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also hung up on that series of events, and am researching it. The confirmed but unlisted victory is perhaps only the third example I've ever seen, and is quite a puzzler. Please allow me a bit more time to work on it.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have rewritten the bit about the Farmans and the Nieuport. I have also added a bit to the Victory list. To me, that seems to clarify the problem, but then I may be text-blind at this point.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be resolved by removing the phrase about beginning his combat career in the west, since the unaccredited victory would have already been the beginning of his combat career in the west. Hog Farm Talk 00:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I had already gotten that. Gone now.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're okay with this change, I think that resolves things for me. Hog Farm Talk 19:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the benefits of the coordinators that my support is a weaker one, given Harrias' and Gog's concerns about tone below, which I would probably echo at FAC. There's a certain detached nature that's needed for a featured article that isn't present here. Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit
  • "Although haunted by guilt, Böhme carried on". He was in the military. Did he have a choice?
Fair enough. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and I can't find anything about this in the article.
"...the feeling he was responsible for killing his best friend would haunt him for the rest of his life."
I think you're stretching, but ok.
Er, how? And giving his time for an individual race in his youth which has nothing to do with his notability is undue detail IMO.
Winning the swimming race establishes him as a champion swimmer. On second thought, giving the winning time is a bit gratuitous.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No in doesn't. It states "serving in a Garde-Jäger Regiment (Guards Infantry Regiment) in 1899". This could mean eg that he served for a single month in 1899.
And the Military Service Law of 1888, as amended in 1893, provided for two years' military service, with a lot of exemptions; one year seems a little odd. Similarly service usually started after the harvest and ended with the annual manoeuvres; serving Jan-Dec is possible, but again seems odd.
Every thing you state is reasonable and rational and not in the source.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so long as you are sure that you are reflecting the source. But, if the source clearly states that he served for 12 months you need to amend the article to make this unambiguous; if it doesn't, you need to amend the lead.
Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As written it seems a bit hand wavey. You seem to be saying that it was reported - by some unknown person or body - as "confirmed", but wasn't actually confirmed. [?] What does the source actually say?
"Flying with Kasta 10 on the Eastern Front it is reported he shot down three enemy planes in the East but only one was confirmed (2 August 1915), although it is not generally included in his list of victories." Above the Lines, p. 78.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like 'he shot down three aircraft, one of which was confirmed though sources do not include it in his official victory list'?
Done. Scroll down five items for details.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, in my experience, victory reporting/confirmation on the Russian Front was always hand-wavy.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 
Avoid single sentence paragraphs.
Supplied second sentence for filler.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 2 August 1916, Böhme scored his first accredited aerial victory, downing a Russian Nieuport 12 over Radzyse. After an extended fight, Böhme killed Franco-Latvian ace Eduard Pulpe." If these two sentences refer to the same event, perhaps link them with a semi colon.
  • "Even as Boelcke scored his final run of 21 aerial victories during September and October 1916, Böhme shot down four more British airplanes." I am struggling to work out what this is trying to communicate.
Much better, although, sadly, "wingman" now runs into MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
Given that 'wingman' is in the common vocabulary, the link is not truly needed to understand the term. The link is informative on the subject. Would you opt for deleting it?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wingman is, IMHO, absolutely not a specialist term. It is a piece of specialist jargon. Entirely appropriate for the article, but it need explaining. Off the top of my head and without sources 'Fighter pilots usually flew in pairs, with one leading attackswingman flying close behind and to one side to protect his leader from attacks from the rear.' (This sort of thing happens all the time - I have a set of stock explanations for the areas I habitually improve articles in. (Eg "stuck his colours"!))
Congratulations, you have rendered Webster's definition nearly word perfect. 'Wingman' is American usage. Still, my query stands: Would you delete the link?
I did? Brownie points for me then. No, you need the link for MOS:UL "An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked and are needed to aid understanding of the article." (Note "aid".) But you need an in line explanation for MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
I have just looked up wingman on the online Websters. The informal US usage is interesting; handy word.
  • "On the evening of 27 October 1916, a warweary Boelcke fled the hullabaloo of the squadron mess for the quiet of his own bedroom. Böhme joined him there. The two men talked deep into the night, until Boelcke's batman hinted at bedtime to end the conversation." This seems a deep level of trivia and not WP:SS. Suggest deleting the lot.
Please reread the words I have actually quoted. Where do I object to you mentioning the 6 patrols or Boelcke's death? (And Böhme did not "kill" Boelcke.) Rereading the words I am actually querying I fail to see how "protagonist goes to his bedroom, talks with a friend, gets to bed late" is not trivia.
You fail to see that two combat pilots went short of sleep the night before they flew combat. Pilot fatigue may seem trivial to you, but I take a contrary opinion.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the source explicitly states that fatigue was or may have been a factor then by all means use WP:SS to say something like 'On the night of 27/28 October 1916, Boelcke and Böhme got little sleep and the resultant fatigue may have been a factor in events the following day.'
So if fatigue is explicitly mentioned it's encyclopedic, and if it's implicit it's trivial? That's a Philadelphia lawyer's argument.
This sentence is not only not trivial, it's transitional between days.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not deleting this sentence.Georgejdorner (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your call. If you are claiming that Boelcke and Böhme were both culpable in the former's death by negligently not getting sufficient sleep and then flying while fatigued without explicit source support I won't be able to support it.
What does "within" mean? I understand "behind" or "between", but does "within" mean the plane actually landed in a trench? Or within the Allied frontline trench system? Or what?
No specifics given. Subbed one ambiguity for another in effort to please reviewer.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no ambiguity in the current pharasing.
As a keen rugby fan and ex-player I can't recall ever hearing this applied to the sport. Which is besides the point. A reader should not need to know the specialist jargon of a sport (which they may barely have heard of) to make sense of an article.
Websters defines the term; Oxford does not. Looks like a clash between usages. At any rate, I am here to inform the reader rather than baffle the Brits. Changes made.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent attitude, it will hold you in good stead.
K.F. Koehler
Many thanks.

Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More in a bit. Thank you for the review.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking pretty good. Feel free to come back at me over any of my comments of suggestions you are not happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses above, plus:

Plus, entirely optionally, if you fancy some "revenge", I have a brand new article (currently at User:Gog the Mild/Battle of Winwick) which will be going to GAN in the next day or two. (And then to FAC.) Would you like first refusal on reviewing it at GAN? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is now at GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. If pressed I will oppose on the basis of the two issues above. If both were satisfactorily addressed I would grit my teeth and support as just barely creeping over the A-class threshold and to encourage a first-timer; see Harris's comments and summary below as to where and how else it falls short. A lot of good work has been done here and there are the solid bones of a decent article. But the nominator is reluctant to make changes to improve it further so that it meets the A class criteria and the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Harrias

edit

Right, let's take a look at this.

  • Provide a conversion into miles for three-kilometer race.
  • "However, upon landing in the midst of war breaking out, he reported to his old infantry regiment, despite turning 35 at month's end. Erwin Böhme promptly volunteered for aviation duty." I don't like the short sentence at the end, and think this would be better all rolled into one, longer sentence.
  • "..one claim for 2 August 1915 was reportedly confirmed.." Reported by who? If we have a source, it would be better attributed: eg. "..according to xyz the claim for 2 August 1915 was confirmed.."
  • "Shortly thereafter, Oswald Boelcke dropped in to visit his brother, flying a Fokker bearing combat damage." I'm not sure what this adds to our understanding of Böhme, and would recommend removing it.
  • "leutnant" should be coded as German-language text.
  • "Kampstaffel 10 shifted theaters in June 1916, transferring from France to Kovel, Russia. This posting would lead to his transfer to fighter aviation." Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, blend this in with the subsequent paragraph.
  • "After the brothers conferred.." I would favour "After conferring with his brother.."
  • "hullabaloo" is informal language rather than encyclopaedic language, switch it for an alternative.
  • "On the evening of 27 October 1916, a war-weary Boelcke fled the hullabaloo of the squadron mess for the quiet of his own bedroom. Böhme joined him there. The two men talked deep into the night, until Boelcke's batman hinted at bedtime to end the conversation." This paragraph seems unnecessary. The strength of the friendship between Böhme and Boelcke has been well established in the previous section, this is just unnecessary filler.
  • "The collision appeared minor, but was mortal." Probably just personal preference, but I think "fatal" would work better than "mortal" here.
  • "..he would not recall.." should probably be "..he could not recall.." unless the sources states it was an intentional refusal, rather than an inability.
  • "Even though he could not recall his own accident.." To avoid repetition, try "Even though he did not remember his own accident.."
  • "As the leading ace of the war, he was a national hero, lionized by generals and nobility as well as the public. His death shocked both the German public and military." Honestly, these two sentences more or less say the same thing, and don't both need to be there.
  • "E.M. Roberts" Per the MOS, space the initials: E. M.
  • Does "Hart (2005), p. 355." directly support the claim that April was "the most momentous month of aerial combat of the war"?
  • What are "end runs"?
  • "..traveled back to Berlin to lobby for his squadron." What was he lobbying for? Better pay, conditions, or was he lobbying to keep his squadron? Too ambiguous as written.
  • No need for the Easter egg link to Werner Voss#Final patrol, the direct link to his biography is sufficient.
  • I have a few issues surrounding the 20th victory. In the quote, he says "in which our friend was sitting" but no explanation is given in the article: are we supposed to know who this is? The subsequent sentence "And so it was that the 20th aerial victory that qualified Böhme for the Pour le Merite was a surrender." comes across more as journalistic rather than a formal, academic tone as required by the MOS.
  • "With the Battle of Cambrai raging.." Avoid the Noun plus -ing construction.
  • "In 1921, Böhme's purloined final letter to Annamarie.." Remove "purloined"; it has already been explained what happened to it, the use of the word here is unnecessarily inflammatory.
  • The table needs a table caption and row and column scopes to adhere to MOS:DTT.
  • I don't understand the citations to "Werner (1930), p. translated excerpt.." Are they all on the same page? Where have these translated excerpts been seen?

Overall this is a decent article, but it suffers throughout from being written more like a journalistic or informal biography than a formal encyclopaedia article. I have highlighted the most egregious examples above, but generally it could do with a thorough copy edit to adopt a more formal style as required by the MOS. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of active duty United States four-star officers

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Neovu79 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

Comment by CPA

edit

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

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

Oppose from Harrias

edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Maurice Suckling

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

Maurice Suckling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Maurice Suckling/archive1

I'm renominating this article now that I'm back editing and won't suddenly abandon work and disappear. The man who (maybe?) made Nelson the man he was, but apart from that had quite an uneventful naval career. Has received a slight update with a new source since my last nom. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I supported at the prior ACR, and a skim through the changes since then reveals nothing that concerns me. Hog Farm Talk 21:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7 Looks good to me, but some comments to prove that I read it:

  • "Suckling did however have the support of considerable patronage from the powerful Walpoles" Who were they? You mentioned his great-uncle but not the other members of the family (although some appear in the final section)
    • I've adjusted to focus more on Walpole himself rather than the wider family
  • "he found it long and arduous work" I'm not sure what "long work" is.
    • Replaced with time-consuming
  • The final sentence had me wondering about the sword. Apparently it was sold in 2021 [2].

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Hi, thanks for taking a look! Responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass - It is good to see this renominated. Welcome back. An image review was completed at 12:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC) for the previous submission and there seem to be no material changes. There is a nice selection of images and all seem appropriate to the text. All state that they are in the public domain and have relevant PD tags. Pass. simongraham (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Lead:[reply]

  • Suckling was employed in the aftermath of the Capture of Belle Île in 1761 destroying French fortifications on the Île-d'Aix, and went on half pay at the end of the war in 1763.
  • Replace the first in with "during"
  • Done
  • Drop the comma after Île-d'Aix, or add [he] went on half pay
  • Done former

Early life:

  • Nothing is recorded of Suckling's childhood past this point apart from that he continued to live in Beccles.[2]
Do you mean Nothing is "known to have been" recorded?
  • Changed to "known", which is the wording the source uses

Early career:

  • In Newcastle Suckling saw service in the Western Approaches, the English Channel, and off Gibraltar and Lisbon, advancing to able seaman on 7 April 1741 before being promoted to midshipman on 7 September.
Second clause -> "who" is advnacing and being promoted?
  • Reworded
  • While sailing off Villefranche on 7 February 1746 he was transferred to the 80-gun ship of the line HMS Russell also as fourth lieutenant.[3][6]
Add a comma after 1746
  • Done
  • He was then on 1 November translated from Boyne into the 50-gun fourth-rate HMS Gloucester as that ship's first lieutenant, which naval historian David Syrett suggests was another appointment brought about by Suckling's patrons.[3]
Change that to "this" or "the"
  • Done latter
  • Suckling's position in Gloucester meant that he avoided the unemployment that came to many naval officers when the Royal Navy began to decommission warships in response to the end of the war.[6]
end of "a" war
  • Source is specifically referring to this war

First commands:

  • The ship was at the time serving on the North America Station, and Suckling took passage out in a merchant ship to join his new command.
to "assume" or "take up" his mew command
  • Done latter

Seven Years' War:

  • Ordered to Jamaica, Dreadnought formed part of an eleven-warship escort [for] to a convoy that [had] left Spithead on 31 January 1756.[10]
Suggest the above changes
  • Done former but not latter; imo the addition of "had" suggests that this is just the convoy leaving Spithead and not the whole group of ships
  • The ship spent most of her service in harbour at Port Royal as the area was a backwater in the Seven Years' War.
Suggest:
in "the" harbour at
  • I think "in harbour" is itself a well-used term
Link backwater
  • Done
  • On 21 October 1757 Dreadnought was undertaking such an operation alongside two other 60-gun ships of the line, expecting to intercept a French convoy leaving Cape Français.
Suggest this or something like it -> On 21 October 1757, Dreadnought and two other 60-gun ships of the line had undertaken an operaton to intercept a French convoy leaving or which had left Cape Français?
  • Reworded along these lines
  • The three ships formed [a] line of battle with Dreadnought taking the vanguard.[1][10][13]
Add the indefinite artice "a" as indicated
  • Done
  • The French squadron, having received heavy casualties, retreated back into Cape Français.
Drop the common after squardron
  • Done
  • Suckling subsequently sailed his ship to Chatham, where she was paid off on 19 November.[10][3]
where she paid off the officers and crew?
  • A ship is "paid off", not the crew
<>The link says -> The term "paid off" is alternatively used in British and Commonwealth contexts, originating in the age-of-sail practice of ending an officer's commission and paying crew wages once the ship completed its voyage. Pendright (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source used for that sentence says "When a ship reaches the end of her commission, she is paid off". I believe my wording to be correct. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June Suckling's ship reinforced the British squadron that had recently captured Belle Île, and [she] was then detached in a squadron under Captain Sir Thomas Stanhope.
Suggest the above change
  • Done
  • As the Royal Navy began mobilising in the expectation of war he was given command of the 64-gun ship of the line HMS Raisonnable, which was fitting out at Chatham, on 17 November.[1][3][19]
  • Add a comma after war
  • Done
  • War with whom?
  • Added

Pausing at the end of the Career section - Pendright (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: <>I have left you one response. I'll finish the review in the next day or two. Thank you for your prompt responses. Pendright (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming - Pendright (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patron of Nelson:

  • On 26 June Suckling was also appointed senior officer for his part of the Thames Estuary, and filled most of his time with paperwork regarding topics including naval discipline and the deployment of marine detachments.[19][26]
and "he" filled most of
  • Changed

Comptroller of the Navy:

  • The Comptroller of the Navy was the head of the Navy Board, responsible for all Royal Navy warship construction and upkeep as well as troop transports and dockyards.
"he" was resoinsible for...
  • I believe the current wording is acceptable, I won't fight it if you demand it though!
  • <> For the sake of discussion, let's kick this around a bit: It appears (from the previous sentence) that "The comptroller" is referring to Suckking in which case he was would be correct. If the sentence is referring to just "A" Comptroller, then it woudl be who was. I would be iterested in your thoghts.
  • By the way, the word demand is a harsh word and I'm without the right to demand anything from you or anyone else on Wikipedia. As it should be! My role as a reviewer, as I see it, is to help make a good article better by suggestions, questons, and discussions that are all made in good fath. Pendright (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The position was highly prestigious as well as important and why Suckling, a relatively unknown candidate, was chosen by Sandwich, is not known.[36][37]
Drop the comma afteer Sandwich
  • Done
  • The naval experience that Suckling brought [to the position[ was , however, of great value to Sandwich[,] as he [who] went about reforming naval administration, with particular emphasis put on attempts to make Royal Navy shipyards more productive.
Cosider the above or somethong similar
  • Done

Done - @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Pendright (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I support this nomination whether or not the comments left receive a response. Pendright (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit
  • ...by Captain George Townshend, another maternal relative, historian John Sugden says...: Suggest moving "another maternal relative" to precede Townshend. I initially parsed this sentence as referring to Sugden
  • Done
  • He was then on 1 November translated from Boyne...: "translated" seems an unusual term to a layman, does it mean transferred or another meaning?
  • Changed to "translate"
  • link post captain
  • Done
  • ...combined with his patronage and the beginning of the Seven Years' War to almost guarantee his promotion to that rank.: This didn't quite read right, perhaps the last part should be "...Seven Years' War to almost guaranteed his promotion to that rank."?
  • Done
  • Having returned from this, Suckling then had Nelson join the 24-gun...: this could be read as referring to Suckling having returned, rather than Nelson
  • Reworded
  • appointing Maurice a clerk in the Naval Office: what's the Naval Office? I see later in the Death section mention of a Navy Office, is this what was meant? (if so, the link will need to be moved).
  • Linked moved

Some comments above for your consideration, looks in pretty good shape. Zawed (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ykraps

