Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2024/Promoted

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment | 2024
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 Matarisvan (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SPARS

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk)

SPARS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class on behalf of Pendright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPARS is about the Women who served in the U.S. Coast Guard Women's Reserve during WW II. Created by the U.S Congress, it authorized the USCG to replace male officers and enlisted men with women at shore stations. Working with the top-secret LORAN project was its most unique assignment. LORAN was a land-based radio navigation system developed to monitor locations of ships at sea and aircraft in flight. Monitoring stations were able to calculate a ship's exact location by measuring the amount of time each signal took to reach a ship. Chatham, Massachusetts, was staffed by SPARS and believed to be the only all-female staffed monitoring station of its kind in the world. Pendright (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I'll try to review this soon. Please ping me if I haven't started in a week. Hog Farm Talk 00:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "when Executive order 8929 directed the Coast Guard to operate as part of the Navy" - it looks like Executive Order frequently has both words capitalized in sources
Upper cased - Pendright (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "expedite the war effort by providing for releasing officers and men for sea duty and replacing them with women in the shore establishment of the Coast Guard and for other purposes. " - is this italicized portion a direct quote? If so, I think it would be clearer shown in quotation marks
Used iralics for emphasis:
Shortcuts
Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Italic type
Emphasis
Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Emphasis
Italics are used for emphasis, rather than boldface or capitals. But overuse diminishes its effect; consider rewriting instead. With or without emphasis is fine with me. Pendright (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was the Women's Reserve of the U.S. Navy" - I think this can be ommitted, since the prior paragraph has introduced the WAVES and the Women's Naval Reserve
Frankly, I see no real benefit in omitting it, or any real harm in not omitting it. The use of repetition in writing is not uncommon. There are no rules or prohibitions against the judicious use of repetition in article writing. Pendright (talk)
  • "The legislation passed in late 1942, and was signed into law on November 23." - this has already been stated in the background section
Deleted in late 1942 Pendright (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article title is SPARS with all letters capitalized, but throughout the article it is consistently SPARs with the last letter lowercase
Explanation: In June 2024, at my request, the article was copyedited by the Guild of Copy Editors and the editor left this comment:
As part of my recent GOCE edit, I tried to unify the usage/formatting of the term "SPARS" (and variants). Looking through the sources revealed a variety of usage, even within articles produced by one organization (such as the USCG online newsletter "My CG", searching for articles tagged "SPARs" or "Spar"). So I made some choices, based on USCG usage, and came up with my own 'standard'.
Pendright (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linked Pendright (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (Lt. (j.g.)—joined" - I think you're missing another closing paranthesis after the last one
Corrected: Lt. (j.g.) -> Lieutenant (junior grade) Pendright (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize between MIT and M.I.T.
Fixed - MIT Pendright (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything that discusses why the SPARs were heavily from those sets of states? Was that the population centers in the 1940s, or was SPAR recruitment mainly focused in those areas?
These were the population centers at the time. Pendright (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she was still in active service with a complement of eight officers and 40 enlisted" - I'm not seeing here the 8 and 40 figure is coming from. This has 8 and 42

::Info-box: Complement ->

8 Officers
40 Enlisted Pendright (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! changed text, source, and citation info

Pendright (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC) Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting although this is a subject that I don't really anything at all about, so this should be considered a surface-level review. Hog Farm Talk 23:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Pendright (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Reviewing by JennyOz

edit

Placeholder for now... JennyOz (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pendright, sorry for delay, this is taking longer than I anticipated. (That's a testament to your engaging prose. I remember feeling likewise enchanted with WAVES.) I've added a few comments, a lot of naive questions really. I'll finish them tomorrow. Please don't feel any need to reply to each of my notes. Just use anything that is useful...

top

  • add use ameng template
  • add use mdy template
Good ideas! Pendright (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You decided not to add these? (You have them on WAVES) JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Added - Pendright (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:SPARS - NARA - 515462 enhanced.jpg|thumb|alt=SPARS on parade in dress uniforms with the U.S. flag and that of the USCG|
SPAR recruitment poster used during World War II - remove line break between parameters
Thanks for the fix. Pendright (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lede

  • "Semper Paratus"—"Always Ready" - did you consider formatting this with the Latin language template ie as Semper Paratus ("always ready")? (I'm not necessarily suggesting that treatment in Stratton's direct quote later on)
No! Pendright (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that exclamation. Does it mean No! you hadn't considered or No! you prefer not to format it? JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<> Let me explain my No this way: You asked me this question, did you consider formatting this with the Latin language template ie as Semper Paratus ("always ready")? Thus, the NO. But after revisiteing the parenthetical part of your statement, (I'm not necessarily suggesting that treatment in Stratton's direct quote later on) I realized that, while unsaid, there is an implied suggestion to do it that I missed the first time around. So, now it's - Latin: Semper Paratu Pendright (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both changed - Pendright (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both changed as requested - Pendright (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the demobilization of SPAR personnel began. - do you want that line break there?
No, fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this time as the USCG Women's Volunteer Reserve. - quotes instead of italics?
Sticking with italics - Pendright (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • approximately 200 of them reenlisting. - line break intentional?
No, fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

background

  • This changed on November 1, 1941, when Executive Order 8929 - add issued by Pres FDR?
  • allow women to serve in the USCG Reserve. [1] In - remove space before ref
  • was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on November 23 - if you insert FDR per suggestion above, just use Roosevelt here?
All fixed - Pendright (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in order to expedite the war effort by providing for releasing officers and men for sea duty and replacing them with women in the shore establishment of the Coast Guard and for other purposes. - is that verbatim ie should be in quotes rather than italics? (and prob needs ref directly following?)
Not verbatim Pendright (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, P3 of the USCG At War pdf has (in their own quotes) "expedite the war effort by providing for releasing officers and men for duty at sea and their replacement by women in the shore establishment of the Coast Guard, and for other purposes." So the only difference is the bit I underlined. I'm sorry but I don't understand why it's in italics. JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<> Changed the italics to quotes. Pendright (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The director

  • Dorothy C. Stratton (future director of the SPARs) had been - I'd leave the parenthetical hint out here. The heading is enough?
Removed - Pendright (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She earned her M.A. degree from the University of Chicago and her PhD from - I think MA would be better here ie without dots per PhD for consistency (and per MOS:COMMONABBR)
Deleted - Pendright (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • encouraged Stratton to apply for a commission in the newly formed Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES) - it only has a shortened version just above, ie "Women's Naval Reserve" - maybe put full name at first mention, then here use WAVES? I'm a little confused sorry. The lede of WAVES has "United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve), better known as the WAVES (for Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service)" so is "Women's Naval Reserve" another alternative name ie needing the caps?
  • In her 1989 oral history article, Launching the SPARS, Stratton - add quotes around the article name per MOS:MINORWORK
Done - Pendright (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the more nautical nickname of "SPARs" - ignorant as I am of military and naval terminology, I had to look up what is a spar to understand the nautical connection. You could add a link, something like (a spar is part of the rigging of a sailing vessel) maybe as a footnote?
Linked - Pendright (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting

  • by the lack of SPAR personnel - initial lack of?
Done Pendright (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPAR recruitment information was sometime disseminated - sometimes? (or is that an EngVar thing?)
Went with customarily Pendright (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • former Women's Reserve officers Lyne and Arthur, they - I'd put their full names here ie Mary Lyne and Kay Arthur (especially considering Arthur sounds like a bloke)
former Women's Reserve officers -> I'd like to think this would answer any such questions? Pendright (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the two-year-effort - remove second hyphen
Fixed Pendright (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one-fourth were rejected - a quarter or 25 percent?
Left Pendright (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In her 1989 oral history article, Launching the SPARS, - quotes again around article name
Done Pendright (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dorothy C. Stratton revisited the recruiting - just Stratton
Done - Pendright (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Pendright (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minority recruitment

  • African American Women - lower case w in this heading
  • were under the supervision of the Secretary of the Navy.[2] Frank Knox, the secretary, was vehemently - were under the supervision of the Secretary of the Navy,[2] Frank Knox, who was vehemently
  • When Knox died in April 1944 - After Knox died
All fixed -Pendright (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas E. Dewey, criticized the administration for discriminating against African American women during a speech in Chicago - that's ambiguous? Thomas E. Dewey, during a speech in Chicago, criticized the administration for discriminating against African American women.
  • African American women v African-American women, remove 2 x hyphenated for consistency?
There's still a hyphenated one in second para of Minority recruitment section JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Removed - Pendright (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • black women recruits into their ranks. [8] In - remove space before ref
  • In 2015, the U.S. Coast Guard honored 100 year old Olivia Hooker - add hyphens ie 100-year-old. Also, just Hooker?
All fixed - Pendright (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hispanic and Latino American Women - w
  • who served in Washington, D.C. and New York - add geocomma after D.C.
  • barracks in Long Beach, California. [26] - remove space before ref
All fixed - Pendright (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Native American Women - w
  • No less than six women - at least six of the women recruited there were from...? Ie are you saying tribal nations women were specifically targeted for recruitment or were they six of all women recruited in Oklahoma?
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but needs tweak "At lesst six of all women" - lesst typo, swap "all" to 'the' JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Corrected spelling and changed all to the - Pendright (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • June Townsend - rank?
Added - Pendright (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Officer training

  • caption United States Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT - MOS:STATEABBR says not to use, change to Connecticut?
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is (WR) and (for the Women's Reserve) the same thing?
Removed - Pendright (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • would eliminate the need for further training - completely eliminate or minimise the need?
  • in their civilian lifes, - life or lives or maybe this is another EngVar instance?
lives is the plural of life - Pendright (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enlisted training

  • at Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa[40][41] But - insert full stop after Iowa
Done - Pendright (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linked text but mot image-Pendright (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Pendright (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I blieve I have responed to all of the above comments - Pendright (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little more to come, JennyOz (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JennyOz, any further comments to come from your end? Matarisvan (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pendright (and Matarisvan), I've been watching changes and will finish up tonight or tomorrow. Looking good! JennyOz (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a five replies above. Sorry that I have to do this piecemeal. I'm down to Training. JennyOz (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz: Before I address your five points, let me say that you need not be sorry for the scheduling of your review. For my part, finish it as time permits. I'm grateful, as Wikipedia should be, that you would lend your time and talent to make SPARs a better article. Pendright (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that comment Pendright, made me feel less guilty! JennyOz (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My five replies to your five replies - Pendright (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Pendright, to speed things up, I've gone ahead and made some minor changes that I felt pretty sure about, rather than load up another long list of questions and comments. (I don't usually make changes myself in reviews. I know many reviewers do but I generally don't feel confident enough to do so.) I've explained the changes in edit summaries. Obviously, please undo any you don't agree with.
All good - thanks! Pendright (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the last bits I don't understand or suggestions, I'll add further comments here, hopefully tomorrow. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great -Pendright (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two last comments...

  • "Stratton also noted that the four letters (SPAR) might also stand for the four freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of religion."
The link you added redirects to a Dutch food retailer. Two possible solutions to consider here...
Perhaps change wording to 'that the four letters S, P, A and R, might also stand for the four freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of religion', or,
Capitalise the 4 relevant words eg freedoms of Speech, of the Press, of Assembly, and of Religion
At minimum though, that link should be removed. JennyOz (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Spar - used upper case - Pendright (talk)
<> Added - Pendright (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, these are the women from this Category:SPARS personnel that I was wondering if you could include in the Notable people section list. (They are "notable" because they already have their own blue-linked articles, just like the members on the list on WAVES.)
@Pendright, you've already added Block and Finch to the Notable people section, could you also add Linkswiler and Munro per JennyOz's suggestion? We can then promote the article to A class once that edit is done. Matarisvan (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<> @Matarisvan: They all have been added, however, I'm still looking for a suitable source for Munro - and expect to do so today. Pendright (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I'm done now Pendright. Thanks sincerely for your patience. I look forward to supporting (both here - and at FAC, if you nom it). JennyOz (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your in-depth work on the SPARs article has improved it immeasurably - thank you. Should it pass AC, I hope to take it to the next level. Pendright (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JennyOz, do the above changes resolve the issues you had raised? Any more comments you may like to add? Matarisvan (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pendright and Matarisvan. I've expanded on my comment re the Notable people list above but I'm happy to leave those possible additions to your discretion. I am happy to s'port this nomination. Great job, Pendright! Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Pendright, my comments:

  • "procurement... of personnel": "the recruitment" might be better than "procurement"?
@Matarisvan: Could you please identify for me the heading the above is referencing? If it's General recruiting efforts, which of the two procurements need fixing?
  • We list Dorothy Tutte as the first woman enlistee in SPAR, do we know the first woman officer in the unit who did not transfer in from WAVES?
No, none of the sourcing used in the article tells us. Pendright (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The SPARs like the WAVES": "The SPARs, like the WAVES," may be better grammatically?
  • "another part of training": add a comma after?
  • "Oklahoma A&M University, Stillwater, Oklahoma": "Oklahoma A&M University in Stillwater, Oklahoma" may be better?
  • "Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa": "the Iowa State Teachers College in Cedar Falls, Iowa." may be better?
  • Remove the link to Manhattan Beach in the Enlisted training subsection, since we have already linked it in the preceding subsection?
  • Link to ionosphere and F region?
  • Link Cape Cod?
All addressed - Pendright (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pendright, for the "procurement" phrasing, both occurrences need fixing, since personnel are not procured but recruited. Matarisvan (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed-with sentence verbiage still mirroring sources. Pendright (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I made this one pending change myself, so adding my support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the alt addition and review - Pendright (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • All images have appropriate Public Domain licenses.
  • Suggest adding alt text for the LORAN chart.
Added - Pendright (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image review is a pass, had forgotten to add this earlier. Matarisvan (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • All sources are from reliable publishers.
  • For Johnson 1987, the spelling of the middle name should be Erwin, not Irwin. Also, consider linking to the article?
Corrected spelling - Pendright (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Morris J. MacGregor?
? - Pendright (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace refs #26 and #27 with sfn tags, since we have listed the underlying web pages in the bibliography?
Replaced - Pendright (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider running the Internet Archive Bot on the page, since some refs are missing archive URLs?
Regrettably, the running of a Bot is not yet a part of my tool-kit—but I suspect that it is a part of yours.
  • Add [1] as the URL for Lyne & Arthur 1946?
This is the URL in use now - Pendright (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks. Refs #9, #18, #25, #39, #43, #55, #66: all ok.
@Matarisvan: Except for a couple of questions, I believe I've addressed all of your source comments. Pendright (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright, the source review is a pass. The Internet Archive Bot is getting a lot of traffic now so I will run it tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Thank you very much for your time and effort. Pendright (talk) 20:12, 11 October 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.

Article promoted by Matarisvan (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Matterhorn logistics

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Matterhorn logistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

As part of some work on Operation Matterhorn, I spun the section on logistics (my primary interest in it actually) off into its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, adding my support. Matarisvan (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Source review

edit
  • Run the Internet Archive Bot on the page once?
    There are no dead references in the article, but ran the IABot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources are from reliable publishers.
  • Do any non-government, academic sources have any material we could add to the article? As of now we only have 5 of these. Have OUP, CUP, other university presses not published much on this topic? I don't mind it much, but this issue popped up at the Battle of Saipan FAC recently.
    I had no such problem with the Battle of Tinian. There is nothing on Matterhorn logistics specifically, but there are some books and articles about the B-29s in general, so I have added three additional sources.

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, excuse the double tagging. Anything in the following sources which may be useful? [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Matarisvan (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks. Refs #3, #7, #13, #14, #20, #23, #30, #31: all ok. The source review is a pass, though you could consider including material from the 5 sources listed above and others like these. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source review is a pass. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Hawkeye; I'm not seeing this listed at WP:MILHIST/ACR. I'll try to post a review by the end of the week. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, pinging you for your review here. Matarisvan (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busier with work than I expected; I'll try to post a review this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

Excellent work with this. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • I'd suggest noting the base in Ceylon in the lead
    It already says: "The creation of bases for the B-29s in India, Ceylon and China and their maintenance was a logistical undertaking of enormous magnitude and difficulty." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! I missed that Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest briefly noting the debate over whether the B-29s should have been sent to India or Australia in the background section, especially as some work was done to upgrade bases at Darwin to accommodate them.
    Briefly mentioned this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background section could also note that Operation Matterhorn was seen as a gap filler until more efficient B-29 bases could be captured and brought into service in the Pacific; this helps to explain why such a logistically wasteful project was undertaken.
    That's what did happen; it is not what was intended at all. Added some details about why the operation was carried out.
  • "Engineer-in-chief" - should the 'chief' be capitalised or 'engineer' decapitalised here?
    Decapitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said in the Airbases section about how the Indian workers were recruited and what their experiences were? This section is currently heavily focused on the experiences of the Americans.
    I haven't got much, but I will add a little bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on the base in Ceylon should note it was abandoned after a single raid (Operation Boomerang). The USAAF official history has a good quote on how wasteful this was that I used in that article.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And the contractors' personnel policies, if they can be so dignified, were blends of inefficiency and time-honored skulduggery." - it's not clear what this is in relation to?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the Japanese detect or attempt to disrupt the construction of airfields in India or China?
  • I suspect that "cfowl" is a typo for cowl
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding assessments by historians would strengthen the 'End of Matterhorn' section. Chennault was right, but he was also self-serving and at times flaky so is a bit of an unreliable witness here. I imagine that historians have noted that while Operation Matterhorn was a colossal waste of resources it didn't really matter given the vast resources the US could call on. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added an assessment by RAND that specifically targets logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - great work here. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 9 October 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ernest J. King

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Ernest J. King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

It's the 80th anniversary of D-Day, so I thought I would nominate a World War II article. After writing up William D. Leahy, I thought I would tackle the US Navy's second most senior admiral, Ernest J. King, a renowned submariner and aviator who commanded the US Fleet during World War II. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Hawkeye7, saving a spot, will post comments soon.

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the change to sfn tags is done, reading through the references is easier. Some comments on source formatting:
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support for promotion to A class on the general text, image and source reviews below. Matarisvan (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Naval Aviator Badge.jpg: Can be replaced with File:Naval Aviator Badge.png, since the Commons page recommends that. Also PD-US is not appropriate here, PD-USGov-Military award is better.
    Replaced with the PNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the foreign awards images, have the respective governments released copyright over the badges? Are there tags like PD-USGov-Military award for all these countries? If not, you will have to remove them, I had similar issues at one of my FACs.
    I would think that ribbons fall below the threshold of originality in the United States. That is a matter for Commons. If they delete them, then they will disappear from here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think this issue will most certainly pop up at FAC. Anyways, I'm not qualified enough on image reviews so I will pass this review, any concerns on the foreign awards can be dealt with at FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the images have alt texts. If it is ok with you then I would like to add the alts myself, though I don't think I could so for the images of the ranks and the awards as that would be too tiring.
    Sure. Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All other images have appropriate tags. Matarisvan (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Archive URLs needed for:

Refs #24, #46, #66, #71-73, #92, #95, #100, #103, #121, #146, #171, #174-175, #180, #183-186, #188-192; Cline 1951, Hattendorf 2023, King 1909, King 1932, Sternhell & Thorndike 1946, Reimers 2018, Morton 1985, Kohnen 2018.

  • For Miller, Jappert & Jackson 2023, could we add this link if it is the correct one along with the archive URL?
  • Spot checks:
  1. 24, #34, #36, #72, #73, #92, #121, #143, #157, #184: all ok. Matarisvan (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, just saw that you have implemented the changes suggested above. The source review is a pass then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wtfiv

edit

I finally have a chance to get to this...

General question...I didn't see a template for Class A review on the article's talk page. Did I miss it?

We don't normally transclude it. There is a link in the project box. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and education
edit
  • No comments.
Surface ships
edit
  • The first sentence provides an interesting fact, but may mislead the reader. It starts with "Graduates who had been selected for the Marines", since King is the topic of this article and Marines are the topic of this sentence, it implies King is in the Marines. Can this be reworded, or even the reference to Marine's removed. As the point is that before being commissioned as an ensign, King had to serve two years. Perhaps King could be mentioned in that first sentence. This would also make the link to the second paragraph, which begins King was promoted more clear and continuous.
     Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • King got to know his staff well Though a reader can take the energy to correct the perception, the pronominal anaphor implies that the staff is King's not Crowninshield. Can this be reworded?
     Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider rewording Bouts of heavy drinking making King the subject to more explicitly signal the change of topic for the reader. For six sentences the topic has been the Cincinnati. It is now returning to King, but without warning, only when the 'him' arrives (which references to a subject seven sentences previously) does it signal the reader that the Cincinnati is not the topic. (It may require "King" in the following sentence to become He.)
     Y Split paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the third paragraph seems off topic. The paragraph defines King's family and describes Mattie. The last line suddenly addresses King's temper. It sort of follows through an associative logic, as the paragraph is talking about family and the quote is from his daughter. Is there another way to integrate this into the article more appropriately? (If not, it's worth keeping. I think the point is too important to remove.)
     Y Moved it down below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider reworking paragraph 5.
    • The paragraph opens with an explanation of the lieutenant promotion process, the second sentence reads as a continuation of this until the word "his" appears at the end of the second sentence. Could King (or "he") be introduced earlier, ideally in the first sentence?
     Y Re-worked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also consider deleting as an ensign from the first sentence as it is used already.
     Y Re-worked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information about the fate of those who failed the examination is interesting, but is it relevant since King will pass? I'd suggest deleting. The following sentence makes it clear that the promotion requires training and physical examinations.
     Y Relevant. Today it is very unusual for officers to skip the rank of lieutenant (junior grade); the article explains why King did so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs 8 and 9, and perhaps The first paragraph of submarines
    • Wouldn't the three sentences in Paragraph 9 on the signature breast-pocket, which is related to the Royal Navy, be appropriate as part of the paragraph 8, which has King's relation to the Royal Navy as one of its topics?
       Y Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving the breast-pocket material out of the paragraph would make King's becoming the head of the Naval Postgraduate School the lead topic of paragraph 9, which would be more relevant, career-wise.
    • Though a knowledgeable reader might be able to infer that the Naval Postgraduate School was in Annapolis at the time due to the sentence about him buying a house. I think it is important to make it explicit, as well as making it explicit that it was still directly under the Naval Academy. This will help readers make sense of his request to return to sea in the first paragraph of Submarines.
       Y Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest moving the first paragraph of Submarines into this section and merging it into King's becoming head of the Post Graduate institute. It would make the Annapolis episode (becoming head of NPS, getting a house, learning about a new superintendent) one continuous narrative. The sections about the USS Bridge could be included as these preceed King's relationship to submarines, which is the topic of the next section.
       Y Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Submarines
edit
  • Paragraph 1
    • (Repeat suggestion): Consider merging paragraph 1 with a modified paragraph 9 in the proceeding section.
    • Consider deleting therefore. Would it be possible to rework this a bit Leahy told him that nothing was available. King eventually accepted... It sounds like Leahy told King "no", but then King got a ship anyway. (I think I can infer what happened, but it is a bit confusing for a casual reader.)
       Y Yes. Made more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider deleting careerist. Aren't ambitious officers already careerist? It also indirectly implies that King was careerist. I'm sure to some extent he was, but the character being constructed is far more ambitious than careerist as he has a reputation for a temper and being critical.
       Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider beginning this section with paragraph 2, which is about submarines. If it begins the section After a year may need to be more specific. Also, consider removing again as "another command" already implies the repitition.
    • The second sentence begins Once again, that's fine but points to the need to rework the relationship between Leahy's comments and King accepting command of the USS Bridge. If he was told again that nothing was available, he shouldn't have been able to get a command on the USS Bridge, even if it seemed a second-rate command. Perhaps the problem is the word "nothing"? Does "nothing" mean a surface warship? If the "nothing" in paragraph 1 can be clarified, it might help clear up the apparent contradiction.
       Y Made it clear that we are talking about a destroyer division or flotilla. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider merging the two sentences about Leahy and submarines into one. Something like: "Leahy let King know that if he was interested in submarines, Leahy could offer him command of a submarine division."
       Y Merged as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify "Submarine Base" in the paragraph? The paragraph has mentioned the Submarine School in New London, but not the base. I'm assuming you mean the school and the base, but a casual reader may be confused to the reference to a base that had not been mentioned before.
       Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation
edit
  • Paragraph 2
    • I'm unsure of the significance of this sentence He was the only captain... At first, it sounds like he's the trainee with the highest rank, but then mention of Turner makes it sounds like he's got junior rank. But maybe it's just that he was the only person with the unique rank of captain. Could this be rewritten to clarify the significance of it?
       Y Clarified that a captain is a very senior officer, and it was very rare (and unheard of today) to see one in flight school; most are ensigns or lieutenants. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yes, normally, it would be young officers, but the situation described was unusual, so it was easy to assume that lots of more senior officers wanted to earn their wings at the time to enhance their chances at promotion. Wtfiv (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
    • Wouldn't King's annual flight average be better as the first sentence in the pagraph? The solo flying is interesting, but seems secondary.
       Y Moved to the first sentence. The real point here is that King really was an aviator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Observation): I'm not sure what can be done about it but the current first sentence has flew solo...flying..solo flying...solo flights.. It feels like a bit of repitition, though it has the advantage of reducing ambiguity.
       Y Removed one instance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote
    • (Comment only) Though I'm not generally a fan of long quotes, this one is an exception. It is particularly apt for defining King's character, attitude and outlook.
  • Paragraph 6
    • Consider breaking up the sentence starting Following the death. There's three dependent clauses, three independent clauses with a lot of names and titles that put a lot of cognitive load on the reader.
       Y Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 7
  • Paragraph 8
    • The sentence King was summoned... initially feels like a continuation of the previous paragraph (the travails of Standley). It might be worthwhile, to lead with the date of the summons to help create a sense of break between paragraphs. (It's still a bit instrusive because it disrupts Standley issue that cuts across para. 7 and 9, and this seems like an interrupt, though I suspect that it is in the right place in terms of temporal narrative.)
       Y Moved the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 9
    • The last sentence is a bit unclear to me. To a casual reader, it sounds like he was promoted to Battle Force commander because he survived a plane crash.
       Y Tweaked the wording. Anybody who wasn't in a crash wasn't flying enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the topic of the paragraph shouldn't the last sentence focus on the command? Something like "He became Commander... and was promoted to vice admiral...at the time..." as his desire for the Battle Force command is the focus of the paragraph"
       Y Clarified that what happened was Leahy succeeding Standley. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 10
    • Consider breaking the second sentence into two.

More to come... Wtfiv (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World War II, General Board
edit
  • Paragraph 1.
  • I like elephant's graveyard, its an idiom that's easy to get, but when I looked it, the link is unsourced. Digging through multiple slang dictionaries, I found the navy meaning sourced to a 1971 book called the Arnheiter Affair by Neil Sheehan, p.15. All the dictionaries tend to agree that it specifically relates to the Boston Naval District Headquarters (First Naval District Headquarters.) during the Vietnam era. This '68 Time article seems to back this up. Unless another source pops up in the "elephant's graveyard" article for a broader use as navy slang, it might be best to delete this.
    That is because the Naval General Board was abolished in 1951. It is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph is only two sentences long, would it make sense to merge it with paragraph 2, perhaps combining paragraph 1 and 2?
     Y Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good...though the Elephant's Graveyard article could use a citation showing that the term had been in general use before the Vietnam War...but that's not relevant to this article and this review. Wtfiv (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
  • posed a greater threat..., a fear that.... Could this be reworded, as a threat is not necessarily a fear. Here's a suggestion: "bigger bombs, posing a greater threat to the fleet, which would soon be confirmed in combat."
Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet
edit
  • Paragraph 1
    • On the surface, this seems to go against the previous section, which implies that King saved from oblivion and became CINCUS due to a recommendation by his outside relationship with Edison, who influenced Roosevelt. This paragraph states that he was saved by Stark who saw his talents. There's probably something to both accounts, but can it be resolved to make the two work together?
       Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2
    • The section starting at the sentence on page 2 seems unclear It goes from war plan in safe with war in Mexico, to war footing, to already at war with Germany seems to be telescoping something. At first read, it is sounds like he found a plan for war with Mexico, put the fleet on a war footing, then claimed it was for a war with Germany. (i.e., covering his tracks for a misorder.) My guess is something more like he found the fleet unprepared, which was demonstrated by his finding obsolete plans for a war with Mexico, decided to take swift action to get the fleet organized for the war with Germany, or rather the somewhat cool undeclared war. I'm guessing that the directive was part of this initiative? Could this paragraph be reworked so casual readers don't have to puzzle it out?
  • Paragraph 3
    • for the duration...I'm not sure what this means. The duration of his command? The duration of his professional career? The duration of the war? The latter would have to be made explicit, as the US wasn't at war yet.
       Y This is a World War II-era idiom. Roosevelt proclaimed an Unlimited National Emergency in May 1941. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second half of this paragraph has a different topic than the first half. Reader's will assume that Rather than... begins a topic continuing the point about being CINCLANT or giving up drinking. The second half seems like it should be its own paragraph, and would be better starting with the new topic (e.g., "On the eve of the ..., Germany withdrew its submarines rather than risk...") This new paragraph can then be merged with paragraph 4, which continues the discussion of Roosevelt's further steps. The first half of Paragraph 3 could be merged into the end of paragraph 2, as its only a one month difference between January and February.
       Y Moved the text about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A reader might reasonably guess that it the duration of the war. But a reader who was born well after WWII and with no knowledge of WWII idioms or the military would have to left guessing and uncertain of their guess. I still think it would be best to be definite about duration as the idiom is now 80 years old. Wtfiv (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7 I think I put the preceding comment in the wrong place. It was meant to address your point about "for the duration" being a World War II-era idiom The point being that although I understand that for the duration meant for the duration of the war, I'm thinking only vets, folk like me who are reasonably familiar with the American military experience in WWII, and MILHIST grognards can be certain of what "for the duration" means. I'm not sure readers would understand it in the context of the Unlimited National Emergency act, given that official War had not yet broken out for the US. For folk who were born in 1980 and later, knowing this term would be analogous to someone born in 1935 knowing something about the slang used in the Spanish-American war.
    I know this is a minor quibble, and I'll desist and respect your point if you feel it is fine as is. But I think my concern also helps to clarify one of the goals of my review style, which is trying to pose concerns from the view of somebody who knows very little of the topic. (Which is sometimes hard to do because of my own implicit background knowledge... I realize when I stop to puzzle something out based on what I know, that that's a red flag that I should share the concern.) Wtfiv (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Y Changed to "duration of the war". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4
    • Could this be recrafted? It may be just me, but I misread it: At first, the mention of the Texas seemed like a non-sequitor. It was as if King had a job to do for Roosevelt (who is making a trip but its unclear how), went to Hyde park, while making preparations there that were suppose to be for Roosevelt, found there that USS Texas wasn't appropriate for his flagship, and got himself a new flagship. If I understand it now, I think intended sense is that King had to make arrangements for Roosevelt's trip, which would be by ship, and while in Hyde Park he determined (as opposed to found) that USS Texas would not appropriate for transporting Roosevelt, so he got a new flagship for Roosevelt to travel in.
      It was King who wanted the newer ship with the better communications. Sources don't say, but I suspect that Roosevelt might have preferred the battleship, as Churchill was coming in HMS Duke of York. Clarified. The arrangements for transporting Roosevelt were always tricky, due to his disability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 5
    • consider changing "had issued" to "issued".
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • At first reading, the sentence about the sinking of USS Reuben James seems unrelated to the proceeding sentences. Consider tying the sinking of USS Ruben James to the end of the Neutrality acts. I'd suggest removing "until November" and adding something like "When the USS Reuben James became the first...to be sunk..., Congress repealed the acts on 17 November."
       Y Re-arranged text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in Chief, U. S. Fleet
edit
  • Paragraph 1
    • I'm not sure this needs to be changed, but as obvious as it might seem to someone who studies these things, would a casual reader who might just be looking at CINCUS as just another large anachronym get the pun on CINCUS (sink us)? Would it be worth spelling this out?
       Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider moving the "Legend has it..." a bit earlier in the paragraph. It is relate to King's assignment (Or is it King's response to the assignment of himself, Ingersoll and Nimitz...placement of the "Legend" quip, will sort that out. Ending with the CINCUS renaming would then work a bit more smoothly.
       Y Moved about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
    • This paragraph sets up King's staff, but I found myself having a bit of time tracking it. I'd like to suggest a bit of amplification and clarification.
      • Horne is mentioned as part of King's staff, but the previous paragraph left Horne with Stark. How'd Horne get into King's staff?
        Because King became CNO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once Horne's place in the staff is established, I'd suggest putting the sentence "Edwards, Cooke, and Horne right after the addition of the last of this list: the sentence ending "...succeeded by Rear Admiral Charles M. Cooke." That would sum up the trio defined in the previous sentences (and Edwards in the previous paragraph). The sentence about Low could come afterwards as he's not part of the trio, then maybe a sentence about junior officers filling the other roles and coming in and out.
         Y Moved sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sentences two and four both begin with "He". The anaphoric reference to both would go to Willson. Readers can sort them out, but to reduce the cognitive load and make Edward's more salient as you set up the trio summary, I'd suggest replacing the second "He was succeeded by Edwards" with the dependent clause "and replaced with Edwards". This wording has the advantage of more directly reflecting King's intention, if it was, rather than sounding like he took Edwards by default of seniority.
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider expanding "duration" to "duration of the war".
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider "When Turner was assigned to..." vs. "went".
      I think "went" is fine. He could not be assigned to it; it was not a ship. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider "which King renamed USS Dauntless", it was King it renamed it right? (If it was renamed by someone else, its fine as it is.) And such an act reflects his character. the following sentence could then replace "King" with "he", as the anaphor works.
       Y Had to check this, but yes, it was King. He asked his staff for suggestions and chose "Dauntless". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4
    • Consider rewording the section about Executive Order 9096. If Roosevelt combined them on 12 March 1942; but King assumed both on 26 March. What happened between March 13 and 25? Stark was CNO, but couldn't take over COMINCH without pushing out King. My own assumption is the March 12 was signed but not the date it was effective. But the gap leads an attentive reader to possibilities that are red herrings for the narrative: Was Stark setting up the situation for King? Did Stark want the position, but lost a power play to King, which forced Stark's demotion? The solution for this that comes to my mind is to deleted mention of 12 March. Then the transition seems more seamless and obviates the need to explain the narrative gap between March 13 to 25.
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider removing the clause "the only overlap..." It is implied in the remainder of the sentence.
       Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 5
    • Up to this point, King has not been mentioned as part of the American chiefs of staff, though a reader slightly knowledgeable in American command structure may be able to figure it out. To help the reader, I'd suggest something like "When the American chiefs of staff, including King,..." this would help clarify and would also foreground King earlier in the paragraph as the topic.
       Y Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 6
    • This paragraph was a bit unclear at first because we already told that King succeeded Stark in paragraph 5. But then Stark is back in paragraph 6 as part of the Joint Chief's of staff. (A less-than-through reader might assume that Stark served on the chief of staffs in his role as COMNAVEUR) I think this can be solved by moving paragraph 5 before paragraph 4. That would fit better in the narrative timeline and reduce the issue of Stark reappearing.
       Y Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once the narrative ambiguity is resolved, I'd suggest rewording the first sentence to "When Stark became ...., the JJS was reduced to three members. [optionally listing them for readers again-King, Leahy, and Marshall- as there would be an intervening paragraph on the separate topic of COMINCH/CNO and Stark.]
       Y Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second sentence is a bit unclear. Why is Turner and Ingersoll relevant? They are not part of the JCS. If it is kept, it would need clarification. It sounds like a bigger and more complex political issue that spreads through the lower chains of command and beyond this article. My own feeling is the sentence side tracks the paragraph's focus on King. My suggestion is to deleting it. That would keep King consistently in the middle of the narrative.
       Y Deleted mention of Ingersoll and Turner. I just wanted to make clear that King's was the Navy's position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider deleting "still" from "still pressed", as this is the first mention of the idea of liason and spokesperson.
       Y Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also suggest deleting "on principle". Given that King shaves with a blowtorch, more than principle may have been involved in his debate with Marshall. The point would still be made.
       Y Changed as suggested.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider deleting "only" from "only 8", 8 isn't much different than 9. I think readers will see the diminishment in the list of 32, 8, 9, 1.
      I think it reads better with it there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds good. Wtfiv (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 7
    • Though interesting, I'm not sure how the Hart Episode relates to what happens to King in the paragraph. If it is meant to be an example of Roosevelt's micromanagement, I'd suggest starting the sentence off with "For example,"
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, I'm not sure where the Marshall clause fits in unless it is meant to be a contrast on how King was treated. If so, something like "Roosevelt gave Marshall broad authority, including reorganizing the War Department, but King's authority..." That'd also help make the Roosevelt-King relationship being described more explicit.
       Y Changed as suggested. A reader familiar with Marshall's sweeping changes will find this interesting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider rewording the sentences beginning "Acting on a suggestion..." to something like this "King, acting on a suggestion..., ordered...on May 28. He was opposed by ... Most importantly, he was opposed..." This would help make King the agent and focus of the reaction, focusing on the constraints on King and making and less about the Knox's and the bureau chiefs' actual attitudes toward the restructure.
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider rewording "allow" to "did allow" If you are agreeable to this "did" serves to emphasize that Roosevelt seemed to make a concession giving latitude now and then, but the following clause tamps down that it was more illusory.
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraph 8
  • Paragraph 9
    • I feel like Chapter 9 could be stronger if it was reworked, and perhaps elements combined with Chapter 8, or rework both 8 and 9. I don't have specific suggestions, but I'll try to clarify what I'm seeing. It seems different parts are doing different work.
      • Sentence 3 seems like a restatement or clarification of the existence of the looming personnel shortage stated at the beginning of para 8, but giving more detail and framing it within a prediction. It seems the relevant sections of paras 8 and 9 could be merged. Also, consider deleting the clause listing the number of Essex-class carriers and if the number of carriers is to be given, perhaps give it in the section that already mentions the Essex-class carriers.
      • Sentences 1 and 2 seem like a wrap up the thought at the end of Paragraph 8: King is trying to work with the constraints of predicted personnel shortage by attempting ship cuts, but he is resisted, even though he is later shown to be right.
      • The last three sentences seem to be a different, but closely related topic: Discussing how King tried to address the shortage by increasing available Naval personnel.
War in the Atlantic
edit
  • Paragraphs 1-4
  • This section is a bit more difficult for me and I'm not sure how it can be addressed, or whether it should.
    I assume these paragraphs are intended to give background, but I felt they seemed to move away from the article's focus. The detail is certainly interesting. But King sinks from view after his first mention in paragraph 1 for three and a half paragraphs. For the time being, he is replaced by a new protagonist, Adolphus Andrews. King doesn't return until paragraph 5 regarding discussion about his 1940 recommendation for cutters.
    From my perspective, the article at this point has been focusing King and has been working at a narrative and strategic/grand strategic level, but it changes in these paragraphs. As mentioned, this wealth of finer-grain detail about the war couched in terms of Andrew's challenges, is interesting, but couldn't much of this go into the Battle of the Atlantic or Happy Times article? Would it be possible to outline the situation in broad strokes, and stay focused on King's challenges during this time? Wtfiv (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Y Agreed. I have cut this section back to focus on King. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I think the one paragraph background fills readers in enough to now know what challenges King has to face.

  • Paragraph 3
    • The first sentence may need expanding, it seems to follow from the preceding paragraph but what was the purpose of copying the cutters? Were they to be as submarine chasers as per the following sentence or escorts. Inferring from the end of the paragraph, it seems they are intended as escorts. (The article on the class states they functioned more as chasers.) ((It sounds like the issue in this paragraph may be designing nimble escorts for the convoy, of which King's proposal to use Treasury-class ships is but one option.)
      Added "as anti-submarine escorts". The point is that the 327-foot Treasury-class coast guard cutter was considerably larger than a 110-foot sub chaser. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 I think the addition of the first sentence, which now mentions anti-submarine escorts, removes the need for "anti-submarine escorts in the second sentence (e.g., Treasury class). I feel like the context is now clear. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The end of the paragraph mentions destroyer escorts were finally put into production, but its not clear that they are the Treasury-class ones that King wanted, assuming it was destroyer escorts he was advocating for. It sounds like seven were built. If the issue is cutters vs. escorts, it might need a bit of clarification.
    • The cut-down warship (cut down from what?) sounds like it was functioning in both roles. How does it relate to the Treasury-class ships mentioned in the first paragraph.
      The destroyer escort was a cut-down version of a destroyer. Clarified this. They were 290 to 306 feet long. So very similar to the cutter, but based on the British Hunt-class destroyer escort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
    • I feel paragraph 4's context would be more clear if Paragraph 3 was more explicit. It's becoming clear that King is looking for solutions to the Paukenschlag. Paragraph 3 is about seeking a solution through finding the adequate ship to produce, Chapter 4 is about seeking a solution through convoying. I started getting a sense of this with the opening of paragraph 4. Though it follows logically, I think making this more clear through reworking paragraph 3 may make the context of both paragraphs clear.
  • Paragraph 5: No comments
  • Paragraph 6
    • Long-range maritime patrolling is another solution that was explored and use. Could a sentence at the beginning setting up this context be added? Knowledgable readers may know this, but I think readers need to know that long-range air patrols were part of the solution. It feels like it should follow after Paragraphs 4 convoy system, outlining King's role in the troika of solutions: better ships, better convoys, and long-range planes. Then it would follow more smoothly. But in terms of narrative timeline, it makes sense where it is.
     Y Added a bridging sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...this whole section reads much more smoothly, in my opinion. Wtfiv (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraph 7: No comments
War in Europe
edit
  • Paragraph 1: No comments
  • Paragraph 2: No comments
  • Paragraph 3
    • This expresses an important point, but its not given a context that makes it clear it fits here. Would this go better when discussing the Pacific War? (Unless you want to make the point that King that too many resources were going to Europe. If that's the case, I think it be clearer if it was stated more strongly.
      • (Later note): I just started looking at the War in the Pacific section. It looks like para 4 in War in the Pacific also addresses the priority problem...From my perspective, a paragraph on how King handled that issue may be worthwhile, probably in the appropriate place of the War in the Pacific section as its my understanding that his emphasis on this point is responsible for the United States being able to sustain both fronts, and the two prongs of the Pacific war as successfully as it did. Wtfiv (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4: no comments on the paragraph itself, but:
    • This seems to follow directly from Paragraph 2, which suggests that Paragraph 2 might be stronger in a different location. There is mention of King's diverting landing ships to the Pacific War, but this doesn't need paragraph 2 to be understood. (Though if you wanted to amplify on King's dissatisfaction with Pacific War resources here, and how his belief influenced his reallocation of resources, but I feel this would have to be tackled directly in Para 2. As mentioned, I think it may be easiest to move Paragraph 2 the Pacific War section, assuming there is a section there discussing how he worked to divert resources to it.)
  • Paragraph 5: No comments

Wtfiv (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent changes, this section comes together for me as a self-contained whole. Wtfiv (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War in the Pacific
edit
  • Paragraph 1: No comments
  • Paragraph 2: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
    • The second sentence points back to to King's trying to get resources for the Pacific war. Can the earlier material on the issue of getting resources for the Pacific War and its challenge be combined with this? Maybe it needs a stand alone paragraph. (But then, maybe not.)
  • Paragraph 3: No comments on the paragraph itself, but:
    • There's no coverage of the Marianas campaign. A paragraph on this is important because this is where King strikes out to clearly begin his Central Pacific Drive (up to that point, the Marshall islands campaign could be seen as supporting the Southwest Pacific campaign.) The impact of this campaign (e.g., putting Japan in bombing range) is something done through King's initiative (with the help of Arnold, who it looks like he enlisted.)
    • Similarly, if there is more to wrap up about King's guidance of the war in 1944-1945, that may need a short paragraph. (At least up to the cancellation of Operation Causeway and its fallout. I'm unsure of Iwo Jima and Okinawa need mention.) Anyway, I think closure would require continuing the narrative until the decisions were no longer King's,. (This wasn't as needed in the War in Europe section, as after Overlord, the land war is the focus and King is clearly background.)
      I will add a couple more paragraphs on these campaigns on the weekend. (Why is there no article on Operation Longtom?) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good! I think these paragraphs you are putting together are pretty important. I'll be looking forward to it.
    No article on Operation Longtom? It sounds like you have another article in the making! (It seems like a challenge that is up your alley!) It'd be a good one that could pique readers' imagination: what things would've been like today if Causeway and Longtom had been executed? What would China's developmental trajectory have been? It'd be a very different, perhaps unrecognizable world!
    One comment on the end of this section as it stands: Though it took a bit of dancing, I think King's daughter's quote found an ideal home. I felt the juxtaposition of the two quotes at the end of a section accomplished a rare trifecta in editing: It clearly states its point (King's passionate commitment to the Pacific War), it illustrates its protaganist's character (a passionate temper), and most rare in Wikipedia, its done with humor. (A humor done well enough that when I first saw it, I laughed despite already having seen both quotes separately before.) Wtfiv (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a couple of paragraphs about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! Wtfiv (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4
    • The paragraph starts a new topic that is different than the unfolding narrative of the Pacific War campaigns in the previous three paragraphs. To make the transition clear, consider opening the paragraph on torpedoes with a topic sentence on the problem. Something like "King also worked to improve American torpedoes"
  • Paragraphs 5–8 feel like a different topic than King's managing the strategic aspects of the Pacific War and dealing with torpedo problems. As the article mentions, its more political and in and way, more personal to King. It's less about the Pacific War and more about King's view of the world. Do you think a subheading under Pacific War or perhaps its own section would make the transition more clear? Beyond that, I think the paragraphs form a coherent whole amongst themselves.
Retirement and death
edit
  • Paragraph 1: No comments
  • Paragraph 2: "writing to Truman via Forrestal" On the surface, it sounds like King was asking Forrestal to forward a note to Truman for him, but why would Forrestal who was opposed to the idea? I think I can puzzle this out: King wrote an open letter to Forrestal but copied Truman? Can this be rewritten so it would be clear to a reader?
    The source says: "King forced Forrestal's hand by writing to Truman via Forrestal, asking the secretary within the letter to hand it to the president... Forrestal delivered the letter, and Truman agreed to the appointment" [of Nimitz instead of Edwards]. Buell quotes the letter, which ended with "I am asking the Secretary of the navy to hand you this letter." He writes: "Forrestal received the letter grudgingly. He had no choice other than to forward it to Truman." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's what the source says then my impression the first read is right despite it being counterintuitive! Thanks. Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs 3–4: No comments

I think that's all for now. Wtfiv (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. From my perspective it has a good balance that non-experts can appreciate, but includes lots of detail to keep the more knowledgeable readers engaged. Thank you for your time and patience with my review. Wtfiv (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support by Nick-D

edit

It's great to see this top tier importance biography here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

The 'Legacy' section would also be better presented as prose rather than dot points. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 21:19, 7 October 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Boot Monument

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Relativity (talk)

Boot Monument (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

If you travel to Saratoga National Historic Park, you will probably come across this somewhat bizarre monument of a boot. Its honoree's name is never mentioned on it, and it would take some research to figure out that it's actually honoring Benedict Arnold. I am nominating this for A-class because I'd like to take this to FA and so I would need to see what further improvements need to be made to it to get it there. Thank you! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye

edit

This is all way outside my area of expertise. I presume that Benedict Arnold was rehabilitated long ago. Article looks more like a GA than an FA. Some comments:

  • Can be have a consistent date format? Three different ones are used. (Recommend using dmy and adding a {{use dmy dates}} template.)
    •   Done
  • "Arnold's betrayal to the British" implies that someone betrayed him.
    • Changed to "Arnold betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army"
  • Do we know what Arnold's actual, rank was? (Same for Clinton, Gates and Lincoln)
    • Yes, and   Done
  • Is there any reason why the town of West Point was worth twenty thousand quid?
    • According to Nathaniel Philbrick's Valiant Ambition, the Hudson River was a large and strategically important river. The fortifications at West Point were on an "S" bend at the river and whoever controlled West Point essentially controlled the Hudson River itself. Since capturing the Hudson River would mean a huge military success to the British if they could capture it, which meant capturing West Point, that meant it was worth a lot of money. Should I add that to the article, or something shorter, such as "for the capture of West Point, a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River"?
      The short version would be fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says he "attempted to give crucial information about the fortification of West Point to the British" but the body says "offering Arnold £20,000 for the capture of West Point. Arnold met with British Major John André, who Arnold had solicited communication through, and André was later captured on his way back to New York with the plans for West Point being discovered"
    • Good catch, reworded in the lead to "He later attempted to help the British capture the fortification of West Point but was discovered and fled to the British army."
  • "solicited communication through" sounds awkward to me.
    • Reworded to "Arnold met with British Major John André so he could pass on information on how to best attack West Point,". Let me know what you think.
  • "College boys on a trip stole the toe and spur from the Boot Monument,[21][22] and they were only discovered when an anonymous informer informed the battlefield official that the toe was stolen by "a graduate of a New York State educational institution."[23] The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Do we have dates for these events?
    • Unfortunately no. All of the newspapers used as citations are from around the same time but there is no actual specified date when this happened.
  • "The monument is made of white marble[2][43] and is four feet tall." Source required for the height. And add a conversion for those of us living in the twenty-first century instead of the eighteenth.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the review and your time! I addressed most of your concerns, although I have one question about your fourth point. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Relativity, some comments:

  • Provide a link or identifier for "The Shrine of the Memorial Museum"? If you received it via resource request, specify that in a hidden note?
  • That source was there before I started extensively editing this article. I tried to find it, but couldn't. Since there's another source there, I've removed it.
  • Here is a link for Leopold 1994: [7]. Consider adding?
  •   Added, thanks for finding that. Hopefully, I've done it correctly.
  • Link to Lawrence Journal-World, The Lewiston Daily Sun and Boca Raton News as done for the other newspapers? Also I guess Ration is a typo, should be Raton?
  •   Done, and yes, that was a typo. I fixed that as well.
  • Provide a link for Duffus 1930 and MacIvor 1954?
  • For the MacIvor one, I found it off of the Wikipedia Library, and can't seem to find a way to add a link to it other than having a link go directly to the Wikipedia Library. Here's the permalink: [8]. I added an ISSN though for it. As for Duffus' source, I found the link, but there's an error page saying that there are technical difficulties with it showing up. I've added it for now, and I'll see if I can do anything else about that.
  • Link to Social Forces, McFarland, The New England Quarterly, University Press of New England, NYU Press, Regnery Publishing, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Casemate Publishers? You've already linked to Random House so to be consistent you will have to link everywhere else. Otherwise you could consider removing the links for publishers altogether.
  • Add a date for Brumwell? The website provides one.
  •   Done
  • What is your policy on linking to authors? I can understand if you do not wish to in order to avoid SEAOFBLUE. If you do wish to, however, consider linking to Alexis Coe, Gary Alan Fine, Donald W. Linebaugh, Richard M. Ketchum, James Kirby Martin, Dave Richard Palmer, Nathaniel Philbrick, Willard Sterne Randall?
  •   Done Not a huge fan of the SEAOFBLUE, but I think that it's better this way.
  • To be consistent, you will have to decide to include the locations of publication or not. For most sources you have them, but for some you don't.
  •   Done

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thanks so much for the review. I think that I've addressed all of your concerns above. Cheers ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've addressed both reviews above. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Relativity, you should consider changing the references from ref tags to sfn tags, because that will be required at FAC. Also you should add the Wikipedia Library link for MacIvor 1954 which you have. Matarisvan (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Both   Done ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Saving a place. Could you ping me once the review above has ended. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: First off, thank you for taking the time to review this article. Just so you're aware, I am going to be unable to be active on Wikipedia for about two months, give or take a week or two, so if you add any comments starting tomorrow, it is very unlikely that I will be able to address them. My apologies for the inconvenience. Cheers ‍Rela[[User talk:The monument is made of white marble[2][43] and is 4 feet (1.2 m) tall.[44]tivity ⚡️]] 04:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and I hope that the Scottish Highlands were nice! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Highlands were good, thanks. I hit a narrow weather window just right. If you are going to be off-Wiki for more than a couple of weeks it seems - donning my FAC coordinator hat - that this nomination is certain to be archived. It may be best to withdraw this nomination and renominate once you have the time to allocate to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking further, at ACR time is not that important. So I shall comment when I can and you respond when you can. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I might be able to come here occasionally to respond to any comments. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army." I think that needs to be either '... betrayed ... to ...' or '... deserted ... for ...'
  • "Arnold continued to grow more bitter towards". This has not previously been mentioned, so he can't continue to do it. Perhaps 'Arnold grew ever more bitter ...'?
  •   Done added "ever"
  • "had contributed to both Battles of Saratoga". Perhaps a link?
  •   Done
  • "Battle of Bemis Heights". Likewise.
  •   Done
  • "even after hostilities between him". Perhaps "hostilities" → 'disagreements'?
  •   Done
  • "and a court martial after being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit." This reads that the court martial took place after his conviction on the minor charges. Is that correct?
  • Oops, that's not. Changed to "and a court martial which resulted in him being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit"
  • "The toe of the Boot Monument was stolen by college boys on a trip". Is it known when?
  • Unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned.
  • "The monument underwent restoration". Again, when?
  • See above
  • "but he did regain his seniority." I doubt if many readers will understand this. Could it be rephrased a little more accessibly?
  • Reworded to "but he became more senior than the other officers that had been promoted before him.", hope that's okay.
  • "The monument is made of white marble and is 4 feet (1.2 m) tall." I suggest that this be moved to be the first sentence of the first paragraph of this section.
  •   Done

@Relativity: that's it from me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I think I've addressed all your concerns above. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good. That just leaves "betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army." I think that needs to be either '... betrayed ... to ...' or '... deserted ... for ...' to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry for the wait; I've been really busy lately. I've fixed that. Thank you for taking the time to review this! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirmed the image review as passed. Otherwise, this appears ready for promotion. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Hawkeye7 for comments on whether the image review is a pass, who may not have noticed the comment above asking for confirmation. Matarisvan (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Donner60, who may not have seen this, so that this assessment can be closed. Matarisvan (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Hi Relativity, my comments. #17, #24, #26, #40, #41: all ok. Seems like the source review is a pass, now you need just one more support for promotion to A class. Also, I would really appreciate it if you could post your comments at a PR I just opened up, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thanks for the source review! I'll definitely check out the PR when I can, although I'm still out and about so it might take a week or so before I can add any comments. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 06:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support by Pendright

edit

Start soon - Pendright (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Erected in 1887 by John Watts de Peyster, it commemorates Major General Benedict Arnold's service at the Battles of Saratoga in the Continental Army, but does not mention him on the monument because Arnold later betrayed the Continental Army for the British Army.
  • Change Erected in to Erected during
  •   Done and also fixed that in the History section
  • Add while between Saratoga & in
  •   Done
  • Since the monument was sculptured before it was erected, why doesn't Bissell get equal billing with de Peyster? (de Peyster begins the paragraph and Bissell ends the paragraph)
  • I put Bissell at the end of the paragraph because a lot of the sources I cited never mentioned him, just the monument and De Peyster. Should I move Bissell to an earlier portion of the paragraph?
<>As the story teller, how important do you feel his contributulion was or is to the monument itself. Your call! Pendright (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arnold continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and was court-martialed for abusing his power as military commander of Philadelphia.
and he was court-martialed...
  •   Done

Background

  • American Major General Benedict Arnold had contributed to both Battles of Saratoga, although the extent of his contributions to the first battle, the Battle of Freeman's Farm, are disputed.[4][5]
Could you briefly share with readers the nature of the dispute(s)?
  • Added efn note, hope that's okay.
  • Gates did not make much mention of Arnold's contributions in his report of the aftermath of the battle,[10] which contributed to Arnold's bitterness, along with his combat wounds, business troubles, Congress having promoted some rival and younger generals ahead of him, and a court martial after being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit.[11]
  • This sentence contains about 65 words -> consider breaking it up
  • I split the first part of that sentence from the rest
  • Add a hyphen to court martial
  •   Done
  • This, along with the fact that his wife, Peggy Shippen, came from a family of Loyalists, caused Arnold to start making communications with the British army, with Sir Henry Clinton finally offering Arnold £20,000 for the capture of West Point,[12] a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River.[13]
  • Drop the comma afterThis
  •   Done
  • Replace comma (,) with with a semiclon
  •   Not done Where?
<>May I ask why? Pendright (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Withdraw comment and question - Pendright (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • £20,000 -> what was the equivalent in continental currency?
  • I tried to find out, but couldn't unfortunately.
  • Arnold fled to the British army, and remained as a general there until the war ended.[14][15]
  • Drop the comma after army or add he between and remained
  •   Done
  • Arnold fled to the British army, -> where?
  •   Done

History

  • John Watts de Peyster, a former major general for the New York State Militia during the American Civil War,[16] writer of several military histories about the Battle of Saratoga, and a vice president of the SMA,[2] wanted to commemorate Arnold's contribution to the Continental Army's victory over the British[1] and was unsatisfied with the Saratoga Battle Monument, where the niche where a statue of Arnold should have gone would remain empty.[17]
  • A 71 word sentence -> consider breaking it up
  •   Done
  • of the New York State Militia
  •   Done
  • a writer of...
  •   Done
  • Reaibility of the last clause? If it is essential to the meaning of the sentence then delete the comma before the frst where
  •   Done Deleted comma
  • De Peyster considered Arnold a traitor, but still recognized his contributions at Saratoga.
Drop the comma after traitor or add he between but & still
  •   Done rm comma
  • He wanted to "honor some of Arnold's deeds without honoring the man"[1] but thought that simply a slab of granite to commemorate Arnold "would not do."[2]
If the above is meant as " " marks then it will need attribution. If it is meant as emphasis it will look like so.
  •   Done It is intended as quotation marks (" ") so I added in-text attribution.
  • He commissioned George Edwin Bissell,[2][3] who had designed other statues that Peyster had erected,[1] to sculpt a marker in white marble.[2]
Should it be de Peyster?
  • Yes, thank you   Done
  • The toe of the Boot Monument was stolen by college boys on a trip[21][22] and they were only discovered when an anonymous informer (described as "a graduate of a New York State educational institution") told the battlefield official that the toe was stolen.[23]
on a trip -> This term has more than a single meanings - what does it mean here?
  • An outing, excursion, or visit. Changed to "visit"
  • The monument was originally located at the top of the hill at the Breymann Redoubt site, but was later moved after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, which was the more southern end of the main redoubt line.[26]
Add it between but & was
  •   Done
  • The time at which this happened is disputed with some sources saying 1975,[3][27] while others say 1972.
Drop the comma after while
  • I presume you meant the comma after 1975, so I dropped the comma there.
<>Yes, my apology! Pendright (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the monument was still at the Breymann Redoubt before the time of its move, and is still at the southern end of the redoubt.[1][28][29]
Drop the comma after move or add it between and & is
  •   Done Dropped comma

Appearance

  • It features a howitzer barrel, with a left-footed horseman's riding boot[4][33][34] and a two-star epaulette for a major general on top of the barrel.[36][37]
Drop the comma after barrel
  •   Done
  • One error in the inscription was that Arnold did not earn the rank of Major General after, and because of, Saratoga, but he became more senior than the other officers that had been promoted before him.[1]
  • was that or is that?
  • "is" that, fixed

This is it for now, except to say: The article, in my view, is unique in American history and it's interesting and well done. It strikes me; however, that while the monument and Arnold would not seem severable, there is little in the article itself telling readers the most basic things about him. Pendright (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: I think I've addressed all your concerns above. Thank you for taking the time to add your comments! If I dedicate too much to Benedict Arnold in the article, it'll go WP:OFFTOPIC and if anyone wants to know more about Arnold, they can read his article. Thank you again ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Relativity: I hope you'll reconsider. In any case, I've left you some responses to yours. Pendright (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: Thank you for taking the time to review this article! As for the comment about £20,000 in continental currency, I'll try to find out when I get enough time to do so since I haven't had much time to dedicate to Wikipedia lately. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Relativity: Good luck! Pendright (talk) 03:36, 6 September 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.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hughes (soldier)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Tim Hughes (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 6,621 This article is about a decorated Australian Aboriginal soldier of the Second World War who went on to achieve success in the soldier-settlement scheme after the war and was appointed MBE for his inaugural chairmanship of the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Not a lot of corporals with their own articles, but Hughes has his own entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Great article. Very little to say. Very impressive.