Support - I am happy that the sourcing meets A-class standards. They are reliable and of good quality, consistently formatted, and I have checked most for accuracy and close paraphrasing and some of those, I have listed below. Older sources are standard reference for articles on this subject and are routinely commented on by more modern historians such as Lambert, Hore and Gardiner so I see no problem using them either here or at FAC, if that's where you intend to go next. --Ykraps (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks for accuracy and close paraphrasing
  • WP article:
While some records suppose that he was supported in his joining of the navy by another maternal relative, Captain George Townshend, historian John Sugden says this was the doing of Walpole
  • Sources:
One authority states that Maurice Suckling entered the navy under the ‘auspices’ of Captain Hon. George Townshend who was a kinsman of his mother.5 While there is no evidence to support this assertion it was probably owing to the influence of Anne Suckling’s family – the Walpoles... -Syrett p. 33
Indeed, it was under auspices of the latter [Sir Robert Walpole] that Maurice had first gone to sea under Captain Thomas Fox. - Sugden 2005 p.55
  • WP article:
The captain of Gloucester was his relative Townshend
  • Sources:
[Gloucester] at the hands of George Townshend (the son of his great aunt, Dorothy Viscountess Townshend) - Sugden 2005 p.55
  • WP article:
The marriage further increased Suckling's network of powerful connections, as Mary was the sister-in-law of the daughter of William Cavendish, 3rd Duke of Devonshire, another powerful family.
  • Sources:
In 1761 his claims to attention had increased with his marriage to Mary, a sister of the second Lord Walpole and sister in law to a daughter of the third Duke of Devonshire... - Sugden 2005 p.55
  • WP article:
Suckling left his sword, said to have previously been owned by Galfridus Walpole, to Nelson.
  • Sources:
The heirloom [Suckling's sword] was rumoured to have once belonged to Captain Suckling's great uncle, the naval hero Galfridus Walpole. - Sugden 2005 p. 132
  • WP article:
Suckling's sister Catherine had died on 26 December 1767, leaving behind three sons; William, Maurice, and Horatio Nelson
  • Sources:
On the 26 December 1767, Catherine died... - Sugden 2005 p. 40
...Suckling’s older sister Catherine Nelson had died. Catherine was the wife of Edmund Nelson, Rector of Hilbrough and Burnham Thorp, and when she died she left behind three sons... ...one of her sons, William Nelson... ...while another son, Maurice Nelson... And Horatio Nelson, Catherine’s third son, entered the Royal Navy... - Syrett p. 37
  • WP article:
A view promoted in older biographies of Nelson, that he was unaware his uncle was to examine him and that Suckling did not tell the other examiners of their relationship, "not wish[ing] the younker to be favoured", has been questioned in more recent years by Sugden and naval historian R. J. B. Knight.
  • Sources:
While some older Nelson biographies take this version of events at face value, more recent attempts have identified the obvious holes in the story. These will be explored in due course. - Croft p. 38
...both Howarth and Howarth’s and Hibbert’s biographies (first published in 1988 and 1994, respectively) reproduce the ‘alarmed/confused’ line, while more recent retellings (the publication of Sugden’s first volume coincided with the Trafalgar bicentenary in 2005; Knight’s likewise) scrutinize this quotation and ultimately conclude that it is unreliable. - Croft p. 40
  • WP article:
Suckling lived in Barsham until the age of four when his father died. His mother then, along with his sister Catherine and brother William, moved the family to live at Beccles in the same county. Nothing is known of Suckling's childhood past this point apart from that he continued to live in Beccles.
  • Sources:
Maurice Suckling was born in the rectory house of Barsham in Suffolk on 4 May 1726... Four years after the birth of the future Captain Suckling, the Reverend Maurice Suckling died in 1730 and his widow Anne Suckling, with her daughter Catherine and her two sons Maurice and William, moved to Beccles in Suffolk. - Syrett p. 33
Nothing is known about Maurice Suckling’s childhood before he entered the navy in 1739 other than the fact that he lived with his mother, sister and brother at Beccles. - Syrett p. 33
  • WP article:
During his tenure the mobilisation of the navy for war saw the number of ships under his purview expand from 110 in October 1775 to 306 in July 1778. Suckling attended the majority of meetings called by the Navy Board, often six days a week, overseeing both the growth of the navy and the creation of a fleet of 416 troop transports to convey the army across to America.
  • Sources:
The Commissioners of the Navy usually met six days a week - Syrett p. 38
...the Commissioners of the Navy met 27 times and Suckling attended 25 of these meetings. - Syrett p. 38
Moreover, during the three years that Suckling was Controller of the Royal Navy, it increased in strength from a force which, in June 1775, consisted of 110 ships of all classes, manned by 16,301 men, to a strength that reached, in July1778, 306 ships manned by 72,839 men. - Syrett p. 38
the Commissioners of the Navy also chartered and fitted for service a further 416 ships, consisting of 128,427 tons, to convey an army of about 27,000men across the Atlantic to North America. - Syrett p. 38
  • WP article:
Having missed almost every battle that took place during the War of the Austrian Succession and Seven Years' War, Syrett argues that the majority of Suckling's career was "uneventful and perhaps even lacklustre"
  • Sources:
Maurice Suckling’s career as an officer in the Royal Navy was uneventful and perhaps even lacklustre. Serving in mostly large ships and fighting in only one minor battle, he was not present at any of the great events or battles of the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War - Syrett p. 39
  • WP article:
Naval historian N. A. M. Rodger argues that Suckling was a "less successful choice" than Palliser had been because of this, but that he was still an able man.
  • Sources:
His [Palliser] replacement, Captain Maurice Suckling, was also an able man but a less successful choice, mainly because he was seriously ill within two years of appointment. - Rodger p. 372
  • WP article:
Having initially served again as fourth lieutenant, Suckling was promoted to become Boyne's third on 9 January 1748 and her second on 16 August.
  • Sources:
6.5.1747 (28.10.1748) 4L, Boyne (80); 9.1.1747/48 (28.10.1748) 3L, Boyne (80); 16.8.1748 (28.10.1748) 2L, Boyne (80) - Cy Harrison p. 464
Then on 9 June 1747 Suckling became third lieutenant of HMS Boyne and, by a commission dated 16 August 1747, he was promoted to second lieutenant of that ship. - Syrett p. 34
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hanford Engineer Works