Image review - pass

edit

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Sources are reliable and reputable
  • No issues with formatting.
  • Spot checks: 3, 8, 32, 33 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Peacemaker67, my comments:

  • Perhaps change the "Aborginal" in the first sentence of the lead to "Aboriginal Australian"? I know that the former mostly always implies the latter but a clarification would still help.
I've restored Australian Aboriginal, which is the article title. Aboriginal was removed by an editor on the basis of MOS:ETHNICITY, but that doesn't apply here, as his Aboriginality is central to his notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the fifth grade": won't "till the fifth grade," be better?
It now says until he completed the fifth grade. Will that do? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suffered with": "suffered from"?
Good point. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we introduce in 1 or 2 words who Lowitja was in the lead and body, per NOFORCELINK?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made a modest success of farming": "had modest success at farming"?
tweaked this, hopefully better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon you would like to take this article to FAC. In that case, you should move around the lead a little so its length is 4 paragraphs instead of the current 3.
Another editor has done this now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have we linked to South Australia in the body but not in the lead?
No idea, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the reason for the first hospital stay in the Middle East?
circumcision. I didn't think it was necessary to include that detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was recovered": "had recovered"?
yes, that was odd. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Wingfield?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made a reasonable success of his farm": "had reasonable success at ..."?
reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't the Tim Hughes stadium picture be better placed in the Post war section than in the footnotes?
Can't due to sandwiching. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we are using the 1993 edition for Wilmot, consider using ISBN 13 instead of 10, as done for all the other sources?
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding images of the Battles of Tobruk, the Salient, Milne Bay and Buna Gona? For people who don't have many photograhps, I have seen photos od the events they were involved in being used on here.
OK, added a couple, surprisingly few of the 2/10th unfortunately. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good read overall Matarisvan (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Matarisvan. See what you think of my changes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support for promotion to A class. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

I'd like to offer the following comments on this fine article:

  • I'd suggest linking 2/10th Battalion in the lead
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the older sister of Lowitja O'Donoghue - I'd suggest noting who Lowitja O'Donoghue is
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that First Nations Australians were officially banned from joining the military in 1939, can anything be said about how Hughes was able to enlist and remain enlisted? Many other First Nations men who enlisted at this time were discharged not long afterwards.
He snuck in before the restrictive orders were issued, there were several from SA who managed it. Almost all of those who enlisted in 1940 were discharged, things relaxed later in the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said about Hughes experiences in the Army? Various sources note that when/once First Nations people were able to make it into the military they generally experienced far less discrimination than in civilian life.
Haven't been able to find anything about his experience of it specifically, but the fact that he was decorated and promoted to section commander over white soldiers gives a fair indication any racism wasn't too egregious and he was accepted on his merits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In 1956 he requested and received exemption from the Aborigines Act, although he deeply resented what was referred to as a "dog licence" and expressed criticism about the way Aboriginal people were treated. " - I'd suggest explaining the background here
Just locating a good source for this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nick-D I reckon I might have enough there now. See what you reckon? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't say. It would be interesting to know though. I'll see if I can find a source before I bring it to FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to PM @Peacemaker67: Ping me if this article needs another general review. Pendright (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC) Support Those changes look good, and my comments are addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 24 August 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While nuclear weapons were obviously not used in the 1982 Falklands War, there's an interesting nuclear aspect to the conflict. The Royal Navy warships that were sent to the South Atlantic carried most of the British stockpile of nuclear depth bombs, mainly as it would have taken too long to have offloaded them. The British government and military did not seriously consider using nuclear weapons and the War Cabinet never wanted the depth bombs sent south. It was reported during and after the war that a British ballistic missile submarine had been sent to menace Argentina but historians have found no evidence that such a deployment took place. Interestingly, it emerged in recent years that British Prime Minister Thatcher might have been willing to use nuclear weapons if the war had gone disastrously for her.

I developed this article to set the record straight after a really bad article on this topic was developed and rightly deleted. It's turned out to be a much more complex and interesting topic than I expected. The article was assessed as a GA in mid-June and has since been considerably expanded and improved so I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Great work on this article. A fine piece of scholarship.

  • "The containers holding several active and inert nuclear weapons were damaged during transfers" The source says seven.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • All sources are of good quality.
  • fn 34: This is on pp. 57-58 (My 2005 edition may be different?)

Image review - pass

edit

All images are appropriately licensed Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Nick-D, my comments:

A good read overall, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed - support

edit

I reviewed this article for GA, and thought it was suitable for A-Class then. However, I see that have been some substantive additions since my GA review, mainly in the form of the new 'Commentary on nuclear deterrence' section and notes B and C. Reviewing these, the only issue I see is an odd phrasing in the new section. Towards the end of the second paragraph: "authored an article in 2012 critiquing that by Wilson." I think there may be a missing word after "that"? Otherwise, I am happy to support. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 2 August 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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of La Haye-du-Puits

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Battle of La Haye-du-Puits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is an article that Gog and I worked on some time back. It is unusual in that it is about the American Army in the Normandy campaign. While the Brits and Canadians have subjected Normandy to exhaustive study in the last few years, the Americans have not shown much interest, preferring to produce yet another book on the Battle of the Bulge. To say that the battle described in this article is not well known would be a major understatement, but I feel that it deserved one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wtfiv

I thought I'd give a try to help out with this article. I'm coming as a reader who knows nothing about this aspect of the Normandy campaign, so much of what I'm bringing up is requests for clarification. So many of the comments are more organizational.

  • Lead
    • First paragraph reads more like the beginning of the second. Shouldn't first paragraph give a brief summary of the battle: its purpose and significance?
       Y Reorganised the lead along these lines.
    • In the first paragraph (even if it is moved to later) what was the purpose of straightening the line? Should that be made clear to the casual reader?
       Y Re-worded this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
    • Shouldn't the background section be setting the stage for the battle? At the end of this section, a reader who is not already familiar with Normandy would not know why the battle was being fought or how this would involve Middleton's units.
       Y Move section as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing Forces
    • Background is high-level strategic, but opposing forces moves immediately to equipment and context. The article jumps from high-level strategic to squad-level tactics. It seems a smoother transition would be to set up in (Background) Why Middleton's Corps would need to move forward, then this section would move down to a strategic oveview within the scope of the battle, explaining the units that make up Middleton's Corps and then, the German forces opposed to them. The following comments will assume that Opposing Plans follows Background. Opposing forces could go just before Battle, giving context to the issues faced in the battle.
       Y Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing Plans-American
    • I suggest moving up Opposing Plans to follow Background. This would make the flow of description from larger strategic to fine-grained tactical more smooth.
      • Since the initiative is with the United States forces, they should be covered first.
      • The first paragraph of the United States in Opposing forces seems like it is well suited to being integrated as the last paragraph of Background. The second paragraph seems like it is the start of the battle, so would begin the next section following background.
         Y Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • ¶ 2. Mentions three division and then only discusses two. All three could get brief mention in the first paragraph as part of the VIII, placing their relative geographic position and objectives. final sentences of ¶ 3. with the mission of the 82nd could be part of the previous paragraph that outlines the mission of all three divisions in the corps. It would help the reader get an overall sense of how the three divisions were orchestrating the advance.
         Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • If ¶ 2. Were restructured, ¶ 3. Could discuss the problematic nature of the 90th and the experience of the 82nd. It could also note that the 82nd was scheduled to be taken out of the line once it was pinched out. Might want to mention why it was being moved out.
         Y Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, this would make a good place for discussion of it being replaced by the 8th Inf. In ¶ 3. The discussion of the 8th Infantry Division was a bit confusing. On the first read, I was unsure how it moves the narrative forward. It was described as not yet deployed on the continent and it isn't playing an active role in the upcoming narrative of the battle. Reading later in the article, I find out that it does play an active role in the battle, though that's not clear here. If the 8th Infantry is going to be mentioned, maybe it could be mentioned mentioned later or reintegrated a bit more smoothly.
         Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • ¶ 3. The penultimate sentence starts Its mission, would that be the 82nd or the 8th? Context says 82nd, anaphor says 8. I think a rewrite explaining all four divisions would be good. (Maybe giving 8th's expected time of arrival? And it might help readers if the order of the units described is the order of the units described in the battle.
         Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • ¶ 3. 82nd is described as most experienced of the three divisions, but the description of the VIII corps as a three Corp division had not yet been introduced. It enters unexpectedly. Also its geographic position relative to the other two is unclear. (The map shows it has the middle position between them, it wasn't expected to take la-Haye-du-Puits, but just the hills due north.
         Y I think it says this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing Plans-German
    • As mentioned, German subheading might be better following United States. It seems to me to make for a smoother narrative as the Germans are responding to American initiative.
      • Consider integrating first sentence of the first paragraph integrated into background. It's a higher-level strategic point that not about the immediate front, but the British front. It is important information that lets the reader know that German options were already restricted by issues outside the immediate scope of the battle being described.
         Y Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • ¶ 2. begins with the discussion of the Seventh Army and then goes into detail about the terrain it held. I think the last two paragraphs would be a bit clearer for readers if it paralled the American description: (1) Seventh army was deployed in depth with counterattack reserves. (2) Description of LXXXIV Corps (3)Description of the terrain that it held. It would make the introduction of the Mahlmann line and the 353rd more clear.
         Y Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • ¶ 3. By accident or design, the position was held in great depth Doesn't the description of Haussner's echelon-in-depth deployment for the army suggest it was by design?
         Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • ¶ 3. Suggest rewording last two sentences to make the reserve status of the 15th parachute Division and 2nd SS the topic of the sentence. (Making it clear they weren't initially part of LXXIV's command structure.)
         Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle 3-7 July
    • Consider starting starting from east to west: 79th first, as it is introduced first, 82nd second, 90th last. At the end of the section on the 90th,
      • it might be worth mentioning that the 82nds pinch out wasn't complete. The 90th was still three miles from the 79th. (This is in the next section but it seems worth noting that the objective wasn't obtained, as it sounds like it was one of the criteria for moving out the 82nd. It'd be a good summing up of what the 90th had (or hadn't) accomplished.
      • Somewhere in here it might be worth noting the 82nd was taken out of the line. In the narrative it, just disappears in the next section. It might also make the introduction of the 8th Infantry more clear to a reader.
  • 8-14 July
  • Casualties

Would it be worthwhile having a section summing of casualties on both sides, if at all possible would help clarify total losses. German losses are unclear. There is mention of 578 casualties, but it sounds like that was just one day's fighting. One of the key points in the lead is the cost to both sides, so it would help give a sense of the fighting. The strain of the casualties on the Germans is also given as part of the significance of the battle in the lead, so it would help to illustrate this point.

  • Aftermath
    • I may have missed it, but I'm not sure how the aftermath directly addresses the impact of this battle on the subsequent campaign. Is there anything that can be added. What goals were met by the Germans? What goals by the Americans? That would inform the final bit of the lead.
    • Would it help to mention it was the XIX Corps that struck St. Lo, since the First Army is in the midst of this battle too? Did operations here have any impact on the attack on St. Lo?

Hawkeye7, I was waiting for a ping on this one when you were done. Should I take a look again or should I wait?

Have a look again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv-second round of comments

Thanks for reorganizing the material. For me, the context of this battle is becoming more clear. I have a second round of comments as I feel I get dive a little deeper into the details.

  • Opposing Forces- German
    • First paragraph feels like background involving the higher-ups focused on larger strategic issues—Rommel and Rundstedt—, larger entities beyond the scope of the article—Army Group B— and operations outside of Middleton's operation—Epsom and Caen—seem more appropriate in the background section. The "American" section begins with the actual forces, it'd be good if this does too, and German strategic concerns can be moved to background. (Minor suggestion follows) the second paragraph already mentions depth, so maybe a bit of the first paragraph can be integrated into it to make it clear what defense in depth means.
       Y Moved paragraph as suggested. Linked defence in depth. It explains it in the next clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3–7 July: 82nd Airborne
    • This may not be an issue, but the earlier narrative was that the 82nd was to be pinched out. Once it obtained its objectives, did it remain static for the remainder of the campaign or was it withdrawn for refitting? As the narrative is written, it is not mentioned again, so as a reader, I'd assume it remained in position until 14 July. If that's not correct, a final sentence describing its fate would help readers.
       Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3–7 July: 79th Infantry -¶4
    • The Germans were dealt with. How? Were the tanks destroyed or retreated? "Germans" sounds like there were more than three AFVs.
       Y There were only three. The source says: "Because artillery and antitank weapons reacted effectively, the disruption to the attack proved only temporary". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A task force consisting. Sentence is a bit long with two conjunctions. First blames slow progress on terrain, second artillery. Suggest deleting "and" and using new sentence. Consider final clause with following section on counterattack using "and", as both address German action. And is the "too" needed?
       Y Deleted "too". Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence has me a bit confused. I think it is meant as a summing up of the section, but it isn't clear. The paragraph focuses on the 314. It mentions the 315th that was discussed in ¶3.
      • I'd suggest something like shifting the mention of the 315th after the second sentence: Here's one suggestion: start the paragraph "On On the morning of 5 July, Wyche". Then add the bit about the 315th, as it would continue the narrative of the previous, then shift to the travails of the 314th, ending with the failure of the envelopment, which should be obvious to the reader from the repulse of the 314th.
         Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3–7 July: 90th Infantry
    • ¶6 Consider rearranging first sentence. One of the key points of the sentence includes that the mortar and artillery fire was hard to suppress. The following sentence appears to be referencing the artillery and mortar fire as well. The sniper fire feels like a tack on. Consider putting the sniper fire first or separating some other way.
       Y Done. You had me confused because there was no reference to snipers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶7 Paragraph is implying that Hausser brought up the 15th Parachute due to casualties. If it is in the sources, it'd be good to state this explicitly, as reserves can be deployed for other reasons. This ambiguity may be resolved by moving the Hausser sentence after the point about troop losses.
       Y For other reasons. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8–14 July: 8th Infantry Division
    • ¶1 This paragraph is still a bit unclear. I can get that the 8th was suppose to relieve the 90th, but it takes a bit of figuring this out. Sentence 1 describes how the 8th was intended to be deployed. Second two is a bit confusing, as it seems to be describing the present state of affairs. Or is it describing why the 8th was originally going to move to Foret de Mont Castre? Or is the 3 mile gap a disruptive aspect of the decision. For the last two sentences: The first sentence states the 8th would disrupt the German attack, but doesn't make it clear it was intended to be deployed for a spoiling attack. (It's deployment could have disrupted the attack by filling a gap, for example.)
    • Reading further, I think this section could be strengthened by reorganizing. Current structure looks like this:
      • ¶1 Intended deployment of 8th, state of 90th, shift of plan for spoiling attack, failure of deployment
      • ¶2 Introducing 8th, discussing its greenness, the German counterattack
      • ¶3 Officers being killed or relieved.
    • Would it be possible to rearrange this? Here's one suggestion, but you may be able to do better:
      • ¶1 Keep the first sentence of intentions, and maybe the second sentence up to the clause link up with the 79th Infantry division. then introduce the division.
      • ¶2 Discuss the situation in one smooth flow: Problem of original plan due to 90th being behind schedule, german plans, 8th to be used for spoiling attack, plan failed, German attack failed, 8th not advanced
      • ¶3 Discuss the change of command structure. Beginning with MacMahon relieving two commanders for failure, Walker's death (how? seems important given he gets a service cross.) Ultimately, MacMahon's relief? (Explicitly why?)
         Y Changed as suggested. Walker had a ship named after him, but no Wikipedia article.
        Eisenhower "recognized that while McMahon was unsuited to a combat command he had his uses as a staff officer and used networking knowledge to place him with Lieutenant-General Mark Clark, commanding general of Fifth U.S. Army in Italy. Clark had been McMahon's roommate at West Point, and the two had been good friends ever since. Eisenhower initially contacted Devers, Clark's superior officer, playing down the reasons behind McMahon's relief."

        In my opinion this division was well trained by McMahon before going into action but due to certain rather unusual conditions and to inexperience throughout the division, a considerable confusion resulted which was at least partially traceable to him and which necessitated his relief. I think McMahon still has real usefulness either in command or in a staff position but I think it would be difficult for him to function successfully in this theatre at this time.

        McMahon was accepted as Fifth Army's deputy chief of staff, G-1, Personnel. Eisenhower then explained McMahon's case to Marshall:

        McMahon has been relieved from the battle line by his corps commander, fully concurred in by Bradley, for failure to lead his division effectively. His division had been in action only four days but both corps and army commander felt that his test had been sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that he is not, repeat not, a good division commander in spite of acknowledged qualifications along other lines... I know he has many fine qualifications, and in my opinion it was tension and over anxiety that caused his poor performance as a division commander.

        Source [9]
  • Aftermath
    • The discussion of Eisenhower's key factors seems like a summing up. Do you think it would have more context after the discussion of the casualties in ¶2 and ¶3?
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would the sentence beginning On 11 July, the First Army began... in the article's pentultimate paragraph be appropriate as the start of a new paragraph as it now introduces Saint Lo offensive and broadens out to the entire First Army? Looks good...support. Wtfiv (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been all along. A bug with the Firefox browser caused the paragraphs to run together. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I did't comment on them as the goal is to just get through the review, but thanks for the expanded explanations. Those moments, like when McMahon gets relieved but nobody wants to say why, are fascinating side point though best left out of the article. The conjectures come easy, but more interesting is that the generals "took care of their own." I appreciate them. Wtfiv (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 just letting you know, to be on the safe side. Wtfiv (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass
File:L'Haye-du-Puits en haut à droite du cliché Havre de Saint-germain-sur-Ay.jpg - link is dead for me and the CC 3.0 doesn't work for how the image was originally published
The site says the image was taken from the US National Archives. Unfortunately, archivesnormnadie has gone dark and the Wayback machine has done its usually poor job of archiving. But you can tell it was taken by a US reconnaissance aircraft. I found another copy here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bocage country at Cotentin Peninsula.jpg source seems to be dead and probably should have the reference ID if possible instead of being undefined
The refid is p013493. Added an archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Char léger en action Guerre des Haies 1944.jpg source link likewise doesn't work and agin the CC 3.0 doesn't work for the image's original publishing
Same story. Found another copy here and here.
File:Blessés américains périphérie de l'Haye-du-Puits Guerre des Haies.jpg same as above
Same as above. another copy. Added as an alternative. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the US Army Signal Corps id in the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:GI américain sous le feu allemand Guerre des Haies.jpg same as above
Same as above.
File:American howitzers shell German forces.jpg - one source link is to a general home page, and the other is for the photographer (and doesn't work at least for me). Additionally, since the file is post-1929, a more specific PD tag will be needed than the one being used.
Added Flickr as an alternative. It is a PD image according to the National Archives [10] I don't know why the Commons template is malfunctioning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Saint Lo Breakthrough.jpg source link doesn't work
Added archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Talk 20:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that the CC 3.0 tags are appropriate. The archivenormandie website may be distributing that under the CC 3.0 license, but we need something to indicate why that website is/was able to freely distribute the image, which would be a PD tag indicating the status of the actual work itself. Hog Farm Talk 18:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the images were taken from the US National Archives. Switched the CC 3.0 licences to the PD-USGov-Army one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Hawkeye7, some comments:

  • "Lieutenant General Omar Bradley's US First Army": consider rephrasing to "the US First Army commanded by Lieutenant General Omar Bradley" to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE? Also consider rephrasing in the body and for the Dempsey Second Army sentence?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding a map?
    There is already one there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the American troops of Major General Troy H. Middleton's VIII Corps": change to "the American troops of VIII Corps commanded by Major General Troy H. Middleton" to avoid SEAOFBLUE?

Generalleutnant

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

  • All sources seem to be published by reliable publishers. Consider adding a comma between Austin and Texas in Colby 1991.
  • Generated random numbers for spot checks using [11].
  • #6 and #12: okay.
  • #16: I could find text supporting this sentence: "The Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, wanted Bradley to commence the operation as soon as possible in order to prevent the Germans from consolidating their position.", but not this one: "Not all the American forces were in position, with many still in the north or yet to arrive from the UK, so Bradley elected to commit them piecemeal rather than wait. The advance would begin on his western flank; since the forces there had further to advance than those around Saint-Lô, all might reach the objective at the same time". Then again, I skimmed through the text and did not read it fully. If you could provide the page numbers for the latter two sentences, that would be great.
    "Not all of the U.S. troops were in the Cotentin... Since the middle of June, while the major portion of the American strength had been operating against Cherbourg" (p. 38) "The VIII Corps, which comprised the army right flank on the west coast of the Cotentin, was to advance through la Haye-du-Puits to Coutances, a longer distance than that down the corridors leading south from Carentan to Periers and St. Lô. By having VIII Corps begin its advance first, General Bradley expected all the army elements to reach the objective line at the same time... Although General Bradley thus exposed himself to criticism for piecemeal commitment, he had no other logical choice." (p. 40)
  • #24: consider replacing the word "respected"? The source says "Germans stated American artillery was extremely effective... more powerful and devastating than Soviet artillery"
    Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #29, #42, #45, #51, #58, #79: ok.
  • #77: I could be wrong here but page 7 doesn't have any of the information which supports our text, we can narrow down the page range to pages 8-9. I also could not find anything supporting these sentences: "The battalion commander then ordered Company K and the attached platoon from the 712th Tank Battalion to advance from the south edge of the Foret de Mont Castre into the open fields beyond. As they emerged into the open, two tanks were knocked out by a German self-propelled gun located in an orchard to the south, and the third tank became bogged down and immobilized. Company K was pinned down by machine gun fire, and both the company commander and the executive officer were wounded. Company K withdrew under cover of darkness." Could you provide the pages in the source where supporting text could be found?
    "The CO directed the reserve company (K) to move forward from the rear in order that all around security could be provided. Heavy enemy mortar fire from the vicinity of the knoll to the right front (see Point Y, Map C) and occasional artillery fire had commenced to fall within the battalion area immediately after Company I had captured the rocky hill and after the command group had resisted the counterattack... At 1800 the Battalion Commander ordered the attack resumed. Company K, with the tank platoon attached, was ordered to pass through Company L on the right, and to debouch from the south edge of the forest into the open field toward Lastelle.... As Company K advanced into the open fields it was met by heavy enemy fire from dug-in positions located to their front and right flank. Tanks 1 and 2 were knocked out immediately by a self-propelled gun firing from an orchard several hundred yards to the south. (See Map C) Tank 3 moved out into the open field, bogged down in a marshy area and was immobilized. (See Map C) Notwithstanding the loss of the tanks, Company K moved forward and reached the hedgerows as indicated on Map C. Companies I and L, in the meantime, were still heavily engaged with the enemy on the battalion’s right and left flank in the forest. At 2000, Company K’s advance was halted. Heavy fire from the front and flanks was inflicting heavy casualties. The Company Commander attempted to return to the forest to acquaint the Battalion Commander of the situation, but was severely wounded. (33) The Executive Officer, finding the company position untenable, also endeavored to reach the command group in order to request permission to withdraw his unit. He also became a casualty... As darkness descended, Company K was forced to withdraw to the forest." (pp. 8-9)

That was the source review done, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I think a lot of people do not appreciate how difficult source reviews can be. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source review is a pass then. You need only one more support now for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

It's always good to see an article on the very interesting Normandy campaign here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

It hasn't attracted much attention on Wikipedia. In the literature, the Brits and Canadians have been analysing the campaign in Normandy in minute detail, but not the Americans. It wasn't easy putting this article together. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first line of the lead isn't very punchy - I'd suggest adding something before the current one or tweaking it.
     Y Added a conventional lead sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting with 'Major General Matthew B. Ridgway's' is very long
     Y Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (It arrived in Normandy on 3 July, two days early.) - it's a bit clunky presenting this like that
     Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To support the attack, Middleton had nine battalions of medium and heavy artillery, including two battalions of 240 mm howitzers," - did this include the divisional artillery units?
     Y I believe so. Each infantry division had one medium battalion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Shermans were outclassed by the heavier German tanks" - this is true, but historians usually note that they were at least as good as the Panzer Mark IVs and assault guns that made up most of the German armoured force
     Y The source says: "In the matter of tanks the Americans possessed no such advantage. Their standard tank, the M4 Sherman, a 33-ton medium, was relatively obsolescent. Although a few Shermans equipped with a high-velocity 76-mm. gun in place of the usual short-barreled 75 were to become available during the Siegfried Line Campaign, most medium tanks still mounted the 75. They plainly were outgunned,not only by the enemy's heaviest tank, the 63-ton Mark VI (Tiger), but also by the 50-ton Mark V (Panther) The Tiger, the Panther, and the medium Mark IV all had thicker armor than the Sherman." And MacDonald was actually there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is somewhat dated - modern historians tend to have a more favourable view of the Sherman. The text that's been tweaked here also doesn't read well. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 82nd Airborne Division was to have been pinched out of the line, but by 7 July the 79th and 90th Infantry Divisions were still 3 miles (4.8 km) apart. On 11 July the 82nd Airborne Division moved to the beaches to return to the United Kingdom" - what replaced the division in the line?
     Y The 8th Infantry Division. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 90 percent of the American casualties were infantrymen; those among officers were particularly severe" - this is a bit unclear: were casualty rates among officers particularly high, or were they particularly likely to suffer serious injuries?
     Y Particularly high. Changed "severe" to "high" to clarify. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Support My comments have now largely been addressed, though please see the comment regarding the text on the tanks above. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 22 July 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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

CSS General Earl Van Dorn

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

CSS General Earl Van Dorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After taking an ironclad (CSS Baltic) and a tinclad (USS Marmora) to A-Class and FAC, I'm hoping to get another one of the types of American Civil War warships to A-Class and FAC - a cottonclad. The cottonclads were converted civilian river steamers used by the Confederates. The lightly armored vessels were used as naval rams.General Earl Van Dorn sunk a Union ironclad in the Battle of Plum Point Bend, and was the only Confederate cottonclad to escape destruction or capture in the First Battle of Memphis. She was burned by her crew on the Yazoo River about three weeks after the battle at Memphis. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

edit
  • I think it would make sense to tell readers that the RDF was initially organized to defend New Orleans in the first paragraph of the Purchase and conversion section - then it would make more sense when you bring up later that the fleet had to be divided.
    • I've actually elaborated on this a bit - they were intended for the Mississippi River in general. The Confederate government actually intended for the vessels to be sent upriver, but local interests and a breach in a key river barrier are what caused part of the fleet to be retained at N.O. I remember reading, although I'm not sure where off the top of my head, that the Confederates for a time actually expected the worst threat to New Orleans to be Union forces coming down the river, rather than from the Gulf.
  • "The conversion into warships for the River Defense Fleet vessels involved adding 1 inch (2.5 cm) of..." - I'd lead off telling the reader that they added a reinforced bow for ramming. I was attempting to picture what they added to the ship, but had to wait until the 4th sentence to figure out what we're talking about.
    • I've rearranged some stuff
      • This is better - the only other thought I have is, would it be good to clarify that the modifications to the bow were to reinforce it for ramming attacks? Theoretically it should be obvious, but you never know. Parsecboy (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might add April 1862 (and a specific date if known, but I'm guessing not) to the box for the |ship completed= field
    • The ironwork was finished on April 10, I've added that date to the infobox
  • Don't know that you have room for them, but there are a few images on the NHHC that depict events where General Earl Van Dorn was involved here, here, and here. The first one gives a clearer image of the ship, which may be useful for the box.
    • I don't know that there's much room for image additions. My understanding of the caption on the first one is that the clearer ship in the foreground is actually CSS General Sterling Price. I may be wrong though - that image may be preferable to the current infobox one anyone, as the current infobox image incorrectly lists the CSS McRae (Marquis de Habana [sic]) as being present. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's hard to say - the caption on the image seems to suggest the one further back is General Earl Van Dorn, but the NHHC caption lists it first, left to right (which I would read to mean the one in the foreground). The caption on the image is more probably correct, I'd guess. Maybe others will have opinions on what image is preferable. Parsecboy (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to nitpick, nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: - Thanks for the review! I've replied above. I need to think some more about the infobox image; there's some pros and cons to both images. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Hog Farm, some minor comments:

  • Consider expanding the lead by 1-2 paragraphs?
    • Given that the article is only 1200 words long, I am concerned that a multi-paragraph lead would be disproportionate to the length of the rest of the article. I also don't think that there's anything not in the lead that is really the level of detail to include in the lead
  • " burnt by her": did you mean just "burnt" or "burnt by her onboard personnel"?
    • Have changed to "burnt by the Confederates"
  • Do we know who the builder was? Anyone significant?
    • I don't think it would be wise to include any such information - either the original vessel is unknown or its Junius Beebe, which I think is too uncertain of an identification to include information for
  • Are the speeds, complement and range for this ship known?
    • Not in any source that I've seen.
  • "setbacks further inland": Any specific battles or campaigns which could be added in the body or a note?
    • I've made this a bit more detailed
  • Could we have some details on how the rest of the Confederate Fleet was captured or destroyed at Memphis, per NOFORCELINK?
    • I've added another sentence on this

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hog Farm, anything on the last two points? Matarisvan (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got busy over the weekend; I'll try to get to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: - Replies/changes are noted above, thanks for the review! Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • General Earl Van Dorn was purchased for Confederate service at New Orleans, Louisiana, in early 1862 for service with the River Defense Fleet.
Change for service with to serve with
Done Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her conversion into a cottonclad warship involved installing an iron-covered framework of timbers to her bow to serve as a ram, and protecting her machinery with timber bulkheads packed with cotton.
Her conversion -> She was converted
The general rule: A subject pronoun (she) is used in the subject of a sentence. A subject pronoun indicates who or what the sentence is about. An object pronoun (her) is used to indicate what receives the action in a sentence.
Suggest -> She was converted into a cottonclad warship by installing an iron-covered framework of timbers to her bow that would serve as a ram, and the ship's machinery was protected with timber bulkheads packed with cotton.
Done Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Earl Van Dorn left New Orleans in late March 1862 and arrived at Memphis, Tennessee, early the next month.
For what purpose?
Added Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding this or something like it -> The Van Dorn was a Side-wheeler powered by steam and was 182 feet (55 m) long. She carried a single cannon on her bow—a 32-pounder. (BTW, the dictionary spells it Side-wheeler as does the link.
<>Your addition is fine. Pendright (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase and conversion

  • The ships were intended to defend the Mississippi River.[2]
What part?
The Confederate-held part in general. There's some discussion of strategic deployment later in the article, but I think it's sufficient at this point just to note that they were to be used on the river, especially since they ended up being used on both ends of it. The source just says with a plan to seize and arm river boats for use in protecting the Mississippi River Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Can we compromise with this general addition: The ships were intended to defend the Confederate-held part of the Mississippi River. This would make the sentence a bit more reader friedly since, as you know, the Missippi River is over 2,000 miles long and flows from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico.Pendright (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vessels of the River Defense Fleet were intended to be used as rams,[8] and were known as cottonclads.[9]
and they were known
Done. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their conversion into warships involved adding 1 inch (2.5 cm) of iron plating backed by 4 inches (10 cm) of oak planking, on a framework of one-foot-square timbers to the bow.
Why the comma between oak planking & on?
Not sure, removed. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The engines and boilers were protected by an inner bulkhead of one-foot-square timbers, with an outer bulkhead of six-by-twelve timbers.
  • Why the comma after timbers?
  • General Earl Van Dorn was placed under the command of Captain Isaac Fulkerson,[11] and left New Orleans for Memphis, Tennessee, on March 25.[7] Defense Fleet.
and it left
Have gone with "she" to fit the pronoun use in the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Confederate States War Department desired for [that] the ships to serve in the Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri area to protect [this] that portion of the Mississippi River, while [but] local interests pushed for the ships to remain at New Orleans.
Suggest the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than sending all of the ships upriver, the Confederate commander at New Orleans, Major General Mansfield Lovell[,] held part of the fleet at New Orleans , after a river barrier defending New Orleans failed.[12]
Suggest the above changes
Fixed Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Earl Van Dorn was armed with a single cannon on her bow – a 32-pounder cannon,[14] which was a common naval gun that was smoothbore and muzzleloading.[15]
Suggest: General Earl Van Dorn was armed with a single 32-pounder cannon on her bow, which was a common naval gun that was smoothbore and muzzleloading.
Done Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conspicuously absent is anything on the machimery that powered and propelled the Side-wheeler.
    The sources just don't have much to say about this. I don't think it helps that it's not certain which prewar steamer she was. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>But the sources do say that the Van Dorm was a side-wheel steamer with boilers, engines, and used coal for fuel. These are sourced facts that could be cited and used to weave a brief sentence on the subject. While not ideal, it's preferable to Silence. Here is a starting point: -> The Van Dorm was a side-wheel steamer equipped with steam boilers and engines that generated the power to propel the ship's paddle wheel. She burned coal for fuel. Give this some thought! Pendright (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>@Hog Farm: How about a response. Pendright (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten quite busy but I hope to be able to dig into the literature to try to find a source talking specifically about this ship by the end of the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 01:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plum Point Bend and Memphis

  • On May 10, [add year] the Confederates attacked , bringing on the Battle of Plum Point Bend.[7]
Suggest the above changes
I've added the date, but I think it's useful to the readers to directly and clearly state the name of the ensuing battle Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seven of the Confederate vessels [envolved] were arranged in order of speed , with the fastest vessels at the front; General Earl Van Dorn was fourth in the column.[18]
Suggest the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mongomery's ships reached Memphis on June 5, but there was a shortage of coal for their fuel.
Mongomery's -> sp
Oops, fixed. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a council of war, Montgomery and his captains decided to fight the pursuing Union forces, rather than scuttle their ships and retreat overland with the army or scuttle a portion of the fleet and use the remaining coal to escape with the rest.[26]

Drop the comma after forces and add a comma after aarmy

Why the comma after vessels?
I don't know. The Missouri public education system never adequately explained comma usage to me. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>If you're interested in some basic information om comma usage, Google this— https.//east,iu.edu/student-success/coursework/commas.html. Pendright (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Earl Van Dorn was in the third row, along with General Bragg.[27]
Why the comma after row?
Removed. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heavy guns of the ironclads and the ramming tactics of the United States Ram Fleet had been decisive at Memphis.[29]
Replacae had been with was
Done. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cotton cladding on General Bragg caught fire and that vessel had to be abandoned.[30]
Replace that vessel had to be with it was
Went with "she was" to match the pronoun usage. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wreck was removed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1878 and 1879.[35]
The wreckage
Done. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: This is it for now - Pendright (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright - apologies for how long it took me to respond to this - replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: <>I've posted some responses to yours that require your feedback. Pendright (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I suspect that futher research would only confirm what is already known about Van Dorn's machinery. So, I'm withdrawing my suggestions and moving to support. But, I would urge you to add a footnote explaning the sourcing problem. Pendright (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Only two images.

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm afraid while reviewing them for FP status, I found a problem: The first image says it's both from the Illustrated London News and Harper's Weekly. Those newspapers aren't even from the same continent. It's possible it appeared in both, but that would be at least somewhat unusual, and probably would have new woodblocks at the least. Pretty sure it's out of copyright either way, but the documentation needs fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 06:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden - this supports the ILN publishing, and the supposed link to the Harper's publication was not actually of this image, so I've removed the reference to Harper's Weekly. What does bug me about that image - and I want to hear the thoughts of the other commenters here (@Hawkeye7, Pendright, Matarisvan, and Parsecboy:) - is that this shows the CSS McRae (Marquis de Habana) who was not at this battle. The image is thus inaccurate, but it's the only thing I can find that clearly and unambigously shows General Earl Van Dorn. Should this image even be used at all? Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok to use, but it may be a good idea to add an explanatory footnote mentioning that it's an artist's impression and includes a ship that wasn't present for the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second @Parsecboy's idea of adding a footnote explaining the context of the image. Matarisvan (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a footnote explaining that Marquis de la Habana/McRae had left Fort Pillow before the battle, and was actually no longer afloat by the time of the battle. Hog Farm Talk 23:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

All sources appear to be reliable and suitable. No spot checks done given HF's recent track record. Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 20 July 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Henry Macandrew

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

Henry Macandrew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of the most successful cavalry commanders of the First World War, Sir Henry Macandrew would probably be more widely known if he hadn't accidentally killed himself in a petrol/pyjama-related explosion a year after the war ended. A career officer of the Indian Army, he saw service in several campaigns and the Boer War prior to the FWW. A follower of Haig, he saw quick advancement once the war began, initially on the Western Front and then in the Middle East where he made his largest impact in command of a cavalry division of the Desert Mounted Corps. This is one of my first largescale dabbles into FWW content and I would appreciate any and all comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

I had heard of Macandrew, as commander of a division in Chauvel's Desert Mounted Corps, but knew nothing more about him. His death reminds me of Brigadier General John Royston, who was invalided out of the service after deliberately inhaling poison gas. Another chapter in the great deeds of the British cavalry. Looks good; some comments to prove I read it:

  • Is "The Inverness College" Inverness Royal Academy?
    • I don't think so. Going by the the school's website it has been called the Inverness Royal Academy since 1793.
  • "Macandrew's position as a brigadier-general was a temporary rank, and he was still a substantive lieutenant-colonel" Well yes, but for some weird reason, all brigadier-general appointees were temporary.
    • Possibly a left-over from the older appointment of brigadier-general, from which the holder would revert when no longer commanding a brigade? Am aware this was how it worked in the Napoleonic Wars, at least
      Still the case today, with the practice inherited by the post-Great War rank of brigadier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commas annoyed me, so I made some changes. Also corrected two typos. ([12]) Revert anything you disagree with.
    • All good, thank you for the edits
  • "Macandrew's commander, Lieutenant-General Harry Chauvel" should be Sir Harry Chauvel
    • Oops! Corrected.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for correcting those spelling errors that slipped through the cracks. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit
  • "before in 1916 he assumed command of the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division" seems a little clumsy. Maybe 'before he assumed command of the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division in 1916'?
  • Done.
  • "Battle of the Somme and Battle of Cambrai." Is there a consensus among RSs to have those upper-case B's?
  • Sources vary but I think the majority are with the upper case here.
  • Infobox, rank: Why the upper case G?
  • Changed.
  • "Macandrew was educated at The Inverness College". See MOS:INSTITUTIONS: "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized in running text, regardless of the institution's own usage".
  • Changed.
  • "he was assigned as the Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General Intelligence (DAAGI)" and "as DAAGI Army Headquarters Staff in May." Why the upper-case initial letters?
  • Likewise: "was appointed a Station Staff Officer, 1st Class"; "becoming a Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General"; "as a General Staff Officer Grade 1"; "as his Brigadier-General General Staff (BGGS). I shall stop, but a trawl through the rest of the article seems in order.
  • My sketchy understanding of MOS:OFFICE led me to this. I'd be happy to be directed otherwise if I've understood it wrongly?
MOS:OFFICE is what you want. If discussing an office (or rank or title) in general terms it is given in lower case, as you do with "He was instead appointed brigade major" or "Macandrew was subsequently promoted to lieutenant-colonel". And as you should with "becoming a Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General" or "He brought Macandrew with him as his Brigadier-General General Staff". If an office is, to quote the MoS, "followed by a person's name to form a title" it takes an upper-case initial(s); eg "replacing Major-General William Walker". Does that work for you? I could just about grit my teeth and let this go at ACR - "does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant". But if this is aimed at FAC it may be as well to make it MoS compliant now.
  • Always happy to receive constructive criticism! Have changed all those I could identify.
  • "Macandrew was promoted to substantive major-general on 1 January 1917". Just checking, this was directly from brevet colonel?
  • If we ignore the various temporary ranks, yes.
  • "with Haig singling out an action of Macandrew's division". Singling it out for what?
  • Reworded.
  • "In many cases the infantry had not pushed back the German defenders as expected and the cavalry were too cumbersome to react to new weaknesses in the enemy lines." Optional for ACR, but this could be phrased more felicitously.
  • Reworded.
  • "impacted by the failure at Cambrai". Impacted seems an odd word, perhaps 'influenced'?
  • Done.
  • "As such, in the same month, Macandrew travelled to Palestine with the Indian portion of his division and the 1st Indian Cavalry Division, which had since been renamed 4th Cavalry Division ... In an attempt to continue the legacy of the Indian cavalry from the Western Front, on 23 July the two divisions were respectively renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions." I assume that the 4th cavalry wasn't renamed twice.
  • The renaming referred to here is from "1st Mounted Division".
No, I am still confused - this happens regularly. You have "renamed 4th Cavalry Division ... renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions." Either two separate divisions were renamed 4th Cavalry Division, or you are repeating the same information, or the prose has befuddled me.
  • I'm not too sure how this could be reworded. 1st Indian Cavalry Division becomes 4th Cavalry Division. 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions are moved to Palestine, where their troops are used to create the 1st and 2nd Mounted Divisions. These two divisions are then renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions. The earlier 4th/5th do not have the same unit composition as the later 4th/5th.
  • Should the last two paragraphs of Divisional reforms not be in Palestine campaign?
  • Moved.
  • "The three Indian regiments killed around ninety Turkish soldiers and took a further ninety-one prisoner." Are the Indian casualties known?
  • Added, although the source doesn't differentiate wounded and killed.
  • I'm not sure why Amman would be relevant? Added Megiddo, although the Sharon article covers most of it. Our articles for this campaign are very intertwined!
  • "the rate of the attack was increased". What does this mean?
  • Changed to "rate of the advance"
  • It may just be me, but I find the repeated references to "Macandrew's division" jarring. Other formations are referred to by their names.
  • Removed a clump of these.
  • Any chance of giving a reader an idea of the strength and make up of a cavalry brigade and division?
  • Added a detail for the number of regiments in a brigade, I think the number of brigades in a division is covered.
I meant tell a reader the number of men in a cavalry brigade and division. Eg, in 1914 a British cavalry division had an establishment of 9,269 men, 24 guns, and 24 machine guns. Is similar information available for the formations Macandrew commanded?
  • I think I could provide some general statistics for the size of cavalry units, but I'm not sure these would be very useful, as the actual numbers fluctuated drastically. See for example the size of the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, which fought at Haritan with a total of 500 men despite our (GA) article stating the nominal size was 1,700.
'Twas ever thus in war. I think it would be helpful to give the establishments. If necessary note when formations were greatly under strength (as you do at one point), or give their actual numbers for particular engagements. I think it would be very useful to give a reader some sense of scale. Otherwise they will have little idea of the level of Macandrew's responsibility. Even a knowledgeable reader may be aware that in WWI full-strength infantry divisions varied from <8,000 to >28,000; or that in 1914 British, French and German cavalry divisions had 9,300, 4,500 and 5,200 men.
@Gog the Mild: I have totally failed to find sources that provide accurate establishments for Macandrew's commands. There are plenty of orders of battle available for the Somme, etc, but none seem to provide numbers to go with the formations. I don't know if you had any particularly sources/direction in mind?
  • Added the former.
  • "He sent his armoured cars forward first, leaving Homs the same day. I am unclear about this. Do you mean that the armoured cars left on 20 October, the same day Chauvel told them to halt?
  • Correct
  • "a force of Ottoman soldiers that outnumbered them, with around 3,400 men". How many men did the 15th Brigade have?
  • Added. They were very outnumbered!
  • Cite 46: what does "p. supp." mean?
  • Awkward I know. Basically there's a supplement stuck on the end of the Army List in which the page numbers start afresh.
Then I think it needs listing separately, as you would if there were separate chapters, each contributed by a different author. What do you think of how I have tweaked it?
  • That's much better, thank you.

A splendid article. Get it to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hi, thank you for taking a look! I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comebacks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Have responded. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Just to note that I haven't forgotten about this, I'm just struggling to find the right sources to do unit numbers justice. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 03:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Two years later he transferred to the Lincolnshire Regiment on 10 November 1886" - "Two years later" is a bit of a duplicate statement, since you're already giving the exact 1884 and 1886 dates
  • Removed.
  • Is it known how he ended up with the army in Bengal? Was the Lincolnshire Regiment stationed there, or was this a transfer of some sort?
  • The 1888 Army List has Macandrew serving in the 1st Battalion, which was in Dublin, while the 2nd Battalion was in India. The 1889 Army List removes his battalion designation and has him on "probation" instead. He may have done a quick transfer to the 2nd Battalion and then to the Indian Army, or it may have been a straight transfer from Dublin. Unfortunately sources don't clearly say.
  • "Macandrew was still well thought of by Haig, and the latter quickly appointed to a new command. - is this missing a word? "the latter quick appointed to a new command" while the context suggests this is something involving Macandrew, the grammar suggests this was a new appointment for Haig
  • Yep, missing word!
  • The infobox lists him as being part of the main British Army until 1899 and joining the British Indian Army that year, but would his 1898 probationary assignment in the British Indian Army count as when his service switched over to that unit?
  • It's made slightly confusing in that when his probationary period ended his Indian Army seniority was set to when he was promoted lieutenant in 1886. For the sake of keeping the infobox sensible I think it's probably best to keep the dates as official as possible, so 1889 is when he ceased to be a member of the British Army.

An excellent article. Hog Farm Talk 22:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Hi, thanks for the review. Responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, some comments on the sources, will comment on the main text later.

  • Refs #105, 106 and 110 need links, future reviewers would require them for spot checks. You will be able to find them on the British Newspaper Archive or Newspapers.com.
  • Have added links but am awaiting the response of another editor who helped out before I can add the exact newspaper reports (they don't appear on either of those websites). The link for #111 would need to be provided by someone with a BNA subscription, which I do not have and has lapsed for the editor who added it
  • The Cavalry Journal 1923, Pitman 1923, Rowcroft 1923, Robbins 2001 need links, if you received these via resource request then you should add a hidden note to that effect.
  • Links added
  • Done
  • Links for Indian Army Lists are available here, since you haven't specified the publication month I couldn't provide the exact links.
  • Added links
  • Here's a link for The Risings on the North-West Frontier 1897–1898: [13].
  • Added link
  • This link has all the issues of the Gazette of India, consider adding?
  • Added links (for everything!)

That's all for now, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some more comments:

  • "promoted to become": remove the "become", instead use "the rank of"?
  • The "become" refers to the role of BGGS rather than the rank of BG, so I think it works as is
  • "Brigadier-General General Staff": you will have to somehow rephrase this occurrence of WP:SEAOFBLUE, but I can't think of how.
  • SEAOFBLUE does say "When possible" and I'm not sure what else to do in this circumstance. I don't think I can logically introduce the links for either BG or GS any earlier in the lede to avoid the need for one or other of the links there
  • The lead is great but a little short, consider expanding to 3 to 4 paragraphs?
  • Expanded.
  • Link to Inverness College?
  • We don't have an article, or really any content, on the college. I've linked to the building it was once housed in
  • Link to Delagoa?
  • Linked the full Delagoa line
  • "appointed to a": "appointed him to a"?
  • Yep, HF also caught this error
  • Link to Ghorniye (Ghoraniye)?
  • Done
  • For FAC reviews, I've been asked to remove the Dates of Rank section. I think these are OK at A class but you might be asked to remove them at an FAC review.
  • I'm aware these aren't a fan favourite and haven't used one before. This is by way of an experiment to see what people think. If I get pushback that's fine

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, congratulations on becoming an admin! If you have some free time, could you check out these comments? Matarisvan (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come back from a very busy work period and have responses for this on my to-do list. I promise they'll be actioned soon! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. If it is OK with you, I will do the source and image reviews too. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do! I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Hi, thanks for the review so far! I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All looks great, happy to support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • The article referenced with a consistent and appropriate citation style.
  • All claims are verifiable against reputable sources.
  • Sources accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge.
  • Spot checks:
    • fn 9, 30, 35, 108 - okay
    • fn 26: source says 8 October, article says 7 October.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 3 July 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.

Article promoted by Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Sardonyx (1919)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Simongraham (talk)

HMS Sardonyx (1919) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because HMS Sardonyx was one of only a few Royal Navy destroyers designed in the First World War (albeit launched shortly after the Armistice) to serve at the Normandy landings in the Second. She had a career rare amongst ships of her class, finally being broken up in 1945. simongraham (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

It's good to see such a detailed article on a destroyer. I have the following comments:

  • The lead is a bit short for the size of the article: 2-3 paras is the norm
    • That sounds a very good idea. Which aspects would you recommend including please? More from the specification or more from the service?
      • The service history, mainly, but I'd suggest noting the ship's role and key features (especially the 1940 refit that probably resulted in a different role) Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. I have expanded the lead as you suggest.
  • The first para of the 'Design and development' should note what the role of these ships was at the time they were ordered.
    • Added.
  • The last para of that section should be tweaked to note that this was the armament upon completion.
    • Added.
  • "Sardonyx was commissioned into the Reserve Fleet" - what does this mean? (e.g. does it mean that the ship was put into reserve straight away?).
    • I believe so.
  • If possible, it would be good to note why the ship was completed and retained after the end of the war given the RN would have ended the war with vastly more destroyers than it needed
  • The year referred to in the first para of the 'Interwar service' is unclear.
    • Added.
  • Can more be said about the ship's service in the Baltic? There have been some recent works on the RN's activities in this campaign.
    • That sounds very interesting. I have referenced Dunn but if you have any other pointers, I would be grateful.
  • What happened between 1920 and 1925 when the destroyer is active again?
    • It seems that she was laid in reserve.
  • Likewise, when was the ship decommissioned following this period in service ahead of returning to service in 1931? What was the destroyer's role from 1931?
    • It seems that the 1925 mission was a one-off. I have altered the paragraphs to match.
  • The last para of the 'Interwar service' section is a bit repetitive and confusing
    • Amended.
  • "updated for the escort role" - not sure that 'updated' is the right word, given these modifications tended to involve reducing capabilities associated with front line fleet service to improve their usefulness as convoy escorts. It should also be noted that this was part of a larger program of modifying destroyers in this way.
    • Amended.
  • "The destroyer reentered service" - when?
    • It is sometime in the middle of 1940, but the sources are not clear.
  • What was the destroyer doing in 1943? This was the crisis of the Battle of the Atlantic. Had she been relegated to other duties by this time?
    • It seems so. There is no record of any duties after 20 May. Added some more background information.
  • "On 8 June 1944, the destroyer escorted the troops that took part in the Normandy landings" - this is a bit confusing. Was she escorting convoys taking reinforcements to the beachhead? The wording also makes it sound like she was the only destroyer involved in this. What the ship's role at this time was should be made clear.
    • Clarified
  • Can anything be said about the experiences of the ship's crew? I imagine that Atlantic convoy duty in an elderly destroyer wasn't much fun. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot find anything explicit. There is some generic material in books like Brown's Atlantic Escorts: Ships, Weapons & Tactics in World War II but it seems to relate more to corvettes than the S class. Any guidance would be gratefully received. simongraham (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Thank you for all your comments. I believe that I have made the changes you suggest, but would value any guidance on additional sources. simongraham (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed: nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi simongraham, some comments:

  • Consider expanding the lead section by 1-2 paragraphs with material from the body?
    • Expanded.
  • Link to John Brown & Co. in the infobox? Also, is the Curtis here Curtiss-Wright?
    • Linked.
  • "Sardonyx ws": "was"?
    • Corrected.
  • Link to sister ship at mention Sabre instead of Scimitar?
    • Linked.
  • Link to superstructure?
    • Linked.
  • Link to British 18-inch torpedo?
    • Linked.
  • Per NOFORCELINK, specify that the Dumaresq was a fire control computer?
    • Clarified.
  • Is the pennant numbers caption for the table necessary? We already have the section heading.
    • Removed.
  • Provide links for the following news articles?

"The Lost Submarine" "Little Hope for M2: Officers and Crew" "The Great Gale" "Stories Of The Gale" "News in Brief: Destroyer Aground"

    • Added, thanks to the Times Archive.
  • Provide a link or identifier for Head 2009? If you received this paper via resource request, you should specify this in a hidden note so that future reviewers do not consider this source to be invalid.
    • Added a JSTOR link.

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider adding this article to List of ship decommissionings in 1945? Matarisvan (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thank you for your comments. That was very helpful. simongraham (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, two minor comments:
"21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes. Launched": Consider rephrasing to avoid Wikipedia:SEAOFBLUE? Also, link to J. J. Colledge and Jürgen Rohwer? Matarisvan (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nigel Ish

edit

A few initial comments

  • According to an 1986 article in Warship (Brady, Mark (1986). "The Old 'S' Class Destroyers". In Lambert, Andrew (ed.). Warship Volume X. pp. 12–23. ISBN 0-85177-449-0.), Sardonyx was a tender to the Signal School in 1938 - there is a photo of her during this time (p. 14). The 50 cm radar trials also appear to have been carried out under the Signal School (p. 22), and eventually led to the development of Type 282 radar. Incidentally, in this case 50 cm is a wavelength, so should probably be converted to a frequency.
  • According to Brady, it was planned in the late 1930s to send Sardonyx to the Far East to join the S class destroyers already there, once she had finished her duties and been refitted, but the refit was still underway when France fell, which generated a great need for more ships in Home waters.
  • Sardonyx does NOT appear to have been fitted with Type 271 centimetric radar - Whitley and Brady says this was only fitted to Shikari, while Friedman p274 only refers to the ship's close in armament, not radar. Please check your sources to see that nothing else like this has slipped through.
  • re. the question about what Sardonyx was doing in 1943, there is more in Denis Rayner's Escort: The Battle of the Atlantic - by this time the S-class survivors were concentrated in the 21st Escort Group - in the early part of the year they were employed (when they weren't broken down) on escorting fast convoys of troopships from Iceland, where they could put their high speed to good use. In the summer, the 21st EG was employed in Operation Rosegarden, an attempt at a joint operation with RAF Coastal Command to interdict U-boats between Iceland and the Faroes. This failed, partly because of the inability to cope with the weather conditions. In autumn 1943, the group was used to provide training for submarines, simulating enemy escorts. Brady notes that they didn't have the range to take part in the major mid-atlantic convoy battles in 1942–1943.
  • There is more on how the ships coped with Atlantic convoy duty in Brady and Rayner. Basically not well - they were very badly overloaded and overcrowded, and probably unfit for the North Atlantic when short of fuel but still carrying a full depth-charge load. They appear to have been popular with crews, however, as they spent much more time ashore as the ships were having weather damage repaired.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish: Thank you for these comments and sources, which have been very helpful. I have made changes based on both Brady and Rayner. simongraham (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Source review - pass

edit

The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.

  • Bibliography:
    • Brady (1986): location? publisher?
      • Added.
    • Dietrich-Berryman & Hammond (2013): location should be Annapolis, Maryland
      • Corrected.
    • Jackson (1997): You don't need the page number in the bibliography
      • Removed.
    • Link Stephen Roskill
      • Linked.
  • Spot checks:
    • fn 31: I am not convinced that "the need for ASW escorts was, of course, pressing as the prospect of another U-boat campaign against shipping in the North Atlantic became a reality" equates to "the Royal Navy required all available destroyers to be made available to combat the German submarine threat".
      • Reworded.
    • fn 14, 18, 25, 44, 57 :okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thank you. That is very helpful. simongraham (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan and Nigel Ish:: Ready too support? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happy to support for promotion to A class. Matarisvan (talk) 15:03, 3 July 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Saipan

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because The Battle of Saipan was one of the major battles in the 1941-1945 Pacific War, it's 80th anniversary is on 15 June 2024. I started with this article cleaning up references for one issue, and realized this article could use a major overhaul and expansion, particularly with sources, maps and images. I think it has come far enough for a peer review. To those who take a look, thank you. And I hope I have helped to make this topic interesting to you and other readers. Wtfiv (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

It's good to see this article on a key battle of World War II here. It needs a fair bit more work to reach A-class status though, and I have the following comments:

  • The sentence starting with 'The speed with which the Marshalls were occupied' is a bit over-complicated, and it would be good to note when the invasion was brought forward.
  • This section should also cover the assembly of the invasion force
  • The background section should also cover the pre-1944 history of Saipan
  • Added background as first paragraph of the "Military Geography" section. Wtfiv (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The 'Japanese defensive preparations' section doesn't really capture the importance the Japanese assigned to Saipan: they knew that it would become a dangerous B-29 base if captured.
  • A sentence on B-29s is added in this larger reworking. Interestingly, most sources do not focus on this. My guess is because the Japanese were focused on reacting to the action around Biak and assuming a strike into the Carolines.
  • This section should also cover the overall Japanese plan for the defence of the Mariana Islands, including the plans to use aircraft and the IJN to defeat the US invasion fleet - this appears much later in the article.
  • The background section now includes a subsection on Japan's defensive plans.
  • The 'Saipan's military geography' should note the climate
  • Added climate as first two sentences of second paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The Opposing forces section needs to be referenced, and there's inconsistencies in how the names of various senior officers are presented here.
  • Reworked whole section I disliked this section when I started editing, but thought it was a kind of template for the Pacific War island battles as I find it everywhere. As per Hawkeye7's Battle of Tinian, I just put the command structure of the major units into the prose narrative and deleted the section.
  • "The attack took out nearly one-third of the 435 planes in Vice Admiral Kakuji Kakuta's 1st Air Fleet, which had been deployed to defend the Marianas" - this is the first time this force has been noted, despite there being a section focused on Japanese defences.
  • Kakuta's 1st Air Fleet has been added here in the Japanese strategic plan heading. Further modifications to Kakuta's role in the article include a change and a later update in Japanese Naval Response, and an update to Preparatory Attacks. I didn't give specific numbers as the various sources wildly disagree. What is clear is the land-based airpower was devastated. I used Toll's estimate of 100, as it was more conservative.
  • The grammar in the sentence starting 'It was had a wide gap just north of Charan Kanoa' is a bit off, and the sentence as a whole is over-complex
    • fixed grammar. Made sentence slightly longer, turning it into a list of three problems, but grammatical complexity should be reduced. If you'd like me to break it up, let me know.
  • It's confusing referring to the US divisions as the '27th Infantry', '2nd Marines', etc: these terms are usually used for regiments (especially in the USMC).
    • "Division" added to each unit when named: diff, (and minor diff to fix spelling error in first mention of "Division" in previous diff.)
  • The 'Aftermath' section should be reworked to avoid single paragraph sections
  • The 'Naval air dominance' section doesn't seem to add anything
  • The material on the use of Saipan as a B-29 base is confusing. This was always one of the main goals of the operation, reflecting long-term plans (the overarching strategy was to develop B-29 baes in the Marianas, with the operation in China always being a stop-gap until airfields in the islands were available). Reflecting this, airfield construction crews arrived fairly early in the piece. The article presents all of this as being a bit of an afterthought rather than central to the entire operation.
  • Material has been reworked as follows:
(1) Strategic bombing is now early in Aftermath to reduce perception of afterthought.
(2) As suggested, added information on when aerodrome construction started, Emphasizing its earliness.
(3) Reorganization into three paragraphs. Logic of tentative organization:
¶1. Shift to strategic bombing; Yawata synchronized with invasion symbolizing this.
¶2. Explanation of role of Marianas in being a well-suited site for strategic bombing.
¶3. Saipan's specific role in the initiation of Marianas-based strategic bombing.
(4). Removed discussion of China-based B-29s, except for explaining the origination of the Yawata Steel Works raid. The relation of China bases vs. the Marianas is a complicated issue that evolved over time. For example, China-based bombing, supplemented by bases in the Aleutians-based bombing, was conceived as a sufficient project in its own right at the First Quebec Conference in 1943, though one of the justifications for the strategy was lack of available islands. (see C.C.S 323 on pp. 995–1000). Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Arnold didn't see the value of using mandate islands as bomber bases even as late as the Quebec conference, stating most were atolls. (see pp. 861-862) Wtfiv (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material presenting one view of the importance of strategic bombing in the Japanese surrender is out of place, and this is a famously complex and debated topic so it's not NPOV to present only one view and not the others.
  • Deleted the two quotes, reworked material for perceptions of Japanese.
The intended point wasn't to get into the controversial and charged issue of what caused the Japanese to surrender (e. g., strategic bombing, submarine warfare, the Soviet declaration of war, the atomic bombs, and more.). My intention was to emphasize the effect B-29 bombing had on Japanese morale and perceptions. I'm hoping the rewrite makes this more clear. One of citations points towards quotes from ten Japanese leaders in addition to the two that I left in the text. (The remaining two were inherited from the original article.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of the links in the 'See also' section really needed? If these people played a significant role in the battle, they should be linked in the body of the article.
  • The number of photos seems excessive, and it would be good to left justify some of them.
  • Deleted many, shifted a few. The original presentation was an experiment in presenting many images, each illustrating a topic in the text but avoiding MOS:SANDWICH; it didn't look too bad on a mobile.
I may have to rework again to avoid sandwiching once more maps are added. Maps added...I think sandwiching is okay.
  • More maps could be added Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this comment, I'd like to get a bit more help from you about the maps. The Battle of Saipan map has the frontlines at each section of the narrative, and labels all the places mentioned in the narrative. (Except Tanapag plain, which is mentioned in context as between Makunsha and Tanapag.) But I can see a reader may not want to keep clicking back to that map. I could certainly add more in the sections. Where would would you like to see them, How many is reasonable, and what level of focus (whole island, or zoom in to the front?) would you like to see? Wtfiv (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest adding maps (where available, from the US official histories and similar) to illustrate the key engagements. A map of the landing/lodgement phase of the operation would be very useful, for instance. A map showing the 'Smith vs Smith' phase of operations would help to illustrate the issue here. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the reply, Nick-D. Please see my comment at the bottom of Hawkeye7's review. Wtfiv (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done a set of maps. If you go to the page for each map Wikimedia Commons, the pages where the frontlines were derived are linked there. Wtfiv (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note regarding Hawkeye's great comments below, it's common for articles on battles of the Pacific War to need a surprising amount of material explaining how they fitted into each protagonist's strategy and the strategic situation. This is because most of the battles were essentially small stand-alone campaigns given the geography of the war (e.g. in comparison to the European theatre of the war where battles tended to occur in fairly rapid succession as part of general offensives and don't need as much introductory material). Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nick-D. When first working on this article, I could see that authors quickly got caught up in the MacArthur-King tension. My goal is to keep discussion of it to a minimum: acknowledging it and getting the facts right but focusing on the invasion. Both you and Hawkeye have provided with more guidance to help me better navigate these complexities. I'll do my best to address your concerns without being enmeshed in the details. I'm sure you two will guide me where I need to work it out more. Wtfiv (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look great. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

edit

This is excellent work by a skilled content creator, and I am surprised that I haven't encountered you before.