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Hanford Engineer Works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

During the FAR of Hanford Site, I decided to create a new article on the World War II establishment. This brings it into line with the articles on Los Alamos, Berkeley and Oak Ridge, all of which have subarticles on their role in the Manhattan Project. The sources complain about how Hanford has been overlooked compared with Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. This seems to be the case, but not for any scarcity of sources. On Wikipedia the fault is mine. I began overhauling the Manhattan Project articles over ten years ago, but did not deal with Hanford, because Hanford Site was already a featured article. I did gather material though, and overhauling Hanford Site for its FAR made me aware of how poor the coverage of Hanford was compared with the other sites. So I took the opportunity to create this article, which is entirely new. The article has recently passed GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

edit
  • More than 11,000 words on less than three years in the life of an, admittedly very large, installation!? A lovely read but it goes into far too much detail. Fails WP:SS, WP:AS and A2: "does not go into unnecessary detail." Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article covers 1942 to 1947. That is five years, not three. It is very tightly focused; there is only one paragraph worth of background on the Manhattan Project, so the reader has to consult the parent article for this. Similarly, it comes to an abrupt ending on the Manhattan Project termination date; the reader has to consult the other parent article, Hanford Site to find out about what happens next. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SS: The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered. (emphasis original)
    This is a child article of Manhattan Project, and WP:SS requires that the topic must be "very thoroughly covered". I contend that it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit
  • Agree with Gog; this article needs a fairly significant trimming to meet the criteria. Picking the Personnel section as an example, why do we need to know the pay the various workers received per day, or what percentage of them were catholic, or rates of absenteeism, to understand the topic?
    The article meets our criterion: neglects no major facts or details. The point about the pay rates is that the Manhattan Project was paying well above the going rates of pay. Nonetheless, the remoteness of the site, austere living conditions and long hours made absenteeism a redcurrant problem. The point about the religious breakdown tells us about the demographics of the workforce, noting that DuPont hiring practices favoured white, protestant workers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't fully understand the scope of this article, particularly as it relates to Hanford Site; if we take the lead articles of both articles, one is left with the impression that the Hanford Engineer Works was "a nuclear production complex"...at the Hanford site, "a...nuclear production complex". How does one have a complex at a complex? I suspect that Hanford Engineer Works and the Hanford site one and the same; for example, Britannica uses the two terms interchangeably. I can see having sub-articles about B Reactor, N Reactor, etc., where you are talking about specific buildings at the Hanford Site. Or you could split this up (and still do a fair bit of culling) for articles like Construction of the Hanford Site and Operations of the Hanford Site during the Manhattan Project, but this Russian-nesting-doll complex-within-a-complex makes no sense to me. Parsecboy (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about the site during the Manhattan Project. It is therefore a subarticle of both Manhattan Project and Hanford Site. The term "Hanford Engineer Works" was in use only during the Manhattan Project period (1942-1946); "Hanford Site" came into use in the post-war period. The article is therefore analogous to Clinton Engineer Works, which is only about wartime Oak Ridge. It was a plutonium production site but today its main business is radioactive waste disposal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, that's my point; the two terms are effectively synonymous; Wikipedia does not generally have two articles on the same topic during different periods of time; we only have an article on the Willis Tower, not one also about the Sears Tower (and if the Willis article was so long that it warranted sub-articles, we wouldn't structure them to suggest that the Sears Tower was a building at the Willis Tower location). And the Hanford Site lead needs to be rewritten, by the way, as it currently suggests that HEW was a sub-component of the HS, which is plainly wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitting by time period is a reasonable way of spinning off a subarticle, and has been done for three of the other Manhattan Project articles (Clinton Engineer Works, Metallurgical Laboratory and Project Y). We often do it for campaign articles and even articles on military units, with separate articles on World War I and II. In this case the Manhattan Project has its own set of subarticles. The lead of Hanford Site is correct: "Established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, the site was home to the Hanford Engineer Works". During the war the facility was the HEW and the Hanford Site was known as Site W. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Splitting: When two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related, a content split may be considered. This is what I hate about splitting: people complain (usually without justification) that articles are too long, then challenge the split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Isaac Komnenos (son of Alexios I)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Isaac Komnenos (son of Alexios I) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Isaac was a colourful character: a younger prince who wanted to be emperor, but was always thwarted, forcing him into exile and wanderings across the Middle East. He passed on his ambition to his son, Andronikos I Komnenos, with fatal consequences for the Komnenian dynasty. The article was rewritten, practically from scratch, in 2018, and passed GA shortly after. I think it is as comprehensive as it can be, and would like to eventually nominate it for FA as well. Constantine ✍ 15:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