Thank you, Hawkeye7, for both the compliment and the feedback. I'll be one the road this coming week, so a bit slow in addressing most of the points raised until I get back. I'll first address Nick-D's. In particular, our bullet points 1, 2 and 4 look like they may take a bit more thinking through. Wtfiv (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • American strategic objectives
  • Reworked and expanded paragraphs 2–3 attempting to first four bullet points. (Major diff and minor cleanups here and here.) Intended logic of presentation:
¶ 1. (Mainly unchanged), sets up situation at beginning of 1944; defines King's support for Plan Orange and its relation to the Central Pacific offensive.
¶ 2–3. Global overview of Marianas status as strategic objective. Steps back to 1943 with focus on three conferences: discussing through King's advocacy for the Marianas and the CCS decisions. Also note MacArthur's concerns.
¶ 4. Shifts to operational implementation by Nimitz in 1944. Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is not incorrect, but it is misleading, because this decision to give priority to the Central Pacific drive was taken in May 1943, before the Admiralty Islands, and the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaigns referred to in the previous paragraph. For the record, CCS 417 (at Cairo) said: "The advance in the Pacific shall be simultaneous along both axes and shall be mutually supporting, that when conflicts in timing and allocation of means exist, due weight should be accorded to the fact that operations in the Central Pacific promise at this time a more rapid advance toward Japan and her vital lines of communication." (Hayes, p. 550) So priority, yes, but the acceleration of MacArthur's timetable under Reno IV undermined the rationale for it.
  • The third is even more misleading. King had decided that with the capture of the Gilberts and Marshalls, the Marianas would be the next objective. This goal been formally endorsed by the Allies at the Cairo Conference in November 1943, which set their invasion for 1 October 1944. This is incorrect. The Marianas were added to the objectives list (CCS 387) at Cairo,[14] but not immediately after; Ponape and Truk were to be secured first. (see Matloff, p. 377)
  • Deleted conflation of grand strategic decision making (CCS) with more operational decisions. Section omits mention of Gilberts and Marshalls. Rewords CCS statement at Cairo to adding the Marianas as an objective for the Central Pacific offensive
  • The invasion the Marianas, codenamed Forager,[22] was originally scheduled for October–November 1944. You have already said this in the previous paragraph.
  • Fixed. This was an artifact of addressing a concern by Nick-D, moving information without deleting the original. Latest reworking integrates this in the context of Cairo.
  • The debate over the schedule in March 1944 is covered in Matloff pp. 455-459. The SWPA and POA staffs debated the issue at a conference in Pearl Harbor on 27-28 January 1944. Kenney, Kinkaid, Sutherland, Towers and Sherman all expressed reservations about the Marianas operation. Sherman felt it would be costly, and there were concerns about their suitability as a base given that they had no harbours. (see Hayes, pp. 545-548) Another conference was held in Washington in March, but there was still no decision on the Marianas vs Truk. (Hayes, p. 555) Sherman argued that the Marianas could be used to neutralise Truk. (Hayes, p. 556) As noted, JCS the decided on 12 March to invade the Marianas on 15 June. (Hayes, p. 560)
  • I've kept the narrative at a high strategic level, focusing on King and the CCS in paragraphs 2 and 3. Mention MacArthur's concerns note the SWPA concerns regarding POA operations.
I know if we move down to the finer grain of the JCS, SWPOA, and POA discussions, it gets more complicated. As you mention, the Pearl Harbor and Washington conferences continued the back and forth about the Marianas. The debate constantly shifts: a number of the individuals took different sides of the argument at different times. (e.g., Nimitz being willing to forego the Marianas as a result of the Pearl Harbor discussion, and King having to him of the Cairo decision.)
I'm hoping that the two paragraphs focused on King and the CCS make the main point about King's insistence while getting the reader quickly to Saipan. It would be nice to have an article that got into these gnarly details that could be linked. I find it fascinating, and appreciate the deeper dive in terms of understanding the complexities but trying to reflect them simply that your comments have led me to. (The Granite II article?)
Is overall form of the current edit okay with you? Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although King was nominally CNO, this was an administrative role. His authority derived from being CinC US Fleet (COMINCH) and should be referred as such.
  • Although Nimitz was CinC Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC), in this context he should be referred to by his other role, as CinC Pacific Ocean Areas (CINCPOA).
  • Done, see diff above. May want to check if links are appropriate.
  • Recommend moving footnote b into the body. This is an important part of the campaign.
  • Done, Nick-D noted that I needed to add that information, so it may have been missed. (Or perhaps it wasn't enough.) It's now in main text under American invasion force and its been expanded slightly. Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked sentence in second paragraph to make it more clear that the capture of the Marianas the central theme of the paragraph.
Wtfiv (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese defensive preparations
    • fn 35 contains a stray bracket
      • Someone graciously fixed it.
    • " but most of their equipment ... were lost" was lost
    • " to defeat an invading force at the beaches, when the invading troops were most vulnerable" where the invading troops
      • Fixed. The diff for this and all but one change in this section below is here.
    • Link defence in depth
      • Done
    • "Other soldiers were stranded survivors headed to other islands when their ships were sunk" I Had difficult parsing this. I think you mean that they had been headed for other islands, but wound up on Saipan.
      • reworded Many soldiers were stranded survivors of sunken ships headed to other islands.
    • "the timing of the invasion surprised the Japanese, who thought they had until November to complete their defense" If you have the book, I would be interested in knowing what footnote 43 refers to.
      • I checked the convenience link the the citation, and it looks like it works. I'll put it here: p. 139 The Lacey sources a G-2 intelligence report from 11 July 1944 interrogating Major "Kiyoshi Yoshida". (see footnote g for questions regarding his reports during and after the war, which are used widely in reliable sources to describe the Japanese side of the battle.) The date can be argued for: It's at the end of the monsoon season and closer to the original date set at the Cairo conference, but that'd be WP:OR. Other sources make the same point, but none give a reason.
    • " after the Japanese government had taken over Saipan from Germany in 1914." full stop instead of comma
      • Done
    • "Saipan was the first island of the war " Can you rephrase this?
      • Reworded: Saipan was the first island during the Pacific war
    • " large urban centers" Seems a bit of an exaggeration to me.
    • "civilians lived on the island primarily serving the sugar industry" comma after "island"
      • done
  • Opposing forces
      • Deleted format and replaced with narrative section I didn't change this because I thought this was an informal "best practice" for Pacific War Island articles, as so many of them have this.
    • I really, really don't like the use of abbreviations for ranks. Are bits that expensive?
      • Section deleted, all named officers are given their full ranks without abbreviation.
    • Kelly Turner commanded TF 51, of which TF 52, which he also commanded, was a part. This should be added.
      • Kelly's dual role already mentioned, parenthetical addition of TF 52.
    • Source?
      • Narrative descriptions are now sourced.
  • June 15: D-Day
    • Recommend moving the map in the Opposing forces section down to this section.
      • Suggestion is a good one. Not implemented yet, please see response at end.
      • Most suggested changes from here until "Logistics" is in this diff
    • Link star shell on first use.
      • Link moved to first instance. Most suggested changes from here until "Logistics" is in this diff
    • Suggest moving the first paragraph of "Japanese naval response" back into the "Japanese defensive preparations" section, and the other two into the "Battle of the Philippine Sea" to reduce disruption of the narrative.
      • Material rearranged. New section Japanese Strategic Plan now has material from first paragraph and additions. Material on Submarine Admiral Takeo Takagi and his relevance added. Remainder moved to Battle of Philippine Sea.
  • June 16–20: Southern Saipan
    • First image is a red link for some reason.
      • Fixed (in some previous edit).
    • "on June 20" should be "on 20 June"
      • Corrected that, and many other date reversals.
    • "To prepare for the upcoming naval battle, the American transports continued to unload supplies and reinforcements throughout June 17." This is wrong; they would have done this anyway. Move the first phrase to the next sentence.
      • Reworked as per suggestion.
    • "On June 19-20" -> "on 19-20 June"
      • done
    • Suggest making "Battle of Philippine Sea" a separate section, as it is not part of Southern Saipan (or rename that section)
      • done
    • June 17 -> 17 June
      • done
  • 21-24 June: Central Saipan, initial attack
    • "Frustrated by what he saw as lack of progress by the 27th Division, Holland Smith relieved its commander, Major General Ralph Smith" 27th Division -> 27th Infantry Division, delete "Major General" Is it more American to use their middle initials as well?
      • I used their middle initial when introducing them, but here I'm using first names to distinguish the Smiths. If you think I should include their middle initial, let me know.
    • June 22 -> 22 June
      • done
  • 25-30 June: Central Saipan, breakthrough
    • "the XXIV artillery corps" This is wrong; it was the XXIV Corps Artillery.
      • done
    • " had moved" -> "moved"
      • done
  • 1–6 July: Pursuit into northern Saipan
    • Move the last paragraph into the next section
      • done
  • 7–9 July: Gyokusai attack and battle's end
    • "On 11 July, the Americans found the body of general Saitō." -> "On 11 July, the Americans found Saitō's body"
      • done
    • "Though many civilians were able to surrender early in the battle.[269] surrender became more difficult as the battle moved into the northern mountains." Replace full stop with comma.
      • done
    • "The places they jumped from would become known as "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff". You have forgotten to say that many committed suicide in this manner.
      • Reword Many died by throwing themselves off cliffs at places that would become known as "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff"
    • Delete the "Further resistance" heading; it is only one paragraph. (Consider moving the paragraph into the "Aftermath" section.)
    • Make "Casualties" its own section. Readers often go looking for this
      • Done
  • Aftermath
    • "The capture of Saipan, along with MacArthur's victory in Hollandia, pierced the Japanese Exclusive National Defense Sphere." Except that on your map, Hollandia is not within it.
    • fn 289, 308: page number?
      • Both fixed
  • Nothing on logistics. Sigh.

**See note below. Logistics section added after casualties. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 and Nick-D I have finished a first pass through your thoughtful comments. I particularly appreciate your kindness as you wade through the typos and errors.

:*I have attempted to address the core comments, so if you feel it is productive I could address second-round comments. But, I still have a couple of more secondary tasks I'd like to try before I feel I have addressed your comments in full, so if you think we should wait and I can ping you when I feel they are done, that works too. Here's the remaining tasks I see:

  • Nick-D's challenge with the maps. Tracking all the references in the narrative can be a terror. Nick-D has given me an easy solution, which is to take the best from Hoffman, Crowl and Shaw et al and use them. I may. Before going that direction, I'd like to experiment with creating a set consistent with the .svg, but that requires some care and they'd require review. If it gets overwhelming, I can try Nick-D's suggested default.
  • I'd like to build a modest logistics section as per Hawkeye's suggestion. I considered logistics. I deferred because I'd have to think about how to keep it simple. The complexity of detail could risk overwhelming an article that is already on the long side. But I like the challenge. Logistics is the bedrock of the campaign. Section created.
  • I need to run through a couple more rounds of minor copyediting.
  • All this is done (well, copy editing is endless.)
  • Nick-D, I feel I owe you a special apology. I recently read your Bugle article on doing a review, and saw I did one of your "don'ts" when I let you know I'd be delayed in responding just after you took the time to review. An unfortunate mix of the article catching interest two days before I had to head out and the resulting real life situation require a lot more care than I thought.
Wtfiv (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D and Hawkeye7 I've attempted to address all the concerns for this round. Logistics section and maps I mentioned as final items have been drafted. Wtfiv (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! Some final points:
  1. I copy edited the Logistics section to remove a series of typos. (Pet peeve: "ordinance" instead of "ordnance")
    Thank you, Hawkeye7! Wtfiv (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Morison says that the Marianas were claimed in 1565, as does the CIA. [15]. Your source says Saipan was occupied in 1564. I looked at Quimby, Frank J. (2017). "Spain in the Mariana Islands, 1521–1898". Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Colonialism in Asia-Pacific: The Southwest Pacific and Oceanian Regions. pp. 146–194. doi:10.2307/j.ctvx07b3c.13. and it says 1565 too. Can we re-check?
    I put 1565Morison (thanks!) as he is already given as a source. Three other sources I looked up. One gave an exact date 3 Feb 1565. Wtfiv (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tojo was succeeded as prime minister by Koiso, but Tojo was also Minister of the Army and Chief of the Army General Staff; he was succeeded in those posts by Hajime Sugiyama and Yoshijirō Umezu respectively. (Suggest just adding "as prime minister")
    added "as prime minister". It helps keeps the article focused, but I will be looking up the other two. I'm curious. Wtfiv (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Support. Great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Books
    Link Herbert P. Bix, James L. Cate, Richard B. Frank, James C. Olson, Craig L. Symonds, Steven J. Zaloga
    Chapin (1994) has location, but nothing else does. Personally, I prefer locations as it is the usual academic style and therefore aids someone lifting the source, but removal is easy and will make the references consistent.
    Craven and Cate is volume V, not volume VI
    Coakley and Leighton (1987) "United States Army n world War II" Typo.
    Crowl (1993) is not volume 9; the series has no volume numbers
    Dod (1987): is also part of the United States Army in world War II series.
    Forrestel (1966): Capitalise "government"
    Hiroyuki (2022): Add editors (Frank Reichherzer, Tomoyuki Ishizu), OCLC (1346915967)
    Hornfischer (2016) Add OCLC (1016508640)
    Wetzler, Peter (2020): Formatting; need an asterisk
      Done. here Except that I kept the Hiroyu OCLC to the English language version I had. I hope that's okay.
  • Journal articles, reports and theses
    Hemler (2018) and Kaune (1990) are master's theses. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. (Annoying, I know. My own master's thesis gets more citations than the PhD.)
    Use degree= rather than type= for theses
    Plung (2021): use title case
    Sullivan (1995) is a book chapter from The Mechanism for Strategic Coercion: Denial or Second Order Change?
    Why is Defense Technical Information Center only linked once?
      Done diff Swapped out Hemler Masters for doctorate. Lost the Kaune, though I do feel badly as it is a publically accessible work focused on the 27th Infantry divsion
    I have had the same experience. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Allowing Master's theses when not used to dispute more reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so glad to hear it. I think I get the original policy. In contentious issues, a Master's may not be a reliable source for making an argument. But in historical reviews like this, I find that master's theses can be great sources for giving an overview, particularly when they are web accessible. For example, the acknowledged history for the 27th Infantry is Edmund Love's book, which is hard to get hold of, and has the additional problem of getting POV'ed into the Smith vs. Smith controversy. Kaune's overview has the advantage of being written from a historical distance, and the DTIC thought it was good enough to post (which doesn't mean it was closely review, of course.) It sounds like the discussion is appropriate and I'll take a look. Wtfiv (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary sources
    Sheeks (1945) is out of alphabetic order
    Should you link United States Strategic Bombing Survey since it is an author?
    Don't think Willoughby counts as a primary source
      Done See diff above.
  • Footnotes
    fn 97 is dubious. Text says: " moved closer to shore because the sea was found to be free of mines". Source says: (on pp. 74-75, not 75) "none of the ships was allowed to move closer than 10,000 yards (five nautical miles) from the shore for fear of mines"
     Y I think the problem is it should be page number 76, which now corrected. This references Oldendorf's old battleships, not Lee's newer one's, which pp. 74–75 are referring to.
    fn 160: page number for Morison?
      Done
    Consider consolidating fn 287-289
      Done mainly concerned that only Sheeks emphasizes the point made in the middle citation.
    fn 295-296: Strange formatting with square brackets
      Done Changes for this and above are in this diff.
    fn 316 is dubious, considering the next sentence, which says that bombing started from China.
    Kept the citation, but consolidated it and expanded it to page 4. Qualified the point with dependent clause mentioning Chengdu with link that mentions the airfields. IF you feel I'm still not capturing the point made by Craven and Cate, let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot checks 12, 17, 81, 97, 156, 160, 316 - mostly okay, some issues (above) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these have all been addressed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had a go at getting the books into alphabetic order, correcting a couple of typos and adding some more author links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Wtfiv, some comments:

Thank you Matarisvan. I made most of changes in this edit. There's a few I didn't do, but if you feel they improve the article, I will
  • "range of United States Army Air Forces B-29 bombers": consider changing to "range of B-29 bombers of the United States Army Air Forces" to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE?
 Y reworked paragraph and removed sea of blue.
  • "resignation of Prime Minister of Japan Hideki Tōjō": change to "resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the Prime Minister of Japan" for the same reason as above?
  Done Part of paragraph reworking
  • "Ships personnel": Wouldn't "naval personnel" be better?
I inherited this from the article, but I think the intention here is to distinguish naval personnel killed on ships from those who were killed on the island.
  • Link to line of communication?
 Y
  • Consider moving left aligned images to right alignment per MOS:IMAGELOC?
Originally, I had right-aligned all images, but Nick-D recommended the variety in image placement. I think the suggestion makes the page look a little better. I did set up the images to avoiding MOS:SANDWICH
  • Link to Rota?
 Y
 Y
  • Link to Magicienne Bay (Laolao Bay)?
 Y
  • Link to Kagman?
I didn't link Kagman because the text refers to the peninsula, not the village. The article on Kagman is also bare at this point. But if you think the link would help readers get a geographic sense of the location, I will.
  • Link to Tanapag?
 Y
  • Link to Marpi?
I didn't link this as it references the point, not the village, but will add if it will help readers.
  • Link in the biblio to John W. Dover, Thomas Havens, Daikichi Irokawa, Noriko Kawamura, Michael Kort, Yuki Tanaka, William T. Y'Blood, Richard P. Hallion, Preston Cloud, Vincent O'Hara?
 Y
  • Consider converting the Y'Blood 1981 reference to an sfn tag?
That alternative format is to prevent a cite error. (There are two citations to the same page, but one has a ps and the other doesn't.
  • Miller 1991 is the only source which uses the Citation template instead of Cite book, consider using the latter?
 Y Fixed.

Overall, a very fine article, there were some very minor grammatical errors which I corrected, I hope you do not mind. That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate yout taking the time to look over the article. Wtfiv (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the links to Kagman and Marpi aren't necessary, and the sfn conversion is also not required. There's a minor correction needed, though. The link for Yuki Tanaka points to a volleyball player, the article we want is Yuki Tanaka (historian). Otherwise, happy to extend my support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wtfiv, one minor comment I somehow forgot to post: These sentences "This battle sealed the fate for the Japanese forces defending Saipan. Though they did not know it, they could not expect expect further assistance." are great for a research paper or article, but are not encyclopedic. Something like this would be much better: "As a result of this battle, the Japanese troops on Saipan could not be reinforced, resupplied or provided military support anymore." Also consider replacing the word "doomed" with something neutral. Matarisvan (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded sentence incorporating suggested ideas, but kept sense from the Morison quote that the defenders weren't aware of their situation. Removed word "doom". Wtfiv (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Please clarify whether you are in full support of promotion of this article to A-class in view of the previous edit. If so, it appears ready for promotion and I will make the necessary change to the assessment. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am in support of promotion to A class. Matarisvan (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Lots of images in this one.

All images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review, Hawkeye7, and for the compliments regarding the maps. Wtfiv (talk) 14:30, 18 June 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Tinian

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

After the Battle of Saipan comes the Battle of Tinian. It isn't as well known as Saipan, but it was an important part of the Mariana Islands campaign. It was mostly a US Marines show, but the other services were heavily involved. The battle is a good case study of the process of command decision making. The island eventually became an important base for B-29 bombers and in August 1945 the atomic bombing missions were launched from there, which is what it is best known for today, if at all. There is plenty written about it though, and the article could have gone much deeper into the fighting.

If someone wants to complete the Operation Forager trilogy by fixing up the Battle of Guam (1944), that would be great. I am not going to, but I am intending to take this one to Featured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

This article is in good shape. Please see my comments below:

  • The first para of the lead should establish which countries the battle was fought between. " the island joined Saipan and Guam as a base for the Twentieth Air Force." is also unclear given readers may not know that this was an American unit or its significance
    Added who it was fought between. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought I had better mention it in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead could also be clearer about the purpose of the invasion - e.g. that the island was a key element of the plans for the air attacks on Japan
    The purpose of the invasion was to cut the Japanese line of communications. Tried to make this point more clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another rationale for the capture of the Mariana Islands emerged with the development of the long-range Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber." - this is a bit unclear. I'd suggest noting in this para that B-29s could reach almost all worthwhile targets in Japan from the islands, which is why they were so strategically important
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'strategy' section should start with a para or so on Tinian's status at the start of the war and by the mid-1940s. Readers don't learn until the next section that it had long been Japanese territory and that it had a largish civilian population.
    Added a paragraph on this. It is of course covered in detail in the article on Tinian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a couple of sentences about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do modern historians use the term 'comfort women'? It seems an awful euphemism.
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yetch. I'd personally use something else anyway. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the condition of the Japanese garrison? E.g. had any of the units seen combat before, were they well supplied, etc? My understanding is also that the Japanese attempts to reinforce the islands were greatly disrupted by submarine attacks - did these reduce the intended size of the garrison? It might be worth noting somewhere that the Japanese were well aware that the US wanted the islands as strategic bomber bases and regarded their defence as a top priority.
    The submarines attacks did not affect Tinian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said in the second para of the 'United States' section about the condition of the Marines? I imagine that while the troops were worn out by the fighting on Saipan they would have almost all been combat veterans
    This is covered in the second paragraph of "United States". I have added a bit about their previous service. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Counterattack' section is written from the perspective of the Americans. Can anything be said about the Japanese decision making here and/or the experiences of the Japanese troops?
    This has been added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto the 'Tinian taken' section. This section raises the question of why the Japanese garrison didn't surrender and fought it out to the last against an obviously vastly superior force
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 404 Japanese who were captured is also a fairly high ratio for Japanese forces in the small island battles - 5% or so of the garrison. Can anything be said about the circumstances of their capture and who they were?
    Only a little bit. My opinion is that the island was not that small, that many Japanese became isolated and left to their own devices, and the presence of civilians may have been a factor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On Saipan, 1,780 prisoners were taken. This was more than the United States had taken in all the battle of the war up to that point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest checking the sources, but my understanding is that 'Marines' is usually capitalised in US works when referring to groups of individuals serving in the USMC
    They do but we don't. (MOS:MARINE) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1 August 1944 and 1 January 1945, the 8th Marines lost another 38 killed and 125 wounded; 542 Japanese soldiers were killed" - can more be said about this fighting? The number of Japanese killed after the island was secured is startling high.
    Unfortunately not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the many horrific elements of the fighting on Okinawa was the mass rapes of Okinawan civilians by Japanese troops. The article notes Japanese troops killing civilians on Tinian, but do the sources also discuss sexual assaults?
    Astroth has a whole chapter on the subject, but it lacks any specifics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last para of the article should note that the air units on Tinian represented a high proportion of the force that attacked Japan.
    Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to add material with historians' assessments of the battle. From memory, some consider it the best-conducted amphibious operation of the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're remembering Howling Mad Smith's assessment, from Coral and Brass. I will add a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added an analysis section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wtfiv

edit

Great article! I must say, I feel awkward reviewing one of the most veteran and skilled editors in this section of Wikipedia. I also know my style is not in line with the more typical style; most are probably too long. Getting a sense of your experience, I can have confidence you'll be gracious about them though. So here they are:

  • Geograph
    • ¶ 1. I may be wrong, but I think Magellan only landed on Guam. He may have informally claimed it, but not Tinian. I think the islands were not formally claimed until 1565 by López de Legazpi.
       Y You are right. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 3. For the beach descriptions, the white beaches are saved for last, but only its location is given. The beaches in ¶ 2 are the best beaches, and the yellow beaches are bad because of cliffs and surf, but the properties of the white beaches are not given. Given their importance, shouldn't that aspect which made them unappealing as invasion sites be mentioned?
       Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last paragraph. Consider replacing "it" it had a population with a more definite noun as it is the topic noun of the paragraph. I was unsure of what "it" was. (For instance, a reader may think it is Tinian town until it was mentioned. Perhaps "Tinian" or "the island"
       Y Replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Note added a bit later) As I was working through the pre-assault bombardment section, I thought it may be worthwhile to mention the distance of Tinian from Saipan. This is relevant in terms of the pre-assault bombardment. It also gives the reader a sense that the logistics of the invasion was more of a hop, (unlike the invasion of Saipan.) (Maybe it can go in the last paragraph of the previous section, Strategy?
       Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese
    • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. I understand why Kakuta gets first paragraph. He is the most senior officer, and in order of battle he'd go first. But I think his relevance to the rest of the narrative puts him later. It seems to me that the actual defenders should go first. Mention of Kakuta seems like he should be more of an afterthought as he mainly spent his time avoiding the fighting. My own thought is he should go after ¶3.
    • ¶ 2. The information on the 135th infantry is unclear because the invasion of Saipan has not been made explicit in the article. The reference to an 11 June amphibious landing making the unit available on Saipan would be clear if the reader knows that this was the beginning of the aerial attack on Saipan which froze the Japanese forces in place.
       Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 2. Minor suggestion only. The total number of forces, their readiness and moral seem like the topic of this paragraph, this go in the first sentence or after a sentence explaining that Ogata is in command? (And in line with my earlier suggestion, maybe this whole paragraph should be the first.)
    • ¶ 4. The opening of this paragraph is unclear because the article has not mentioned that the Saipan invasion preceded the invasion of Tinian. It should be clear if this point is made explicit.
       Y tried to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 4. Comment only- no action requested. The sentence and point is fine and it can stand. But to me, this page reads like Morison's personal opinion (note comparison to the revolution. I wouldn't challenge Morison as an authority, but I'm not sure I agree with his opinion. I think other sources may come up with other reasons why the Japanese fought. I think Ogata, like a good soldier following orders, had no choice. The "fight to the death" was Japanese government policy, not that of the soldiers–many of lower class with probably little sense of being samurai– or Ogata per se. Also, in the Battle of Saipan article, I was going to reference the code of bushido too, but digging in, the fact that Japanese soldiers fought to the death seemed more complicated than following the code of bushido. It seems the rank and file had a militarized education of the 1920 and 1930s played a role with what most Westerners would call brutality played a role, The enculturation of the importance of social face, the Emperor cult, and the religious aspect of being deserving of memory in Yasukuni Shrine all could be argued for.
       Y Deleted this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • American
    • ¶ 4. There's a lot of detail and information in this paragraph, so I'm not sure adding more would be useful. But another reason intelligence about Tinian was excellent was because the Grasshopper observation planes had been scouring the Island for the 531st Artillery and XXIV Artillery Corps. (Consider Crowl, p. 271)
       Y added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 5. Consider rewording What the intelligence reports revealed was that the best landing beaches were around Sanharon Bay but they were also the most heavily defended. to "The intelligence reports revealed..."
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 6. Consider deleting the first sentence Turner had plenty to say. Start the second with "Turner noted..."
       Y Very well. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 6. I find the discussion a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that the northern beaches include both Yellow and White beach. But then it sounds like the Yellow Beaches because of the exposure to weather, but most likely both Yellow and White were thought to be too small to land forces of the size contemplated.
       Y Already noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 8. Minor suggestion only. Consider putting the detailed challenges of White beach up in the Geography section, and in this section it just summarize the challenges and how they would be surmounted. I think moving some of the measurement details to the appropriate area in Geography would help the reader keep more focus on the narrative, which is focusing on solutions to the problem.
  • Bombardment
    • ¶ 1. I think it is important to mention that the artillery bombardments were taken place even as the fighting on Saipan continued. This is implicit to those who know in discussing the 531st.
       Y Already noted above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. I think the XXIV Corps Artillery began shelling around the time they were first deployed around 22 June (see Crowl 133). It might be useful to let the reader know that the XXIV had also been constantly bombarding Tinian long-term.
       Y Added that the XXIV Corps Artillery began commenced firing on Tinian on 20 June. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 3 or thereabouts. You are very thorough in your description of aerial bombardment, you may want to also mention the USAAF's 19th Fighter Squadron on Aslito Field that started bombarding Tinian on its first day on Saipan on 22 June (consider Crave and Cate, p. 690–691) again highlights that it might be useful to note that the bombardment and recon by forces on Saipan was ongoing even as Saipan remained an active combat zone.
       Y Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 4. I think damage to the Colorado and Norman Scott may need context. Readers may like to know they were damaged as part of a fairly major diversion on the South beaches.
    • Minor suggestion only. The diversionary section on Saipan may merit more discussion. Unlike the Battle of Saipan where the diversion was almost token, the diversion on Tinian was substantial, involving warships, and has been argued to keep the main Japanese forces focused on the southern beaches.
       Y The feint is covered below. I have moved the paragraph up to give it more context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Landing
    • ¶ 3.packs behind on Tinian. Did you mean Saipan?
       Y Whoops! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 5. It might be helpful to the reader to clarify why the Doodlebugs were needed. Ideally United States ¶8 or Geography ¶3 might help. As currently written United States ¶8 is ambiguous that the beaches were unfriendly for vehicles to get off the beach.
      "The Doodlebugs allowed the Marines to scale the low cliffs around the White Beaches."
    • ¶ 5. Shouldn't the damage to the Colorado and Norman Scott be included in description of the feint?
       Y Moved the information on the feint up to this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 5. Minor suggestion only. Consider moving the feint to the first paragraphs of this article. It would put the ship action together with this paragraph, and would allow a less interrupted flow of the White Beach material.
       Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 7. alter ones. I'm not sure what is meant here.
       Y Typo. Corrected to "later". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counterattack
  • Drive South
    • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. For Moving north along the coast Consider "as they moved north"...makes it clear the move was in progress when it was held up. ("Moving up" feels to me like the hold up occurred after the action was completed.
       Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¶ 1. charaterized misspelled. (I could've corrected it myself, but experience with negative experience with reviews makes me hesitate.)
       Y I don't mind. Some reviewers like to keep at arms length. Words like this get misspelt because I expect the spell checker to flag them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis
    • Comment only- no action requested. I would agree that Tinian was an outstandingly executed invasion, particularly the outflanking of the Japanese forces with the assault on White Beach. But, I think quoting the opinion Holland Smith is problematic. The quote comes from his memoir account, which seems full of justification. In this case, implying that an operation he played an important role had achieved perfection just before he was taken out of direct combat command, in part as fallout from the Smith vs. Smith mess on Saipan. This bias makes the reliability of his opinion questionable. Though Hoffman p. 122 cites Smith, Hoffman's following paragraph carefully qualifies Smith's superlatives a bit. Prefer's analysis on pp. 169–173 seems more balanced and less POV. Yet, it is a famous quote, one that has become part of the Tinian story, and so is reasonable to put in a Wikipedia article.
      I followed the same reasoning. I am accustomed to the upbeat tone characteristic of American accounts. What is really unusual about Tinian was how accurate the intelligence was. I've gone over campaign after campaign where despite, or possibly because, of Ultra, the Japanese strength was grossly underestimated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mopping up
  • Military government
    • ¶ 3. Minor suggestion only. Would you consider a substitute for cater? It has strong connotations of a professional social event and "catering to someone's demands" has the negative connotating of unnecessarily giving in to an unreasonable demand.
       Y Changed to "care". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Wtfiv (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I think that covers it for me. Support. Wtfiv (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I'll try to get to this over the coming days, but I'm less familiar with this operation than the ones around Guadalcanal, so I should be considered a non-expert reviewer for this one. Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guadalcanal campaign is the only part of the Pacific War that is well-covered. Unfortunately, the editor who did it was indef'ed back in 2016.
  • "Nimitz and his Deputy Chief of Staff, Rear Admiral Forrest P. Sherman a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, DC, on 7 March 1944, and were questioned by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General George C. Marshall, and the Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief, Admiral William D. Leahy." - this sentence is missing a word
     Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their small size of the White and Yellow beaches made them unattractive" - do you mean The small size ..."?
     Y Yes,. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roads were approximately 18 feet (5.5 m) wide and surfaced with crushed coral." - per the source, this is referring to the primary road network; I would recommend clarifying this
     Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Sunharon Bay and Sanharon Bay the same thing?
     Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Landing section; will hopefully continue tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "At Saipan, aerial photography had been restricted in fear that the Japanese would be alerted and the element of surprise would be lost; Tinian demonstrated that this was not the case" - this seems a bit strongly worded. This wouldn't really conclusively demonstrate that aerial photography wouldn't alert defenders of upcoming attacks because the Japanese knew the attack was coming and just guessed wrong on which beaches it would hit
     Y Re-worded to "Aerial photography of Saipan was restricted through fear that the Japanese would be alerted and the element of surprise would be lost; whereas aerial photography of Tinian was unrestricted but surprise was not sacrificed." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bosworth needs the publisher listed
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with Jones and Schmidt and Turner
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Youtube external link makes sense to me to include as an official military production, but I'm less convinced about the value of including the other two as external links
     Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden

edit

There are, by my count, twenty-six images in the article. A lot of these are very clearly simple {{PD-USGov}} works, and I don't think there's much point listing those here unless there's a problem in documentation (though, honestly, there's only a few images I had nothing to say about in the end). The only one not some form of USGov is File:Map of the Battle of Tinian (1944).svg, which is user-made (and a featured picture). CC-licence (perfectly fine)

There is one problematic image:

File:75mm pack howitzer is fired into a Japanese-held cave on Tinian.png - No source given. It's also uploaded by Hawkeye7 fairly recently, so I'd like to hope it's trivially fixed.

Added the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that sorts the issue. While there are points below, A-class does not generally cover images at the level of detail I do, so I think at this point, we can say it Passed image review. Now, if you want it to pass image review with a higher grade, the rest of the points are valid, but they're probably beyond the A-class and even FA-class criteria, because article editors aren't expected to be image experts. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not great reproductions, but that's a quibble
edit

File:White Beach 1 on Tinian.jpg and File:White Beach 2.jpg are not great reproductions. The article would be improved as a resource if we could find the originals, but if this is what we have, it's fine. It seems a shame to have what are probably the two worst images in the article right away, though.

We don't have the originals, but there are alternative versions at [16]. I uploaded the White Beach 1 image from there. I am unsure if the one of White Beach 2 is better or not. I found other images of White Beach 1 and White Beach 2. Maybe replace them with these? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:White Beach 2 on Tinian.jpg isn't contemporary to the battle. At a guess, I'd say that was around the year 2000 or later. Probably not particularly relevant. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 02:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Higher resolution trivially available
edit

The U.S. Navy has very high resolution copies of their images readily available; we're using medium -res ones for unclear reasons. I don't think this matters for A-class, but if we can do better, we should.

I'll get this when I next have a chance, especially as some of these are potential featured pictures. I can't see how this would change the copyright status, though. That said, since you upload a lot of the images for these articles yourself, Hawkeye, talk to me sometime and I'll walk you through this. The TIFFs will display fine on pages, so there's not much reason not to just upload them as opposed to a lower-res JPEG, and if more work is to be done, well, it's still better to have the original uploaded.

I uploaded the jpegs because in the distant past I had trouble with really large tiffs. I also trimmed a couple of of them. The tiff versions can always be uploaded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Absolutely no reason to think they're problematic images, but this is something to at least attempt to fix before FA attempts.

Colour changes
edit

File:Doodlebug portable ramp.jpg is sepia in the source. I'm not sure why it was greyscaled - it was eating a LOT of visual detail. See, the thing about sepia is that the combination of saturation and level makes fine detail more visible. I've changed it to the original.

Mea culpa. I changed it to greyscale when I downloaded it. I was not aware of the advantages of sepia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this image is one of the least-well documented of the images. It doesn't appear elsewhere on history.navy.mil - I think it's detailed enough, though; it's from the Seebee Museum and no indication is given by the US Navy that it's not a U.S. Navy picture. -Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 19:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Also: if you think that one of the other images is a better choice for the infobox, let me know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of good images in this article. Now, there's two ways I like to choose an infobox image:
1. If people are looking for an image of an article's subject, the first one they're likely to click on is the infobox image. If it's very bad, they may stop using Wikipedia as a source for images for that subject. So there is a case for leading with a high-resolution image.
2. That said, it's also important that the image draws the reader in who's not interested in image reuse at all. The first image is going to get used widely; for example, it's likely to get attached to any TFA or On this Day run on the main page - they don't generally go digging deeper down the article. So a low-resolution image that's exciting can readily win out over a dull high-res one.
But the biggest rule is that it must be a good exemplar of the article's subject, so I really need to go through the article properly so I can kind of get a better feel for what's important and what's tangental. For example, File:USMC 87615 Marines load supplies aboard two LSTs in preparation for the assault on Tinian.jpg is a fantastic image, but too far off from the battle to really work as an infobox. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 02:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Hawkeye7, some comments:

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hawkeye7, one last minor comment: In Olsen 1950 and Taylor et al 1950, the correct surname of James C. Olsen is Olson, consider changing? Other than that, happy to support for promotion to A class. Matarisvan (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I'll get to this sometime over the next week. Hog Farm Talk 22:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reliability concerns with the sources and formatting is acceptable. Searching in various places brought up no major literature that I could find that isn't used here. I'll do some spot-checks; hopefully tomorrow or Friday. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks

  • [15]b, Hoffman p. 5 - OK "Ushi Point had a hard-surfaced runway 4,750 feet (1,450 m) long"
  • [83], Hoffman pp. 69-71 - OK "The nighttime actions had depleted the 4th Marine Division's ammunition, so Cates delayed attacking on 25 July until 10:00 to allow time to replenish. In the meantime, the rest of the 2nd Marine Division began landing."
  • [102], Hoffman p. 107 - issues. Article has As they advanced, the marines encountered civilians and Japanese soldiers waving white cloths. The latter had to be approached with care, as sometimes one of their number might decide to suicide and take Americans with him. while Hoffman has occasional enemy riflemen and numerous Japanese civilians who advanced waving white cloths signifying their desire to surrender. The latter had to be carefully watched lest one of their number turn into an enemy soldier bent upon destroying as many Americans as possible before meeting death himself. So the article has the soldiers as the suicide mission threat, while Hoffman has that as the civilians
     Y Whoops. Re-written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [57], Raines p. 251 - the source text is referring to an aircraft deployment during the battle for Saipan - how do we know that this state of affairs still existed for the Tinian fighting?
     Y It's in the next footnote. Four new airplanes were received on 20 July making a total of nine planes available for assignment (one plane was lost 23 June). Moved the footnote back a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [7], Cate p. 547 - OK "From the Mariana Islands, the B-29s could reach all the most significant industrial targets in Japan, and they could be supported by sea."
  • [126], Melson p. 32 - OK " It departed for Okinawa in April 1945, but the 17th and 18th Antiaircraft Artillery Battalions remained to defend the airbases"
  • [139], Harwood p. 31 - OK (image caption)
  • [44], Moore p. 82 - page range should be expanded to include p. 81, where the 10 May date is found.
     Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - some minor issues on the spot-checks. Hog Farm Talk 02:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Plum Point Bend

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Plum Point Bend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A fairly confusing ACW naval action. The Confederates launch a surprise attack against early riverine ironclads using "cottonclad" ramships. The plan actually worked because the Union vessels were largely unprepared. While two ironclads were sunk, the action accomplished nothing of long-term significance and the two ironclads were back in service in less than two months. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

This article is in great shape, and is an interesting read. I have the following comments:

  • "had pushed downriver to Fort Pillow." - I'd suggest giving a rough location for the fort
    • Added
  • "and had developed a routine of having a single mortar boat guarded by an ironclad take a position further downriver to bombard the fort, while the rest of the fleet was upriver" - this is a bit hard to follow
    • rephrased
  • "The naval component of the Federal effort was commanded by Andrew H. Foote" - did he hold a military rank? If so, please add it
    • Added
  • I'd suggest moving the map into the 'battle' section, and/or left justifying it: it appears in the section after the battle on my monitor
    • Have moved this around a bit; both the map and the Currier & Ives image were added by another editor and I never got around to re-arranging
  • The para starting with 'A shot from Carondelet' is somewhat lengthy
    • Split
  • I'd suggest swapping the order of the second and third last paras of the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick-D I'm not sure that I agree with this one - at least to me, it makes sense to finish all discussion of Plum Point Bend before moving on to the rest of the campaign for control of the upper Mississippi, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry for my very slow response here. My comments have been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 - Thanks for taking a look! I've fixed the licensing. Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good - passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • The articles uses reputable sources that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
  • All sources are well-formatted
  • Spot checks: 6, 7, 22a, 50 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - I am aware that based on discussions elsewhere, I need to change the nomenclature used here from "Federal" to "Union". I intend on doing this but I am in the process of moving so I won't be able to get to this right away. Hog Farm Talk 23:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright

edit

@Hog Farm: Placeholder - aware of Federal vs. Union Pendright (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Second thoughts: Would you rather I waited until you substitute Union for Federal, or I could do it during the course of my review? Your call! Pendright (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - either one works for me. I'm out of town for work this week and won't be able to get to anything until late Saturday or maybe even Sunday. I still need to finish up work at Big Black River Bridge too. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Okay, then, I'll substitute them as I progress through the review.
@Hog Farm: I have decided to renege on my offer to review this article. I've changed Federal to Union for only the Lead and Background sections. All the best - Pendright (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I'll get this switched over myself. Hog Farm Talk 23:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

edit

To follow. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why don't you just add the location in main text? Would be a useful addition somewhere, surely
    • Done
  • "Union forces commanded captured" something missing here
    • Oops, fixed
  • A word or two as to the relevance of the Tennessee River and Cumberland River to the Mississippi, for the non-American reader?
    • I've rephrased and rearranged some text to try to make it clearer that the fall of these positions forced the Confedertes to withdraw further down the Mississippi
  • "position was captured on April 8"?
    • Done
  • "which was 50 miles (80 km) on the river north of Memphis, Tennessee" this seems a little awkward. Perhaps "which was 50 miles (80km) north of Memphis, Tennessee, on the river"?
    • Done
  • "Foote's Union vessels pursued." Pursued what? You've said that the works the Union just captured were already abandoned
    • Done
  • "Captain Charles Henry Davis took command"
    • Done
  • "The Union ships were known as the Western Flotilla." I feel like this should be mentioned earlier on, feels out of place here
    • This has been moved up to the first paragraph, where Foote is first mentioned
  • Beginning of third background paragraph could be simplified to "Captain James Montgomery and eight cottonclad rams, known as the River Defense Fleet, were located off of Fort Pillow. They were faster..."
    • partially done, although I've kept the reference to vessels being siphoned off elsewhere as I think that is useful
  • Would be useful to mention the size of the Union force, as you do for the Confederates
    • I've indicated the count of ironclads. I'm having trouble finding a source for the total number of auxillary vessels but that's less important as only the ironclads and one of the mortar boats were innolved in this battle
  • While I think cottonclads have been referred to as gunboats, for the sake of consistency in the article I think they should be referred to as cottonclads throughout
    • Done
  • Give M. Jeff Thompson's rank
    • Done
  • Suggest noting that Bragg is one of the cottonclads, as it might be thought that this is a separate vessel for Thompson
    • Done
  • "Confederate vessels passed through Plum Point Bend" this is the first mention of the article namesake. Needs a word or two explaining that (I assume) this is one of the bends in the river which the Union were bombarding from behind. Might be useful to add the location, per infobox, at this point
    • I've tried to elaborate on this a bit
  • "quarter" is naval terminology that needs a link or explanation
    • Linked
  • "The damage forced the vessel out of the action"...because she could not manoeuvre?
    • Yes, added
  • "Union lookouts had spotted"
    • done
  • "third Confederate ship, CSS General Sumter to ram her." comma after Sumter
    • Done
  • "The commander of General Sumter had offered"
    • Done
  • Link boarding
    • Done
  • Give Stembel his rank
    • Done
  • "General Sumter was also badly damaged by a Carondelet shot and forced to withdraw from the battle; the fire came from Carondelet"
    • Done
  • "intending to ram it", "badly damaging it" you generally use the female pronoun
    • Fixed here, and at several other places in the article
  • "badly damaging it. The blow badly damaged the ironclad's bow" overly repetitive
    • I've rephrased this part a little bit
  • "The commander of General Earl Van Dorn was wounded during the action.[42] General Earl Van Dorn's commander, Captain Isaac Fulkerson" again repetitive, surely this could be merged
    • Rephrased/consolidated some
  • "from both the Confederate vessels" somewhat suggests that she is being fired on by two, rather than three, ships. Suggest removing "both"
    • Removed
  • "and accidental undershots"?
    • Done
  • "The former and Cairo attempted to save Mound City" this suggests you have already mentioned the arrival of Cairo, but you haven't
    • I've clarified a little bit - this was pretty much the first thing Cairo did upon arrival
  • "but Cincinnati was unable to reach the shore and sank in 11 feet (3.4 m) of water" > "but before she could do so sank in 11 feet..."?
    • Done, with a slight variance
  • "the fighting had lasted about 70 minutes"
    • Done
  • "the Cairo, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis"
    • Done
  • "...and St. Louis for their minimal roles in the action." Did St. Louis do anything at all?
    • Not really; I've mentioned in the article now that by the time St. Louis showed up, the Confederates were gone
  • "one sailor was killed"
    • Done
  • "instead of exploding within them" Suggest this change for clarity for the less military-minded reader
    • Done
  • "compared the appearance of the River Defense Fleet's smokestacks after the battle to nutmeg graters." need a word or two more to clarify that this is relation to damage they received, the following sentence doesn't totally manage this
    • I've added a clause
  • "cottoncladding" should this be two words?
    • Maybe? I've split it into two words as Google searching seems to indicate that this does not exist in the one-word form
  • "at the waterlines"
    • Done
  • "except for General Earl Van Dorn"
    • Done
  • Link Union on first lede and main text mention
    • Done
  • "in hopes of" > "in the hope of"
    • Done
  • "Two further Union ironclads were able to steam from the main group upriver"
    • Done
  • "it was later run aground on a shoal, where it sank." pronoun change again
    • This has been fixed
  • Main text says Corinth was abandoned by the Confederates, while lede says it was captured by the Union. These are slightly different events, so suggest going with one or the other description
    • I've tried to clean it up a bit - is this better
  • A word or two in main text about why the loss of Corinth made Pillow untenable?
    • Added
  • Add the names of the commanders to the infobox, as well as the strengths of the fleets engaged
    • Done

Support Looks good to me too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to A class. Awaiting bot confirmation. Donner60 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Jozo Tomasevich

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Jozo Tomasevich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. It is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after Radoje Pajović which is now an FA. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

I'm surprised that this interesting and accessible article hasn't attracted any reviews so far: here's mine:

  • The first sentence of the lead is rather long - do we need "and after his retirement was appointed professor emeritus of economics at San Francisco State University" in this sentence given that it already establishes that he was an academic?
Excellent point, moved down to near the end of the second para. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting with " Positively reviewed by scholars such as " would probably work better as two sentences
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More broadly, the material in the lead noting reviews of the books seems out of place: just say it was well reviewed or similar
The reason I have included this is the ongoing rejection of Tomasevich's conclusions about the Chetniks by some prominent Serb historians, so I have included some non-Serb reviewers, a Serb historian's review, and a longer-term view for an accurate indication of the appropriate weight for each. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it's necessary for the lead, as it's meant to summarise the article. The details on who said what are best covered in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became an American citizen" - do we know when?
I have looked and looked, even finding a reliable source for him being American was hard, so no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Scholarship' section would benefit by being broken up into sub-sections
OK, I've had a crack at this, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be interesting to know how Tomasevich conducted research into Yugoslavia from California: I imagine accessing resources would have been challenging.
He was able to visit Yugoslavia and London to access archives, and both books on WWII have massive bibliographies including captured German and Italian documents held by the US on microfilm. He had great access to the huge Yugoslav archives, and they include a lot of German documents captured by the Partisans late in the war when large numbers of other German documents were lost or destroyed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have taken out 2024, but it is really WP:BLUE as anyone can search Worldcat for Tomasevich and find it hasn't been published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nick, will get onto your comments asap. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Nick-D. See what you think of my edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nick-D, lead reviews dropped and summarised per your comment above. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Pendright

edit

Placeholder - I'll start when the above review is completed. Pendright (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PM - I'm reversing myself and posting my comments at this time. If some overlapping occurs, you have my apology. Regards! Pendright (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Josip "Jozo" Tomasevich (1908 – October 15, 1994; Serbo-Croatian: Josip Tomašević) was an American economist and historian who was a leading expert on the economic and social history of the former Yugoslavia, and after his retirement was appointed professor emeritus of economics at San Francisco State University.
  • was an American economist and historian -> how is this specifically exemplified in the body of the article?
It is from his obituary by Vucinich, in the Legacy section. But I thought it was pretty clear from the descriptions of his work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Thanks for your response. I did not phrase my comment well, so let me try again. He is introduced as an American economist and historian, but all of his works relate to Yugoslavia. In which case-as I see it-Jozo" Tomasevich was an American economist and historian whose specialty was the economic and social history of the former Yugoslavia. I leave this-quibble-to your good judgement? Pendright (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and after his retirement "he" was
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomasevich was born in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, part of Austria-Hungary, and after completing his schooling, gained a doctorate in economics at the University of Basel in Switzerland.
"he" "earned"
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mid-1930s, he worked at the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade and published three well-received books on Yugoslav national debt, fiscal policy, and money and credit, respectively.
  • Should it be "Yugoslav's" national debt...?
Yugoslavia's, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop the comma after credit
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938, he moved to the US as the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and conducted research at Harvard University before joining the academic staff of Stanford University.
US -> first use?
Okay, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He combined research and teaching there for twenty-five years until his retirement in 1973, broken by a year teaching at Columbia University in 1954.
"which was" broken by a year "of" teaching at
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters, one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia, both of which were positively reviewed.
Look this version over: Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich had two books published on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the economy of Yugoslavia at the time and both of them received positive reviews.
Yes, almost. Changed slightly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Positively reviewed by scholars such as Phyllis Auty, Alexander Vucinich and John C. Campbell of the Council on Foreign Relations, it was also criticised for bias against Serbs, its length and repetition, by the political scientist Alex N. Dragnich.
  • What was "Positively reviewed"?
  • [but[ it was
  • Drop the comma after repetition
These have been addressed by a suggested change from Nick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomasevich died in California in 1994.
Might this sentence be better placed before the sentence begining with 2002?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It focused on [the] collaboration and the quisling governments in Yugoslavia during the war , with a strong emphasis on the Axis puppet state , [and] the so-called Independent State of Croatia.
Look this over
I think this would change the meaning. the focus on collaborations was across the board, not just the Independent State of Croatia, and that state was the only Axis puppet state, the rest were puppet governments and other collaborationist factions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, part of Austria-Hungary.
"which was" part of
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Košarni Do is near the village of Donja Banda and is today part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.
"in 2023 was"
I've just gone with dropping "today". This is essentially a WP:BLUE assertion which could change one day, but is unlikely to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He [Nado] returned to the village in 1894, [and he] married the daughter of his first cousin and worked as a farmer.
Look this over
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".[1]
"and" availing himself
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other brother living in Košarni Do received the share of the fourth brother , who [,] by then[,] was a merchant mariner living in New Zealand.[4]
Look this over
done, thanks, much better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948, he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University).
Drop the comma after 1948
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University.[1]
Replace the first he with his name
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship

edit
  • According to Vucinich, from when Tomasevich was 25 until his death at 86, he engaged himself in a succession of research projects , some of which [some] were very extensive.
Look this over
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1934 and 1938, Tomasevich published three books.
Suggest -> Tomasevich had three books published?
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following year, he published Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]
he "had" published?
tweaked, but done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]
and "it" gave
tweaked in a similar way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irwin T. Sanders of the Department of Sociology at the University of Kentucky reviewed the book in 1956 and stated that it was "the best book available for anyone wishing to understand the socio-economic pre-Communist background of Yugoslavia", contained realistic evaluations of the peasant political parties, and concluded that "there is little question about the soundness of his economic analysis or his description of the participation of the peasant in national life".
Think about splitting this 72 word sentence?
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, and [which was] subtitled The Chetniks , [and] appeared in 1975.
Look this over
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auty praised Tomasevich's detachment from the subject, and stated that it was "likely to remain the standard book on this subject for a long time."
and "she" stated
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second volume of his planned trilogy – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – concentrated on collaboration and the quisling governments in Yugoslavia during the war,[1] with a strong emphasis on the Axis puppet state, the so-called Independent State of Croatia led by Ante Pavelić, the head of the fascist Ustaše movement, and was published posthumously in 2001 with editing from his daughter Neda.
Could you split this 67 word sentence?
Yes, definitely. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a review of the book published the following year, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst lecturer and German historian Klaus Schmider described Tomasevich's grasp of the sources in five languages as "stupendous",[19] and [they] observed that the result was well worth the twenty-six-year wait between the volumes.
Add "they"
he, but done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and as of 2024 , [it] remains unpublished.[19]
Suggest the above change
This was changed by a response to an earlier review comment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is it for now! Pendright (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again, Pendright! Your reviews always result in improvements to the grammar and clarity of articles I have worked on. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Thanks! BTW, I left one quibble

Image review - pass

edit

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned.

Source review - pass

edit
  • The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style
  • All claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
  • Formatting is fine
  • Spot checks: 1a, 2, 12a, 12b, 18 - okay.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] and "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University"." - I don't know that this is quite grammatical
Absolutely. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why he moved all the way across the country in '54 to teach for a year at Columbia?
No, I have seen nothing in any sources that mentions his motive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a more recent source to support that the work is still unpublished? I imagine that there probably isn't, but its worth asking I guess
Other than a link to a search page on Worldcat, I don't think so (and I'm not sure that would work anyway). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work as usual; I anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm! See what you think about the last point. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current status quo is better than a worldcat link. Supporting, with the caveat that I'm not familiar at all with the scholarship of this area and that I don't read any languages other than English. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60: A class pass

edit

Promoted article to A class. Donner60 (talk) 06:14, 30 April 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Fort McKavett State Historic Site

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Fort McKavett State Historic Site (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is another Texas fort and, briefly, island of Anglo-American settlement in the West Texas plains. Here's to a sixth A-class! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I'll review this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Texas was annexed by the United States of America in 1845,[4] which led to the start of the Mexican-American War the next year" - isn't this a bit of the over-simplification of the causes of the Mexican War? Maybe which was one of the main causes of the Mexican-American War the next year or something like that
  • Yes and no. Annexation itself can be said to be and to not be the main cause of the war, because what Texas was was a breakaway Mexican territory that legitimized its independence with a treaty that the post-pre-Santa Anna Mexican government refused to recognize. And then after annexation, Polk parked US Army soldiers in disputed territory to back up the claim to the Nueces strip. The Mexican Army attacking those soldiers was what enabled Polk to secure war from Congress and toss Mexico out of what is now the state of Texas. But while that could be considered the cause, those troops were there because of the annexation. Suffice to say, I believe the current wording of "led to the ... war" is apt. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking more of the idea that I've read (don't remember where) that the US was basically looking for a pretext to fight Mexico and then get a landgrab after the war but that's well beyond the scope of this article; what's in the article is fine. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in the treaty that ended the war in 1848 annexed what is presently the Southwestern United States.[5] The next year, gold was discovered in California, enticing an unprecedented number of white migrants to go west, across Texas" - I'd recommend tweaking this a little bit. The major immigration happened in the following year (1849), but wasn't the Sutter's Mill gold find in 1848, the same year as the treaty?
  • " In 1851, General Persifor Frazer Smith, commander of the Department of Texas, " - it is possible to use Smith's exact rank? While this wasn't a formal rank in the US Army in 1851, simply "General" is a term that formally refers to a specific four-star rank today (and also in CS Army).
  • Yes, I think so. According to the Handbook of Texas, he should be a brevetted Major General in 1851 (added). Ah, hm. Old Army in Texas, page 114, lists Smith as a Colonel. 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied " - do the sources indicate if this is just a paper formality, intergovernmental dealings, or did somebody actually own this land at the time?
  • as part of Wikipedia Library Project MUSE, The Old Army in Texas: A Research Guide to the U.S. Army in Nineteenth Century Texas by Wooster & Smith has some more detail on units stationed at the fort - it gives a listing of what units provided the garrison in each year
  • Ah yes. As I recall, this was the only source I am aware that alleges that McKavett was a PoW camp. Every other one I consulted said that the Confederate/Texas frontier forces were minuscule and fairly mobile. They did camp at abandoned US Army forts during the war, but didn't dig back in at most. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • this by North Texas University has a throwaway mention of "Fort McKavett [...] was operated briefly as a Civil War POW camp" but no footnote of course. That Texas state historic site website is sourced to someone's 1890s memoir so not great there. I've searched in the relevant volume of the ORs and McKavett isn't mentioned by name. Some stuff that I wouldn't consider to be reliable enough suggests that the POW camp aspect was holding one company of the 8th Infantry for a couple months. This is barely verifiable and quite miniscule so on second thought I don't think this warrants a mention given the shaky level of sourcing that can be turned up. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fort McKavett was nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places on June 18, 1969, and was included on July 6, 1971" - infobox has July 14, 1971

I think that's it from me for a general content perspective. Hog Farm Talk 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vami, I've left a couple replies above - I'm fine with the article as is on both points. Please let me know when you're done looking over the Wooster & Smith source. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit
  • Consider archiving online sources.
  • "Frazer, Robert Walter (1965)" pre-dates ISBNs. It looks like the version you are citing is a 1972 reprint of the 1965 edition, so should take |year=1972 |orig-year=1965.
  • MOS:YEARRANGE prefers year ranges to be written out in full, ie. YYYY–YYYY, not YYYY–YY; this should be changed in various places.
  • Rephrase to avoid the WP:EASTEREGG link on "a presidio": I expected it to wikilink to a page explaining what a presidio was, but instead it took me to the specific one.
  • "Construction of the post began immediately and saw rapid progress as though there were.." Need a comma after "as".
  • "..for Texas settlements." Would this not be better written as "..for Texan settlements."?
  • "..and the return of the US Army to Texas as on June 19, 1865.." I don't think the "as" is needed here?
  • "..Sherman narrowly missed being killed.." Another WP:EASTEREGG link.
  • "..who arrived at the fort in 1881." To help with clarity and tense, recommend "..who had arrived.."
  • "..established a 1 mile (1.6 km) to its north." Either remove the "a" or the "1".
  • "..but wound up with.." isn't very encyclopaedic language.
  • "..for Fort McKavett C.S.A..." Do we know what C.S.A. stands for? And unless there is an exceptional reason, space out the initials per our MOS.
  • "..during its military operated were.." This should be "operation", not "operated".
  • I find the title of the article curious; the vast majority of the article is about Fort McKavett, only the Preservation section and the first sentence of the subsequent Grounds and architecture section seem to be about Fort McKavett State Historic Site. It doesn't affect the ACR, but I'd recommend a page move once it is complete.

That's it from me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I made a small edit to fix the Frazer short citation. The year range issue remains outstanding, however as the A-class criteria states "does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant", I'm happy to support this irrespective. Nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Four images only:

- all images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • The articles uses reputable sources that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
  • All sources are well-formatted
  • Spot checks: 2, 9a, 65a, 69 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - Vami IV has sadly passed on - User talk:Vami IV#Condolences. I will try to take this one on; it is in very good shape and shouldn't require much more work for promotion. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you, HF. Put yourself down as co-nom; I think we'd also need to discount your support if you take over, unless any other coords have another opinion -- if so you could just collapse your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances, I don't see the need for this. The support can stand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed – comments Support

edit

Feedback as follows:

  • In the First Occupation by the US Army section, it says "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied...": who was the land leased from?
  • Construction of the post began immediately: because of the different dates mentioned in the first paragraph, it is not immediately clear when this was. Could we say something like "Once the site on the south bank of the San Saba had been decided upon, construction of the post began immediately..."?
  • In the Use by Confederate Texas, 1861–65 section, it says "...career soldier Benjamin McCulloch. McCulloch passed...": could this be rephrased to avoid back-to-back mention of McCulloch?
  • ...began regular patrols for and pursuit of raiding indigenous peoples: this "for and" wording seems really odd to me.
  • ...subsequently issued orders for more aggressive measures against the Plains Nations. Maybe put a link to [Plains Indians] on Plains Nations?
  • The "Grounds and architecture" section seems odd to me. The first sentence could finish off the previous section, while the rest could be integrated into the "Use as military outpost" section.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Please note that a response to Zawed's comments should bring this one to a favorable close. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: - all the rest are addressed except for the first two, which I cannot resolve without access to Sullivan. Unfortunately, the nominator has passed on and the nearest publicly held copy of Sullivan to me is about 150 miles away. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: @Zawed: I have added a ref note, citing the 1934 Crimmins article, that several persons claimed ownership of the land but the government paid a man named Robinson for the lease.
Since the camp had been moved several times, and the sentence about construction "following immediately" is in the text right after the mention of the lease, it might be logical to assume that construction on the fort did not begin until after the lease was signed. Some doubt may be shed on this becaue Crimmins wrote a series of articles in The Southwestern Historical Quarterly from 1947 to 1950 in which he provided edited notes from Lt. Colonel W. G. Freeman's Report on the Eighth Military Department from his inspection trip in 1853. In Crimmins, M. L. “W. G. Freeman’s Report on the Eighth Military Department (Continued).” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 3, 1950, pp. 308–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30235631. Accessed 17 Mar. 2024. Page 308, Freeman's report on Fort McKavett, which he inspected on August 19, 1853. On this page Freeman notes that lumber has been cut and within 30 miles all necessary wood for construction can be found. Yet on pages 308-309, Freeman said the buildings "are put up of stone."
A camp being established, a few miles away, in March 1852 and then moved would appear to rule out a March 1852 date for the beginning of construction. Some doubt on the 1855 date for construction of the fort not beginning until after the lease was signed does not appear to correspond with Freeman's language about stone buildings being put up. But I note another possibility that I can surmise in the next comment.
Perhaps the construction after the signing date after the lease could be based on the full structures with all the wood needed for completion installed not being started until after the lease was signed which could justify the 1855 date, though the inspection report could be read to specify an interim date.
This is the only information I could find about the date of beginning of the construction. The bottom line is that I could not find what I would consider a definite, specific statement concerning the date construction began. Maybe it is given in Sullivan or some other source - or maybe what I found is all that can be found and the date was some time between March 1852 and the signing of the lease. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is apparently a copy of Sullivan at a library near-ish me. What pages do you need? Schierbecker (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think page 10 is the relevant one - who the land was leased from, and what "Construction of the post began immediately " is immediately after. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will try to make a trip tomorrow. If not, next weekend. Schierbecker (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: - Thanks to Schierbecker I've been able to address this more clearly. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I saw a note had been added but the referencing style was inconsistent so I sorted this (stuffed it up initially!). I have added my support now, it is good to see this one get across the line. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:55, 18 April 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Big Black River Bridge

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Big Black River Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A brief, and rather lopside, battle during the Vicksburg campaign. The Confederate commander, Pemberton, was concerned about Loring's divison, which had been isolated from the rest of the army during the retreat from the Battle of Champion Hill the day before. To hold a bridgehead east of the Big Black River, Pemberton positioned Bowen's division, which had been mauled the day before, and then Vaughn's brigade of inexperienced conscripts from a region hostile to the Confederacy. McClernand's Union corps appears and deploys in front of the Confederate line. One Union brigade commander on the far right, Lawler, moves his troops into an old river meander, and then unleashes a 3-minute charge that routs Vaughn. The remainder of the Confederates fled to avoid being cut off, and roughly 1,750 Confederates and 18 cannon are captured. Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit

Nice to see you around and submitting articles for review again!