edit

Will take a look soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • but ultimately in vain reads somewhat awkward to me, suggest removing the but or changing to which was ultimately in vain
    • Done.
  • During the struggle for John's succession in 1143 perhaps During the succession struggle that followed John's death in 1143
    • Done.
  • In 1150, weakened by the onset of an illness, he was forced to retire from public life by Manuel in the interest of not having two of the three lede paragraphs start with "in [year]", perhaps Weakened by the onset of an illness, he was forced to retire from public life by Manuel in 1150.
    • Done.
Thanks for your time and the good suggestions, Iazyges! Constantine ✍ 16:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: As this does not seem to attract much interest—admittedly its 'military' content is sparse—I would like to withdraw its nomination. Constantine ✍ 17:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gog the Mild Constantine ✍ 17:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Long Tan

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Battle of Long Tan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about the Battle of Long Tan. This is the best known Australian battle of the Vietnam War. Actually, for most people it is the only battle of the war that they know about. It was neither the biggest nor the most important Australian battle of the war. truth to tell, it barely qualifies as a battle; it was more of an engagement really given the size of the forces involved. But through the workings of the Matthew effect an enormous amount has been written about it, and the Wikipedia article, the work of many editors, reflects that. I do feel that having a having a comprehensive article on one battle of the war at least is very useful, and that this article meets our standards for A class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by CPA

edit

Fails A2

edit

As CPA-5 has noted it's too long, it ignores Wikipedia:Summary style and so it's a clear failure on criteria A2 "Does not go into unnecessary detail." but no doubt that will be brushed over, just like it was for its GA review. Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

edit

Comment: And you don't have to mark a hundred papers on it. More trees have been devoted to Long Tan than any another action of the war in Vietnam, and probably more than any post-World War II battle, and any Australian battle of World War II except the Kokoda campaign. (I would be interested in Zawed's opinion on how Vietnam is remembered in New Zealand.) During what we now call the "long peace" (1972-1999), the Australian Army endlessly re-fought the war in Vietnam, especially Long Tan. (Which doesn't seem nearly as stupid now as it did back then.) It's anniversary is commemorated by Vietnam veterans. Unlike most articles, I know how this one is received by readers. I am not the editor who has added the most material to the article - I'm the one who has removed the most material, but I will not remove relevant, cited, verifiable material without consensus. (This article was flagged for my attention by the MilHistBot as one of the project's best articles - the next will follow in due course - I don't want to overwhelm A-class with them.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Robinvp11

edit

Lede;

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I played around with the wording of the Lede a wee bit, change it back if u want :)
  • While I realise the importance of Long Tan in Australian history, I tend to agree that the article is too long - eg Order of Battle could easily be spun off into a list sub-article, Background and Preliminary Operations could and should be a lot more concise.
    Anotherclown already did that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casualties; As the scale of the VC's losses were revealed, it became clear D Company had won a significant victory. By late morning, a total of 113 bodies and two wounded had been found, while numerous drag marks and blood trails indicated many more casualties had been moved the previous night. This section doesn't align with the discussion in the "Aftermath". Robinvp11 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2023/Failed&oldid=1189936097"