  • Ref #57 should have a "p" rather than "pp".
    • Fixed
  • Ref #64 should have a "pp" rather than "p".
    • Fixed
  • Ref #83 should have a "pp" rather than "p".
    • Fixed
  • Consider archiving online sources.
    • Done
  • "..important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi was still.." While I know you think MOS:GEOCOMMA is a "load of crock", it remains part of the MOS :P
    • Added
  • "A Union attack on December 29, was defeated decisively.."}} No need for that comma.
    • Removed; I find myself guessing a lot as to if a comma is needed or not
  • Conversely, I think "On April 29, the Union Navy's Mississippi Squadron commanded by David Dixon Porter attempted to bombard.." would benefit from commas around "commanded by David Dixon Porter".
    • commas added
  • "..on May 14, with the Union taking the city.." Consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Repheased
  • "..to prevent Loring from being cut off of from the main.."}} To many words. Remove the of?
    • Removed "of"
  • Wl "enfilade" to Enfilade and defilade
    • Done
  • "This position was manned by.." This sentence feels weird for two reasons; first starting a paragraph like this makes it feel like a run-on from the previous paragraph, so maybe the paragraph structure needs adjusting. Secondly, the final sentence of the previous paragraph also started "This position.."
    • Rephrased
  • "..considered this unit to be his best troops.." Maybe switch "to be" to "to contain" or "to comprise".
    • This has been rephrased already by Nick-D to remove "troops" - is it better now
  • "Vaughn's men and the 4th Mississippi were position in an area.." Should be "positioned".
    • Fixed
  • "..with Benton's men taking up.." Again, consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Rephrased
  • "One of Green's regiments, the 1st Missouri Cavalry Regiment (dismounted) had remained.."}} Needs a comma after "(dismounted)".
    • Added
  • "Lindsey advanced his brigade ahead along the railroad.." "ahead" feels redundant to "advanced" (particularly as it goes on to say "placing his men ahead of the rest of the Union line."
    • Removed "ahead"
  • "..and had three regiments |}the.." Stray code, should it be an endash to match the one later?
    • Fixed; that's what happens when you type {{end}} instead of {{snd}}
  • Wikilink "swale"; I had no idea what it meant.
    • I've rephrased to avoid the word - I wasn't using it as a technical term and instead in a sense of a generic depression in the ground. The link for it uses it as more of a technical term, so I don't really want to link it. I guess maybe it's an Americanism?
  • "This advance was accomplished without significant numbers of casualties." You could probably get rid of "numbers of" if you wanted.
    • Done
  • "..with men either running away or surrendering." Again, consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Done
  • "..which has been positioned.." Should be "had", not "has".
    • Fixed
  • Switched back up to the lead: "After defeating Confederate forces in several battles intermediate battles.." Too many words.
    • Removed a stray word

A nice piece of work. Nothing major identified, just copy edits really. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above - everything should be addressed now. As is probably obvious, grammar/syntax/spelling is not my strong suit. Hog Farm Talk 05:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

This article is in good shape, and I have only minor comments:

  • "Bowen's men had been roughly handled at Champion Hill" - I'd suggest using more specific language here
    • I've clarified this
  • "Pemberton decided that Johnston's orders were not compatible with previous directives that Pemberton had received" - I'd suggest replacing the second 'Pemberton' with 'he' or similar. More broadly, 'Pemberton' probably appears too many times in this para.
    • I've edited out three of the uses of Pemberton in this paragraph
  • "from a region disloyal to the Confederacy" - perhaps say where
    • Clarified - East Tennessee
  • "Two cannons positioned themselves " - I'd suggest tweaking this to note that the guns 'were positioned'
  • "Union casualties were 279 men" - was this the total killed, wounded and prisoners?
    • Yes, I have noted this
  • The article notes the poor state of the Confederate force, and it would be helpful to note somewhere that the Union force was of a much higher quality to help explain the very lopsided result of this battle. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: - I haven't seen much in the literature discussing the state of the Union forces at Big Black River bridge (and none of the sources seem to know at all what Union numerical strength was, as none of the sources I've used and a few others I didn't provide a figure). I've clarified this a bit - Bowen's men were Pemberton's elite troops, but were badly exhausted. The ensuing rout seems to be simply due to the attack striking Vaughn's men, who really shouldn't have been put in a key rear guard situation anyway. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Sorry for the slow response here - I thought I'd responded last week. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

edit

Didn't notice anything particularly problematic (are books the only sources available?) but "Grant's 12-year old son Fred was wounded in the leg while following the pursuit of the routed Confederates" makes me kind of wonder what a child was doing in this war zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - Yes, books seem to be the only sources (I've checked JSTOR and Project MUSE for journal articles and didn't see anything useful), which is fairly common for coverage of the Vicksburg campaign - the best stuff is all in books. As to Fred - I've added a brief bit explaining that he followed his dad through the whole campaign. The 1860s certainly were a different time - John Clem was a non-commissioned officer at age 12. Charles Edwin King was mortally wounded at Antietam at age 13. The Confederates had an organized unit of high schoolers charge a battery at the Battle of New Market. Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: For your infomation: Child soldiers in the American Civil War Pendright (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All okay Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Further reading uses a different style from Sources
    • Switched over to match
  • "Campbell, CA" Can we write the name of the state in full? American state abbreviations can be very confusing.
    • I've actually removed this one; a review of the table of contents suggests that none of the essays in this work deal directly with this battle
  • Link Jay Luvaas
    • Done
  • Sources are of good quality.
  • Spot checks not done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - thanks for the review! I've addressed the various concerns. Hog Farm Talk 19:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good - passing - great work! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

@Hog Farm: I expect to start in a few days! Pendright (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I leave you with a passel of comments and look forward to your responses. Pendright (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • During the American Civil War, the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was a key point on the Mississippi River.
Since the ACW is spelled out in the previous sentence could abbreviate it to 'war' here
Done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On April 30, 1863, a Union army commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant began crossing onto the east side of the Mississippi River.
Why - add just a bit of context?
I've added a bit - is this better? Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Yes - Pendright (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After [engaging and] defeating Confederate forces in several intermediate battles, Grant's army defeated Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton's Confederates at the decisive Battle of Champion Hill on May 16.
Consider the above change
Done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One division of Pemberton's army, commanded by Major General William W. Loring, had become cut off from Pemberton's main body during the retreat from Champion Hill.
Consider this version: During the retreat from Champion Hill, one division of Pemberton's army, commanded by Major General William W. Loring, was cutoff from Pemberton's main body.
Mostly done - I've been under the impression that "cutoff" is a noun, and "cut off" as two words is correct for when it is being used as a verb. I may be wrong though. Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Your impression is correct - my apology! Pendright (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pemberton did not know of the location of Loring's division, and [he] held a bridg[e]head on the east side of the Big Black River on the morning of May 17 to cover Loring's anticipated withdrawal across the river [on the morning of May 17].
Consider the above changes
done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Union Brigadier General Michael Kelly Lawler advanced his troops into an old meander in advance of the main Union line on the north end of the battlefield.
advanced his troops to an old meander on the river?
Well, the meander wasn't "on" the river anymore. It was formerly part of the river but was by then no longer part of the river. I'm not sure what the best phrasing for this is. Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>As a verb, my dictionary says, meander is
a river or road that follows a winding course.
<>As a noun, my dictionary says, meander is
a winding curve or bend of a river or road.
If either definition fits as it's now phrased, so be il. If not, rephrase it as you understand either definition. Pendright (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I see the issue now. Meander scar is a more accurate description of the geographic feature in question, so I've made changes in the article to refelct meander scar, not meander, which should resolve the issue
<>Great! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Th[e]is withdrawal became chaotic and roughly 1,750 Confederate soldiers and 18 cannons were captured; with the cannons [were] captured due to an error that left their [because the teams of horses [horse-drawn cannons were erronouesly] positioned on the other side of the Big Black River.
  • Consider the above changes
  • Partially done, except for the last part - the cannons were where they were intended to be; it was the horses that were out of place
<>Okay Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number reported under "Aftertnath" is 1,751?
  • I've used this number in the lead now
  • The surviving Confederate soldiers entered the fortifications at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and the siege of Vicksburg began the next day[;] , [it] end[ed] ing in [the] a Confederate surrender on July 4, [1863].
Consider the above changes
Done

Background

  • The strategically important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was still in Confederate hands, [and it served] serving as a strong defensive position that commanded the river and pr[e]vented the Union from separating the two halves of the Confederacy.[4]
Consider the above changes
Done
  • An attempt to cut Williams's Canal across a meander of the river in June and July, bypassing Vicksburg, failed.[7][8]
Consider: An attempt during June and July to cut-across Williams's Canal, a meander in the river, that bypassed Vicksburg failed.
I don't think I agree with this one. The proposed phrasing could suggest that the canal itself was a meander, which it wasn't
<>I stand corrected!Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grant ordered a retreat after a supply depot and part of his supply line were destroyed during the Holly Springs Raid on December 20 and Forrest's West Tennessee Raid.
  • Since Grant did not order a retreat until after the his supply lines were destroyed this might be a better way to phrase it?
  • I don't think I'm understanding what the needed change is here
<>My point is that readers are told he ordered a retreat before they knew why. If you are more comfortable with it as is, let it stand. Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-arranged things. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the date apply to both raids?
  • Rephrased a bit
  • [Then] A [a]fter diverting up the Yazoo River, Sherman's men began skirmishing with Confederate soldiers [who were] defending a line of hills above the Chickasaw Bayou.
Consider the above changes
Done
  • The advance along the west bank of the Mississippi began on March 29, and [it] was spearheaded by Major General John A. McClernand's [XIII Corps] troops , the XIII Corps.
Consider the above changes
Done

Prelude'

  • On April 29, the Union Navy's Mississippi Squadron, commanded by David Dixon Porter, attempted to bombard the Confederate defenses at Grand Gulf, Mississippi, but the resulting Battle of Grand Gulf failed to drive the Confederates away.
attempted [?] to bombard
rephrased
  • On the morning of May 12, McPherson's encountered Confederate troops near Raymond, Mississippi, bringing on the Battle of Raymond.
McPherson's or McPherson?
I was missing a word here
<>Okay! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A delaying action was fought on May 14.[26]
A bit of context here would help?
I've added some context for this
  • However, Johnston then marched his army away from the area in which a combination with Pemberton could easily be made.
Could "have been" easily made
Corrected
  • While Pemberton favored making a stand behind the Big Black River, he was convinced by some of his subordinate officers to make an offensive strike towards where Grant's supply line was believed to be.[29]
Is towards necessary?
Removed Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pemberton did not know that Grant had forgone utilizing a traditional line of communications during his movement inland.[30]
  • What is the significance of this to readers
  • The sentence above does not seem to transition well with the one below?
Yes! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the Confederates began a difficult march, Grant moved west in three columns towards Edwards.[31]
Why was the march difficult?
Bad roads and a washed-out bridge - I've added this Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Good! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

  • [In preparing for what was likely to transoire,] Pemberton had a portion of his army hold a [the] line east of the Big Black River , in order to prevent Loring from being cut off from the main Confederate body at the crossing.
  • cutoff is one word
  • What crossing?
  • In early May[37] the Confederate defense line had been laid out by Samuel H. Lockett.[38]
  • defense line, or defensive line?
  • Change had been to was
  • The works were made of cotton bales and dirt.
  • works seems more like a collective noun?
  • The defensive line of the previous sentence seems to be the works in this sentence, and the works is also used in some sentences that follow - in which case readers need some clarity of the term.
<>Great!Pendright (talk)
  • To the south lay a body of water named Gin Lake[,] ; the Confederate right flank was at the lake , with the line running north to the Big Black River, which made a bend east of the bridge across the Big Black River.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The [tracks] path of the railroad ran on a raised [roadbed] embankment.
  • Consider the above changes
  • I'm unable to find how this sentence relaates to any other sentence, fact or idea?
  • I think it's helpful to describe the effects of the railroad on the terrain of the field of battle, but I'm okay with removing it if you feel strongly that it is irrelevant Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Confederate line was just west of the bayou, and trees were felled at the bayou to form abatis.
"an" abatis
Done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bowen commanded this 5,000-man force, which he deemed insufficent to strongly man the entire Confederate defensive works.[44]
insufficent -> sp?
Good catch - I wish there was a spell check feature in the wikitext window Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Confederates had 18 cannon.[35]
Why is cannon sigular?
Not sure, changed. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaughn's men and the 4th Mississippi were positioned in an area north of the railroad where the enemy was least expected to attack, and Brigadier General Martin E. Green's brigade held the far left.[49]
Change enemy to the Union
Done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Confederates were forced to retreat, they would have [had] to cross open ground to the bridge and Dot, which would become bottlenecks in a retreat.
Consider the above chabge
I'm not sure that fits the tense structure of the rest of the sentence, although my grasp of grammar isn't always the best (thank you, Missouri public schools system) Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early on the morning of May 17, McClernand's troops advanced through Edwards, and then encountered the Confederate line.
Drop the comma after Edwards or add they after then
Comma removed Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Illinoisans encountered the Confederate lines,[51] and then took up position in the woods facing the north end of the Confederate line.
  • Add "they" atter and
  • took up "a" position
  • Benton's men took up a position in the fields east of the woods to on the Union right, and Brigadier General Michael Kelly Lawler's brigade formed south of the road.[52]
is it "to" or "on'
"on"; corrected. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This movement worried Carr, who shifted Lawler to Benton's right, while Brigadier General Peter J. Osterhaus's division deployed to the south.
Drop the comma after Carr
done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two cannons positioned themselves in a small clearing between the right of the woods and the Big Black River, with the 22nd Iowa Infantry Regiment in support.
  • Two cannons positioned themselves -> how can this be?
  • "and" with the
  • This position allowed Lawler to enfilade the Confederate position east of the bayou, as well as part of the primary defensive works.[60][61]
Instead of enfilade, how about the ordinary words of a dictionary: direct a volley of gunfire along the length of a target, or something similar?
I don't know. I think it's good to use technical terms when appropriate. I've added another link to enfilade here, as I think the duplicate link is excusable. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Let it stand, but Wikipedia tells us to be clear, concise, and reader friendly. Plain english should be used without jargon. Pendright (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two regiments sent from Garrard's brigade to the right took the position previously occupired by the 22nd Iowa, who [and they] also moved in[on]to the meander.
Consider the above changes
Done, except for the into/onto; I think that part works better as is with the feature identified as a meander scar now. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • occupired -> sp
  • Colonel William Kinsman, the commander of the 23rd Iowa, proposed to Lawler that his regiment should attack the Confederates[;] , [Kinsman] reasoning [was] that the Confederates would only have time to fire one volley before the Union soliders reached the defenses[,] and that the Confederates might not put up a stiff fight after the Champion Hill defeat.
  • Consider the above changes, but since this sentence is over 50 words you might want to split it?
  • soliders -> sp
  • Lawler ordered a charge by his whole brigade[;] , with the 21st and 23rd Iowa in the front rank while the other two regiments charged behind.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 49th and 69th Indiana joined the attack[;] ,[67] while Lawler's men advanced at an angle across Green's front, [and] striking one of Vaughn's regiments, the 61st Tennessee Infantry Regiment.[68]
Consider the above changes
Done, with some other changes as well Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawler's men stopped to fire once they reached the abatis[;] , and the Tennesseans [were] routed, and the defenders either ran away or surrendered.[68]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He then formed a new line west of the river , [by] using the brigades of Brigadier Generals Stephen D. Lee and William E. Baldwin, who had arrived from Bovina, Mississippi, and part of Landis's Missouri Battery [that] , which had been positioned on the west bank before the battle.
  • Two other Confederate steamboats, Charm and Paul Jones, who had been located downstream from the bridge, were also burned.[74]
Consider the above changes for these two sentences
Done

Aftermath and preservation

  • Albert Lee's men spent the afternoon [add date and year] in low-intensity fighting across the river against [a] the Confederate force there, while Carr and Smith's men patrolled the field.[75]
Comsider the above changes
I've gone with "after the battle" instead of putting in the date and year of the battle again and have made the other change Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Union reported the capture of 1,751 Confederates, as well as 18 cannon[s].[76]
  • Consider the above changes
  • It's reported above at 1,750?
* The lead figure was a round number that has been replaced by the actual count. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Confederate artillery losses [came about because] were due to the horse[-drawn] teams for the cannons [had been erroneously] being moved across the river before the battle for unclear reasons.
Consider the above changes
Mostly done, although see my reply in the lead section about the distinction between the cannons themselves and the horse teams Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green reported having suffered 485 casualties, while two of Vaughn's regiments combined for 546 losses.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these casualties were in prisoners or [those] missing in action.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Mississippi, one of Vaughn's regiments, and Cockrell's brigade did not report losses, but [they were] are known to have suffered heavily in men captured.[79]

Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pemberton ordered several outlying positions withdrawn into the main lines and the Vicksburg defenses were also physically improved.
Consider the above changes
I'm not sure what the above changes are? Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was much outrage against Pemberton within the Confederate army due to the events of the past several days.[85]
What events?
Clarified Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loring had noticed light from fires in Union-occupied Edwards on the morning of May 17, and with the way blocked [he] , instead marched his men to Jackson , joining [where they joined] forces with Johnston on May 19.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sherman sent a cavalry regiment towards Snyder's Bluff, where the Confederate fortifications were found to have been abandoned; [while] Grant's army had regained a connection to the Union Navy elements [on] in the Yazoo River.[87]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath
A close reading of the content of the aftermath part of the above section suggests that much of it might not fall within the ordinary meaning of aftermath.
  • See Section headings and Article titles of the MOS - Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  • The new Oxford American Dictionary defines the meaning of aftermath as "the consequences or aftereffects of a significant unpleasant event, and it further defines aftereffects as "an effect that follows after the primary action of something.
What do you think?
Pendright - I'll see what @WP:MILHIST coordinators: have to say. I've used the "Aftermath" heading in a number of other GA/FA articles about battles before, so I'd like additional opinions as this change would affect a number of articles. Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm:: Unfortunately, there seems to be problems between what I said and your understanding of it. The issue I raise is not at all about the use of the Aftermath heading, it's about some of the content contained within the Aftermath part of the section that seems more relevant to the Battle section.
Oh, okay - I've moved the first paragraph about the casualties and battlefield cleanup out of the aftermath section - does this resolve the issue? Hog Farm Talk 14:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So chew on this for a bit and then you decide whether or not any changes seem necessary.Pendright (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: @Nick-D: @Donner60: This aftermath thing seems to have gotten out of hand, so let's bring some perspective to it by reviewing the facts. Initially, I stated that - A close reading of the content of the Aftermath part of the above section suggests that much of it might not fall within the ordinary meaning of aftermath. I followed up by asking - What do you think? Your response to this was - "I'll see what @WP:MILHIST coordinators have to say. They had plenty to say, however, it seemed as though they were responding to something other than the question I put to you. In our most recent exchange, I stated - Chew on this for a bit [the Aftermath content] and then you decide whether any changes seem necessary. To which you replied - Oh, okay - I've moved the first paragraph about the casualties and battlefield cleanup out of the aftermath section - does this resolve the issue? There was no issue to resolve - my comment merely asked you to decide whether changes to the content were necessary. You opted for change, so consider the matter closed. Pendright (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of the suggested heading names in articles on battles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Battles, and is widely used. It seems to be in line with the Oxford dictionary definition noted above. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nick-D. It is in the manual of style, provides context and almost all of the events have further developments in a war or at its end. I am not going to go back and look but it would be safe to assume that all 99 military history articles that I have written would need to be changed, and the end would usually be left dangling with the question, so where do I look to see what happened next if the dictionary definition were to be strictly and narrowly interpreted and used to cut off these sections. The manual of style, along with common and accepted practice for military history articles, provide a sufficient basis for continuing to use these sections in military history articles. Donner60 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: This is it for mow - Pendright (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I move to support - Pendright (talk) 21:50, 16 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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Crusading movement

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Crusading movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently a DYK on the main page, following a successful GAR and looks in pretty good shape. However it probably needs a fresh pair of eyes. I am sure there are improvements to be made bur please be gentle, it can get to be a heated topic on here. Topic wise it is about the institution of Christian Catholic Holy War & the Crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Hawkeye7

edit
Lead
edit
  • Suggest splitting the first paragraph at "The concept of crusading"

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest merging the final paragraph with the first

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background
edit
  • The first paragraph does not belong here, as it is not about the background; move to the Legacy section

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was seen by a reformist movement" when was this?

  Done 11th century added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " identified three key pre-conditions" for what?

  Done crusading movement - added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The crusades were not only a function of anarchy" That does not seem correct, given the degree or organisation involved

  Done badly worded, opposite was intended Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " and when these factors played less of a part" This wording is unclear. Less of a part in what? Suggest re-wording.

  Done reworded to less significant, also attributed to the technical definition from International Relations Theory Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and war
edit
  • "Texts describe the development of a distinct ideology that promoted and regulated crusades." Suggest "A distinct ideology promoted and regulated crusades."

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of pilgrimage.

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link "holy war", "pilgrimage", "just war", "Old Testament", "New Testament"

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are "Christocentric views"?

  Done w-l Christocentric Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "fighting in Sicily" Suggest "Norman conquest of Sicily" instead

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The idea developed under Pope Gregory I" Should this be Gregory VII?

  Not done The source is explicit that it was the first Gregory, cited to page 10 of Erdmann Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Church viewed Rome as the Patrimony of Saint Peter" I don't know what the significance of this is here - consider deleting

  Done reworded instead Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penance and indulgence
edit
  • "Before the 11th century" Is "By the 11th century" mean here?

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link "absolution", "Atonement in Christianity", " Calixtus II", "Albigensian", "Papal bull"

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " with two recorded directives" Delete "recorded"

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knights and chivalry
edit
  • De-capitalise "chivalry"

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " The new methods of warfare" Spilt paragraph here. And what were the new methods of warfare?

  Done should have read these which now makes more sense, split the para later as this runs on correctly now Norfolkbigfish (talk)

  • "Military strategy and medieval institutions were immature in feudal Europe, with power too fragmented for the formation of disciplined units." I don't think that the second phrase is true. And what institutions are we talking about? And were there other that medieval ones in feudal Europe?

  Not done Hmmmm, as written it pretty much matches the source I think. Honig refers to Hans Delbrück In feudal Europe power was too fragmented for medieval rulers to be able to organise disciplined, combined units that could follow orders and execute tactical and strategic designs. He also quotes Charles Oman:Nowhere are more reckless displays of blind courage, or more stupid neglect of the elementary rules strategy and tactics to be found in the great expeditions to the Levant. Even where tactical ability is acknowledged, strategic thinking is absent because structural factors prevent decisive leadership. Armies were little more than plundering gangs in many cases. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military orders
edit
  • Split paragraph at "Military orders" and "After the fall of Acre"

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • link "fall of Acre"

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any illustrations available of one of the military order knights?

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perception of Muslims
edit
  • "Islam" is used before it is linked.

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sections on "Knights and chivalry", "Military orders", "Common people" and "Perception of "Muslims are not part of the background; move to the next section

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12th century
edit
  • Link "Crusade of 1101", "Alfonso the Battler"

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should "church" be capitalised?

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Calixtus II extended the definition of crusading during his five years as Pope, before his death in 1124. It is hard to imagine him doing it after his death. See Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment.

  Done :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13th century
edit

  Not done—already linked at first usage. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15th century
edit
  • "Warfare was now more professional and costly." Why?

  Done This was driven by factors including contractual recruitment, increased intelligence and espionage, a greater emphasis on navel warfare, the grooming of alliances, new and varied tactics to deal with different circumstances and opposition, and the hiring of experts in siege warfare. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the Great Schism the East-West or the Western? Suggest using the latter term instead.

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link Ottoman Empire

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split paragraph at "Around the end of the 15th century"

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy
edit
  • "or subject to migration" But Outremer was subject to migration

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move "in 1936" to the previous section

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography
edit

I don't know if the historiography section is relevant Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done— I was thinking along the lines of how the movement was perceived/criticised/lauded was all part of it as an institution. Particularly in the way it changed over time. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx @Hawkeye7, I am busy IRL, but will get on these ASAP. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note

I will review once Hawkeye's review has been addresssed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Peacemaker67, @Hawkeye7—just for my information are there any actions on this that you think are with me? I have have been assuming it is with you guys atm, let me know if my assumption is incorrect? As ever, thanks for everything you do. KR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: All my concerns have been addressed, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Big effort to get this together, Nbf! This might take a few bites to get through. I immediately noticed that given the amount of religious terms introduced, there is a need for more links. Also, quite a few links are made after a term has been first introduced, or two or more links are made to the same term (which is probably excessive).

Lead
  • extend the sentence following "Crusades" in the first sentence to explain what they were eg "Crusades – a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Christian Latin Church in the medieval period." with appropriate links
  • link Christian martyr
  • move link to First Crusade to first mention
  • link penance
  • change the Biblical italics to a quote bound by quotation marks
  • "the recovery of Jerusalem and the Palestinian holy places" from whom?
  • for "papal" link pope
  • link Christendom
  • link Christian pilgrimage

  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • "mundus" is obscure, provide its meaning
  • link Monasticism
  • link liturgy
  • link Res publica Christiana
  • link Cluny Abbey
  • link Christendom at first mention and delink later usage
  • German Historian→German historian
  • decap International Relations Theory
  • link Latin Church and delink later usages
  • link paganism
  • move link to holy war to first mention and delink later usage
  • link Christian pilgrimage
  • link Canon law of the Catholic Church at first mention and delink later usage
  • need a space after fns [7][8]
  • decap Empire
  • just war is linked twice in the Christianity and war subsection
  • if the just war criteria are inclusive (ie all should be met), suggest decapping first letter of each dot point and putting a semi-colon at the end of the first two dot points, "and" after the second dot point, and a period at the end of the last dot point.
  • state when was Erdmann writing, if his thinking has now been superseded?
  • suggest applying the same approach as with the criteria to the dot points regarding Erdmann's ideas
  • suggest piping the link to absolution to "remission and absolution of sin" not just absolution   Not done—T didn't find this page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link contrition
  • link Confession (religion)
  • link penance
  • link Restitution (theology)
  • link Indulgence#Plenary indulgences
  • should it be "the exemption from atonement"?
  • link infidel

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)   Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

This could take some working through.

Down to Birth, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC) All the above now   Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • while I am aware there is a book titled "Political Augustinianism" it is a book title, and scholars like John Rist decap "political" when discussing it. I suggest this should be "political Augustinianism".
  • Thomas Aquinas→Aquinas, he's been introduced already
  • rm comma from "This required what were partly inefficient,"
  • "The view on penance, that it could apply to killing adversaries" do you mean "it could be achieved/accomplished by killing adversaries"?
  • "The identification of the recovery of the despoiled country of Christ" I don't know what this means? The Holy Land? Or a metaphysical concept?
  • "led by a new knighthood" which knighthood?
  • link esprit de corps
  • link anti-pope A
  • comma after "William I, Count of Burgundy"
  • delink Hospitallers in "one by the Hospitallers"
  • move the link to Clement V up to the first mention
  • move the link to Cistercians up to the first mention
  • link forced conversion
  • link Schism
  • suggest linking dissenter for non-conformist
  • link Pope Gregory IX to Cardinal Hugo Ugolino of Segni then unlink later one
  • same suggestion about the dot points for just war applies to Segni's actions and to Gregory's actions (also link Teutonic Order in the latter and rm the later link)
  • link Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor at first mention
  • clarify that "against the emperor" means against the Holy Roman Emperor. At the most appropriate point I think you need to explain the relationship between the Pope and Emperor/Church and Empire, as it affected the crusading movement.
  • move the link to Innocent IV to first mention
  • what was the "after the conflict in Lombardy and Sardinia"? Is there a link?
  • explain "Staufen dynasty" or link
  • why use "general passage" rather than crusade? It is obscure to the general reader.
  • "Western Europeans blamed failures – the First Crusade" I thought the First Crusade was a success?
  • italicise "Würzburg Annals"
  • link Louis IX of France
  • who was the dean of Lincoln at the council? Richard de Mepham or John de Maidenstan? Link Dean of Lincoln regardless.
  • "Although aA minority view"

Down to 14th C. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) All   Done apart from the highlighted—I will circle round and address later. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • careful with using an obscure term like Outremer to refer to something already explained, it just has the reader looking for the earlier use, or wondering what it means.
  • In general, avoid starting a sentence with "However". The sentence beginning "However, ideas, and the consolidation" is trying to say too much, and I cannot actually work out what that is.
  • the first para of the 14th C subsection seems to be more about the 13th C, with its focus on Gregory X, who was long dead before the 14th C began.
  • link Mamluks and explain who they were
  • suggest avoiding using Latin words when plain English would be clearer, ie passigium particulare
  • say what Routiers were
  • link Western Schism

Down to 15th C. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC) All   Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentence beginning "His famous Latin letters and speeches" needs a rewrite. It isn't clear to me what the subject is.
  • "the conqueror of Constantinople"→"Mehmed II"
  • Pope Pius II
  • same suggestion about the dot points
  • "Exiled rulers" from where?
  • navel→naval
  • Bohemia? link?
  • Maximilian? link?
  • suggest "Alexander IV himself"
  • Spanish Reconquista? link?
  • capture of Granada in 1492? link?
  • Castile? link?
  • French Wars of Religion? link?
  • suggest "Catholic Church in Spain" as it wasn't a separate entity?
  • suggest "This is a contentious issue, as others maintain that the the Latin settlements in the Levant did not meet the accepted definition of a colony, that of territory politically directed by or economically exploited for the benefit of a homeland." BTW, where does this definition come from? Peacemaker67 from memory this comes from Phillips in the cited source (The Oxford History), although I suspect he wasn't the origin of it. Is this an issue do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • de-italicise religious colonies, it isn't in line with MOS:ITALICS

Down to Historiography. Nearly there... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) All   Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography
  • I suspect there is quite a bit of overlinking as well as missing links. Once you are done, I will check it with the script and identify any.
  • at second mention "Jonathan Riley-Smith"   Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this section I expected to read about the perspectives of historians of Islam and Byzantium (and in fact I expected them to be compared and contrasted throughout, but other than a short sentence "The Muslim context now receives attention from Islamicists." it is missing. I don't think that is enough for A-Class, esp when there are sources like The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World edited by Laiou and Mottahedeh; and The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives by Hillenbrand. Otherwise, I am now done. Great job so far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much @Peacemaker67, I'll start from the top and work down. This will probably be next week, real live is a bit full on atm. Greatly appreciated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New paragraph added to cover the Muslim viewpoint, cited Hillenbrand and added to sources. Getting the scope right is challenging, particularly differentiating between what is about the movement and what is about events. Hope this fills that gap, what do you think Peacemaker67 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good, looking forward to seeing this at FAC in the fullness of time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Peacemaker67 for all your time and attention—it has been interesting and fun. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden

edit

Six images. All kind of pass, but there's some issues I really need to bring up.

Failed Fixed now

I'll fix those last two at some point. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 09:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been replaced with the full-size originals. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything passes, if that needs said. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 06:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, as ever @Hawkeye7, I will get on these soon. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Hawkeye7, I think I have addressed all these. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Donner60

edit
12th century
edit
  • Consider deleting "although it is likely that had the First Crusade failed this would have been different" While I think this is a logical conclusion, I am concerned that in an A-class article this could be criticized as speculation, or worse, original research, unless directly supported by a citation.   Done It is pretty much what Riley-Smith wrote in the source, but it is subjective. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have deleted "by" in the phrase "Urban he by defeated the three." If this is not a typo, perhaps it is the remnants of a draft phrase which was either not completed or not completely removed?  Y you are right, it is left over detritus from various edits. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will resume my review at this point later.

13th century
edit
  • The paragraph starting with "Between 1217 and 1221, Cardinal Hugo Ugolino of Segni..." and ending with bullet points has no citation.   Done It was cited to Tyerman in the following sentence. Added Paragraph break to make this obvious. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14th century
edit
15th century
edit
  • Suggest that after "the Hospitallers retreated from Rhodes..." add "to Crete and Sicily and in 1530 to Malta and Gozo." and break sentence at this point.

I will resume my review soon with the "Legacy" section. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)   Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Donner60, I will get to these asap, just very busy IRL atm though :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have done a great job of providing competing points of view in the concluding sections. I think your responses to the previous reviews provide balance and neutrality. These are excellent summary sections. The only minor comment that I have is that I probably would have written "in the Holy Land" rather than "on the Holy Land" in the second paragraph of Legacy. I think it is ok either way so I am going to support without further recommendations. An outstanding article on a difficult topic but interesting and easy reading throughout. Even with my limited comments, I am only the third reviewer and there is not a third full or nearly complete previous review. So I will recommend that an uninvolved coordinator take a look at this for passing on to A class. Donner60 (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for you kind words @Donner60, it has been a long journey to get to this point. I have taken your point on on the Holy Land I think that was a mistake on my behalf. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 11 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.

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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Minden Blake

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Minden Blake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Up for review here is a bio of a New Zealand Battle of Britain fighter pilot and flying ace (he was quite the sportsman as well). A prewar officer in the RAF, after the Battle of Britain he led fighter wings up until the Dieppe Raid, when he was shot down and became a prisoner of war. This went to GA back in 2020 and I have been meaning to bring it here for an A-Class review for a while now. Thanks in advance to those who take the time to leave feedback. Zawed (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

Great work as always Zawed. I have only some modest comments:

  • "He is credited with shooting down at least ten aircraft" - the final section credits him with 13 kills, 3 of which were shared. I'd suggest tweaking this text.
  • The lead says that he was a 'prolific inventor' but the final section describes him as a 'inveterate tinkerer' and only notes a single patent for a new invention. Did he develop other products?
  • Not sure if the sources cover this, but did he join the RAF to get his passage to the UK paid for and/or to take advantage of veterans' benefits to study at the end of his service? The wording here is a bit unclear.
  • It was under a "university entrant" scheme; I had thought mentioning the intention to study engineering was sufficient but have now added specific mention of the scheme. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para of the 'Second World War' section is a bit wordy
  • "was appointed commander of a fighter wing" - I'd suggest noting which wing this was
  • "By this time, German defensive operations was causing high casualties among the RAF, which subsequently saw a reduction in these missions over the winter months" - the wording here is a bit clunky
  • Did Blake develop the gyroscopic gunsight, or was he involved in trialling it, etc?
  • The 'Postwar career' section doesn't mention Blake's rank for his various appointments. Was he promoted, or did he remain a Wing Commander? (it would also be good to note when he was made substantive at this rank, as it's only noted that he was an acting Wing Commander at the time of his capture)
  • There doesn't seem to have been a promotion beyond his wing commander rank being made substantive. I've also made a distinction between acting and temporary wing commander in the previous section. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking that Blake didn't return to flying roles after the war? Was this due to the injuries he had sustained?
  • Yes, it seems that his postwar roles were as a staff officer. I don't think it was a matter of his physical condition, as he pole vaulted and golfed to a high level. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1979, Blake was a co-author, along with H. J. Weaver, of Suicide by Socialism" - this indicates that he had fairly strong conservative political views. Can anything be said about this? It might be worth checking online UK newspaper archives. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found an article in a trade newspaper that briefly discusses the book, and have added a bit about it. @Nick-D: thanks for taking the time to look at this. I have responded to your points above and my edits are here]. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support These changes look good, and I'm pleased to support. Please note the extra comment above though. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • "He was shot down during aerial operations in support of the Dieppe Raid". Could it be mentioned when this was?
  • " He was also an inventor and developed a golfing aid that was a commercial success." Is there a typo of some sort in here?
  • Minden is an unusual first name, is it known why he as given it? (After the battle of Minden?)
  • "Blake entered the Canterbury University College". I don't think there should be a definite article there.
  • "In the meantime, he had graduated". Suggest deleting "had"; the first three words have established the past tense.
  • "a masters of science". Why is master plural?
  • "He gained his wings". Could you provide a brief in line gloss for this?
It's jargon, but I guess that for A class we can let it slide.
  • "He remained active in athletics, particularly in pole vaulting". Are you sure the source says he was particularly active in pole vaulting, as opposed to particularly successful?
  • "to take over as its acting commander. Taking up his new role on 16 August, his new squadron was part of". Optional: is it possible to avoid the semi-repetition of take/taking and the actual repetition of "new"?
  • Is it worth indicating that Middle Wallop is the name of the air base?
  • "On 15 September, what is now known as Battle of Britain Day, No. 238 Squadron was scrambled to help protect London from a large bombing raid". "raid" singular? If so, which one?
  • "destroying one which crashed on an airfield in Sussex." I don't think "destroying" is the correct word if it managed to crash land on an airfield.
  • " A major operation for the squadron was the provision of a covering escort for the destroyer HMS Javelin ... into Plymouth". This doesn't work, grammatically.
  • "Several Do 17s mounted an attack on Javelin". Did this meet with any success?
  • "operated Supermarine Spitfire fighters ... operated Supermarine Spitfire fighters". Is the model it was flying from St Eval known?
  • "it began to undertake offensive operations to occupied France and Belgium". Optional: "to" → 'over'.
  • "to the southwest of Isle of Portland" → 'to the southwest of the Isle of Portland'.
  • "south west ... southwest". Any reason for the inconsistency?
  • There isn't a place called "Portland" in the UK. What does the source say?
  • "the destruction of a Bf 109". It would be helpful if a reader were told in line what type of aircraft a "Bf 109" was and if the term were linked.
  • "At the end of the year, his wing commander rank was made temporary." This will be read as a demotion by most readers, could it be unpacked a little?
  • "Blake continued on operations for the next several months". Is the actual number of months known?
  • Any reason why "gyroscopic gunsight" is not linked to Gyro gunsight?
  • "Shortly afterwards he was sent on a course at the RAF College at Bracknell." Is it known what the topic of the course was?
  • Any chance of a brief description of what the Swingrite did?

Great work as ever. Almost entirely nit picking above. My only real grumble is the low probability of this making its way to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: thanks for the review, I have responded to all of your points now. Why the low probability for FAC, are you referring to my lack of presence there in recent times? Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am. You churn out well sourced articles. Which are (IMHO) well up to FAC when they come out of ACR. But few ever seem to get nominated there, which I consider a shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. It has been a while since I was last at FAC, my last nomination put me off the process a bit. I'm getting over myself now though and intend to head back there soon. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I'll review this one soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a link for perspex?

Wynn is self-published but I remember discussing that at I think a GA review about why that source is okay. I'm going to go ahead and support. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support HF, much appreciated. Zawed (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE Wynn, looking ahead to a source review, I quote from my comments from the GA review HF refers to above (for James Hayter (RAF officer)): "Wynn is well known for his work on biographical dictionaries of fighter pilots of the Battle of Britain. His book, "Men of the Battle of Britain" is a major reference work in this field and has been published three times beginning in 1989, the most recent being by Frontline Books. Much of the content from his 1981 book is repeated in the later works but in a slightly trimmed down form. Both are often cited by authors in the field, e.g. John Ray, Adam Claasen, Stephen Bungay, James Holland, Brian Cull, the 1981 book more so by NZ authors. The Battle of Britain Memorial Trust now have the rights to his work. I believe that on this basis he is a reliable source." I note that the Frontline Books publication I mention in the quote was the 2015 edition. Zawed (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Only two images:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking this. Zawed (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 24 February 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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2024 (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


All requirements met. Consensus to promote exists. Donner60 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was split from Hanford Site. 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.

It is a subarticle of both that article and Manhattan Project, and covers the site during the years of the Manhattan Project. The article contains a lot of beautiful images, many of which I located and uploaded specifically for it. It had a prior nomination which can be found here. Since then, EEng and I have gone over the article, trimming it down somewhat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

edit

Great to see some more Manhattan Project stuff, Hawkeye. I could take a while to get through it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Contractor selection
Site selection

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Land acquisition
Township (Hanford)
MOS:RACECAPS indicates African-American and Hispanic are probably the best labels here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Township (Richland)
Personnel
  • the welded joints stretched 15 km? Do you mean pipes with welded joints?
    Welded joints. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth were there 15 km of joints? What were the welds joining? Other joints? This makes no sense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The welds were joining pipes. You weld two pieces of 15 cm pipe together you have ~ 45 cm of welding joints. Join 300,000 of them and you have 15 km of welding joints. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't. It might sound like I'm being pedantic here, but I'm not. You have "45 cm of piping with welded joints", or "15 km of piping with welded joints". "Welded joints" are the locations where the surface of two or more two metals or non-metals are fused together by the welding process with or without the application of pressure and filler. "Welded joints" isn't some sort of commonly-used shorthand for "pipes with welded joints", it refers only to the actual joints themselves. The actual welded joints themselves are of negligible length compared to the length of the pipe they are joining, because a weld only covers a very small portion of the pipes. It still makes no sense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. The source says; "Most of the 50,000 linear feet of welded joints would be inaccessible when the pile was completed." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've run a search on the internet, and linear feet was the standard measure of welding productivity on the old measurements. For example: "The East Bay Aqueduct has been in successful operation since June, 1929. There are 870,000 linear feet of electrically welded longitudinal seams and 24,000 linear feet of circular seams in the 82.5 miles of steel pipe line." [19] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still very odd. But, anyway, a minor matter. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Health and safety

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder of article

HF - support

edit

Ping me when Peacemaker67 is done with this and I will take a look. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: PM is finished, so you can have a look now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Re-pinging, as the last probably didn't work ;) Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Located at the Hanford Site in Benton County, Washington. It was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor." - combine these two in some way; the first bit is a sentence fragment
  •  Y I don't see anything wrong with it; grammatically, it is an introductory clause. Re-worded anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this article seems to be focused on the Manhattan project usage, I think it would be helpful to add a sentence to the lead referencing the transfer to the Atomic Energy Commission, as the end of the scope of this subarticle is not currently obvious from the lead

Ready for Land Acquisition, will continue later. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In all, 4,218 tracts totaling 428,203.95 acres (173,287.99 ha) were to be acquired" - the table has 428,203.65 - is one of the two a typo?
  •  Y Yes. It should be 65 not 95. Checked against the source and double-checked the arithmetic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This year was its last; the school closed on 13 February 1945" - last school year, or last full school year? Is it known if it would have started the first semester of 1944-45?

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 00:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

edit
  • Consider archiving online sources.

Harrias

edit

Sorry it's taken me a while to get to this, the Christmas period was busier than I expected!

  • Not keen on the MOS:SEAOFBLUE here "..Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, and the Chief of Staff of the United States Army George C. Marshall."
  • "It had originally been intended that the reactors at the Oak Ridge site.." Seems to be missing some words?
     Y Added missing words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(about 100,000 KW)" – This should be kW.
     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally there were two parcels of land designed as Area E.." Assume this should be designated, rather than designed?
     Y That's right. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..often working in the shipyards in Seattle, or had joined the military.." The article switches tense here; both should match.
     Y Matched. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The farmers had to pay their share of irrigation district land from the sale of their property." I don't understand what this means?
    It would be a big help if the relevant article wasn't a stub. In the United states, water belongs public, but the state can sell the right to use water. Irrigation districts were formed under Federal law to "reclaim" (ie develop) land for agricultural use. Farmers bought shares in the district which provided them with water and paid for their shares from the proceeds of their crops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..seeking an explanation of the choice of the location.." This one always catches me out, but I'm pretty sure it should be "an explanation for".
     Y Um, sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend adding {{Main|Hanford, Washington}} and {{Main|Richland, Washington}} at the start of the relevant sub-sections.
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was appalled at the idea.." It isn't immediately obvious who "he" is here.
     Y Groves. Changed as suggested. Neighbourhood segregation by social class is the norm in the United States, but Groves was an Army brat who grew up on military reservations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About thirteen percent were women, and 16.45 percent were non-white." As these numbers are presented together, comparatively, it feels odd that one is a rough number, written out, while the other is a precise number in numerical form.
    Matches the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recruiting workers was one problem; keeping them was another. Turnover was a serious problem." Not keen on the repetition of "problem"; maybe switch one to "issue" or similar?
     Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stafford L. Warren, the head of the medical section of the Manhattan Project arranged medical.." This could do with a comma after "Project".
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..in the 200 area, the area containing the plutonium processing facilities.." Not keen on this close repetition of "the area", can it be rephrased to something like "..in the 200 area, which contained the plutonium processing facilities.."
     Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was one other production area, the 300 area.." And again; could it be "production zone"?
     Y Changed to "site". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..to over ninety percent." As we're comparing this figure to the previously given "75 percent", could we put it in the same, numerical form.
     Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing the frost test, the article switches to providing the temperature in celsius (fahrenheit) rather than the other way around which is used elsewhere.
     Y Flipped the order. Celsius was of course used at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed to the end of the Fabrication section, more to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting a new review below after the Fabrication section where this third review left off. I have skimmed the entire article. I will look at the earlier part of the article after "completing" this third review. I suspect the the review has already been thorough and mostly needs confirmation. Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

If this goes to FAC, I do hope they'll accept this there as well, as this article is going to be a lot of work. I'm reviewing this version, so this image review should stand as long as no new images are added.

Including the one in the infobox at the bottom, this article has, by my count, twenty-six images. As such, I'm just going to group things by issue(s).

...And I am so sorry to have found so many; half the images have some issue, but they're pretty much all minor. My gut feeling is there's nothing to worry about here, buuuut.... that's not how these reviews work. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 08:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. I think some people were intimidated by the large number of images. I was like a kid in a candy store trying to chose them from so many beautiful images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit

This is fairly normal, and there's no other issues to worry about with these. Site links aren't permanent. Basically, I think these are fine, but can't confirm. Would be really weird if they weren't.

File:Hanford B-Reactor Area 1944.jpg

It is fine. One thing worth noting on many of the images is the Manhattan Project's id number. This is not a watermark; it was written on the negative. I have replaced the link with one to the image in NARA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford_Site_Selection_Team.jpg

The "another copy link works fine". [20] and [21] also works. (NB: Not an image of the site selection team.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland Washington.jpg

Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lack an {{Information}} template and other basic documentation
edit

File:Hanford Reach.jpg

I see no reason why it should, but added a template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Linking the image
edit

File:Old_Hanford_farmhouse.jpg - The Internet Archive link is to the file, not the documentation

You can also find it here You have to drill down from here and go through the gallery, which is what the Commons description points to. (Note Manhattan Project id number) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial view of Hanford Construction Camp.jpg - the only source link is to the image itself, this makes it impossible to check the details.

Again, note the Manhattan Project id number. You can find the image here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Driver at the Hanford Engineer Works.jpg ditto.

Ditto! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong source?
edit

File:Prefabricated housing at Hanford Site 1944.jpg I'm not seeing the image at the link.

They changed the page! Switched to an archive link. (Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fine, with a caveat
edit

Flickr site claims copyright, but false copyright claims are common, especially as Flickr's default state is presuming copyright. DDRS is "Declassified Document Retrieval System" [22] - it's probably worth saying that.

Yes, these are from a big dump of declassified images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland High School.jpg

This is the other form you see sometimes. Instead of the D number being written on the negative, it is on a sign in the image itself. I like these because they also give us the exact date on which the image was taken. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old_Hanford_High_School_in_1954.jpg

Added Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford camp trailer park.jpg

Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland housing area.jpg

Added. (Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine but have to call you up anyway
edit

File:224-T finishing in Dec 1944.jpg From [23] "Thumbnail images have been added to Gerber's text by the Webmaster. Click on the thumbnail for a full sized image." - Like, I don't see how a photograph of a classified site wouldn't be US Army or the like, but.... I don't think this appears in the original source, but this, I think, is the original text, and every photo in it is photocopy-of-a-photocopy'd to oblivion.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number. The SECRET stamp has been whited out.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fine
edit

File:Hanford_Engineer_Works.png - Presuming that the book is a US Federal Government publication - and I don't see any reason to think it isn't - this is fine.

Yes. The book is the Army's official history of the Manhattan Project produced by the US Army Center of Military History. You can download a copy from here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assembled slug.jpg - Same as above.

This is from the Manhattan District History (MDH), a secret history of the project that Groves commissioned in 1944. It has now been declassified (mostly) and made available online (mostly) from here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:3766-NEG_Hanford_Airport_control_tower_under_construction.jpg - This threw me a bit as to where the information came from, but then I realised the file name on the archive site is "3766-NEG (1944) CONSTRUCTION OF HANFORD AIRPORT CONTROL TOWER.JPG" - So there's the information. The site itself confirms the copyright, so we're fine here

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford construction work force.jpg Even if this wasn't a US Federal Government publication, there's no copyright notice in the entire publication. I checked.

File:Group Shot (8474761680).jpg - Very obviously US Federal Government work; link makes that very clear. (Department of Energy's Flickr)

I particularly wanted to include it because it shows lots of black people working on the project.

File:HD.6B.437 (11324863236).jpg same as above.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HD.4A.134_(10405869525).jpg Same again.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HD.4A.132 (10405868435).jpg Same again.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HD.12B.001 (11823724886).jpg Same again. File:Front Face of the reactor (full view).JPG - Standard Wikipedian-created-and-released work.

File:B Reactor Tube Loader.JPG - Ditto

File:Project cost summary - Hanford Engineer Works.jpg Source checks out. Clearly a declassified document.

I had trouble formatting it up, so I just clipped it from the MDH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nagasakibomb.jpg - Very well documented.

@Adam Cuerden: Everything okay now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I swear I said it was. Yes. Everything accounted for. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 00:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60 - Support

edit

Review will start with Irradiation section.

Separation

End of the article; posting these comments and will read the article from the beginning to this point.

Land acquisition

  • "Finally there were two parcels of land designated as Area E, which was acquired only if necessary." Area E shows on the map but the article says nothing more about whether it was acquired in whole or in part and what it was used for.
     Y Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richland

  • "Hiring a removalist..." Wikipedia redirects "removalist" to "Moving company." I think I am probably typical as an American who can confidently say that I have never read or heard the term "removalist" used for a moving company. Canada has a "Canadian Movers' Association" and one of their largest carriers is "Centennial Moving." I suggest using the linked term moving company or at most using both terms in the alternative with a link to moving company.
     Y Changed as suggested. I had never heard this term, and I worked for one for a time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This completes my review of the article. Donner60 (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 Thanks. All comments are addressed. I support promotion of the article. Since this article now has the appropriate reviews and three supports, a consensus to promote now exists. Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 2 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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Beaulieu

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

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

Toolbox

HMS Beaulieu, a privately built 40-gun frigate, was snapped up by the Royal Navy before construction was completed. Resembling a merchant vessel more than a warship, she spent the beginning of her career in the backwater of the Leeward Islands. The ship returned to Europe in time to mutiny twice as part of the Nore mutiny, and then played a small part in the Battle of Camperdown. She spent the rest of the French Revolutionary Wars serving in the English Channel and Mediterranean, participating in one fierce cutting out expedition, and returned to the Leeward Islands when the Napoleonic Wars began. The frigate, unique in name and design, was paid off for a final time in 1806 after thirteen years of service. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Schierbecker

edit

Gardiner posits that the Royal Navy chose not to keep Beaulieu there, despite her being one of the larger frigates, because she was "never highly regarded". Do we know why?

I could take a guess, but Gardiner doesn't actually specify. The full quote is "The purchased Beaulieu, which was never highly regarded, was an exception, being assigned to the West Indies expedition in 1793..."

Is Mr. Redhead's first name not known?

Sources don't give it.

Riou was invalided home Was his illness connected with his service on Beaulieu? Schierbecker (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I could guess, but the source doesn't say: "After being invalided home he was appointed to command the royal yacht Princess Augusta".

@Schierbecker: Hi, thanks for taking a look at this. I've replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker: Sorry to ping you again! Just checking whether you had more comments to add? Your edit summary suggested you might. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I'm supporting this. Sorry for ghosting you. Final question: Could you add who they recaptured Cato, Dauphin, Cabrus, Nymphe Harriet, Jenny, et al. from? Also more details if known (e.g. was there a fight?) Schierbecker (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schierbecker: Unfortunately the sources don't provide more details. I would expect that there won't have been a fight, it's most likely that these ships only had prize crews when recaptured. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I'll try to review this over the coming week or so. Hog Farm Talk 20:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a private venture - does this indicate that the ship was privately contracted by the Royal Navy instead of building it herself, or did Adams have his build this in anticipation of being able to sell this to the gov't?
  • The latter.
  • I'm a little unsure of the direct relevancy of the footnote about the timing of the payout of prize money for St. Lucia
  • Removed.
  • "Beaulieu was then present at the capture of the Russian hoy Leyden and Fourcoing" - I think some sort of brief introduction as to why the Royal Navy was capturing Russian vessels is necessary. It's indicated that the British were at war with the French, but it's not clear where the Russians are in all of this.
  • The sources do not state a reason why the Russian vessel was captured. I've enquired with a mind more experienced than mine, but they haven't managed to come up with anything either [24].
  • "In the ensuing fight thirteen men were wounded, of which one later died," - do we know which side of the scuffle the casualties were on?
  • Not recorded in my sources.
  • "On 9 October news reached Duncan that the Dutch fleet was at sea" - likewise there probably needs to be some sort of context here. Were the English and the Dutch already in a state of war, or is this a pre-emptive strike by the Dutch?
  • Added a few words in attempt to clarify without confusing; not sure if I've succeeded though.

I think that's it from me for now. Hog Farm Talk 02:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Hi, thanks for taking a look at this! I've responded to your comments above, although unfortunately not with the solid answers you probably hoped for! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CPA

edit

Hold my tea. Not really an expert nor am I really intrested in this era. Nonetheless I'll give it try to boost this nom. Will do after Hog's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Hi, I've finished up with Hog Farm's comments, so whenever you're ready! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commissioned in January 1793 by Lord Northesk" MOS:EGG here?
  • I don't think so, that's his name and how he will have been addressed
  • "similarly present at the capture of Saint Lucia" --> "similarly present at the capture of the island Saint Lucia"
  • Done
  • "herself part of the Nore mutiny" --> "herself part of the Nore mutinies" because the following sentence say there were two mutinies.
  • The mutiny is a larger event than just Beaulieu; multiple ships mutinied several times within it (and Spithead), and I believe "mutiny" to be correct
  • "but both attempts were defeated" Because why?
  • Not sure what you're asking here. The mutinies were defeated.
  • "frigate squadron based off Brest" --> "frigate squadron based off Brest, France" Because there are more places called Brest.
  • Done
  • "ship measuring 1,01979⁄94 tons burthen" Is it possible to convert this number to regular modern day long tons/tonnes? Because people like me who are not experts in the unit don't know how much the weight is.
  • Not that I would be able to do. This is how ships are described in the modern sources too, I would add
  • "was crewed by 280 men (from 1794 this was lowered to 274)" Why exactly?
  • Sources don't say
  • "in January 1793 by Captain Lord Northesk" MOS:EGG here?
  • See previous comment on this
  • "arriving off Saint Lucia on 1 April" --> "arriving off the island Saint Lucia on 1 April"
  • Done
  • "which was taken into Barbados" Add island here.
  • Done
  • "The officer of the watch called the alarm" Sounds like a high rank maybe add their name here?
  • Officer of the watch was a rotating position that all lieutenants (3 or 4) would have held. The individual isn't noted here
  • "Four were executed, with another" MOS:EGG here.
  • Removed
  • "the merchant brig Harriet on 3 December" Which nationality?
  • Added
  • "Together they recaptured the merchant ships Cato, on 6 December, Dauphin, on 14 December, and Cabrus and Nymphe" Same as above and Jenny.
  • Added
  • "on the blockade of Brest in a frigate" --> "on the blockade of Brest, France in a frigate"
  • Changed
  • "was completed some time during 1809.[7][8][82][83]" Maybe remove one citation here?
  • Believe in this instance all the citations are required for the sentence

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Sources are high quality
  • Nicely formatted.
    Glasco (2001), Morris (2001), Wareham (1999): location?
    Should it be " Longman and Company" (title case)?
  • Spot checks:
    fn 34, 46, 67, 73 - okay
    Spotted the Captain Bligh

Great work here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for going through these. The Marshall references are a template, I didn't decide them. Locations have been added. Captain Bligh?! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted him in the London Gazette while checking fn 46. Just letting people know I really did check all the spotchecked footbnotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's him! Many people aren't aware that Bligh did have a career post-Bounty, and it was a successful one! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit

Stepping in as CPA-5 seems to have gone AWOL.

  • "She was designed and built by the shipwright Henry Adams at his shipyard, Buckler's Hard.." It would be nice to know in this article where that is.
  • Added
  • "..and initial fittings costed a total of £17,788." This should be cost, not costed? Also, consider replacing £17,788 with {{Inflation|UK|17,788|1793|fmt=eq|orig=yes|cursign=£|r=-5}}{{Inflation/fn|UK}} to get "£17,788 (equivalent to £2,200,000 in 2021)". If you do adopt this, do it again for "at the cost of £7,315" for the refit.
  • Thanks for that, very useful! Added.
  • A few instances of noun plus -ing that could do with rephrasing: "with Captain Lancelot Skynner assuming", "with Beaulieu having", "with her presence forcing", "with this being quelled", "with the Dutch commander surrendering", "with Poyntz leaving".
  • Changed.
  • "..between December of the same year.." As this is at the start of a section, and it has been a while since the year was mentioned, I'd explicitly state the year.
  • Done.
  • "..under the control of their boatswain, Mr Redhead. Redhead announced.." Rephrase to avoid the immediate repetition of "Redhead".
  • Done.
  • "..off the Texel." Why "the"? Oh, hold on. Should this link instead to Marsdiep, rather than the island?
  • Wikipedia and academic texts overwhelming uses Texel without "the", even for this time period. That said, you know the period better than I, and it's a minor point, so I'm not going to press it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..was sent off by Duncan.." I don't think "off" is needed here.
  • Removed.
  • "..on 13 October these found Beaulieu." I'm not keen on this wording; it makes the rockets the active body; how about "..on 13 October these were spotted by Beaulieu." (or "by Beaulieu's crew.")
  • Changed.
  • "Together they recaptured the British merchant ships Cato, on 6 December, Dauphin, on 14 December, and Cabrus and Nymphe, on 15 December." Could you use some semi-colons to make this easier to read? "Together they recaptured the British merchant ships Cato, on 6 December; Dauphin, on 14 December; and Cabrus and Nymphe, on 15 December."
  • Changed.
  • "Maxwell's force having been on board Chevrette for only three minutes, the ship began to drift out of the bay." Not keen on this wording. Maybe a simpler "After Maxwell's force had been on board Chevrette for three minutes, the ship began to drift out of the bay."
  • Done.

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: That's the lot from me, nothing major. A nice and interesting article overall, good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Hi, thanks for taking this up! I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:59, 7 January 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.

Article promoted by Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Bill Madden (soldier)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Bill Madden (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I've previously developed articles on Victoria Cross and George Cross recipients from South Australia, but am branching out. Madden's George Cross was the highest honor received by an Australian for service during the Korean War, and it was awarded for his determined resistance to his Chinese captors, which ultimately led to his death. His dogged determination was an inspiration to his fellow prisoners of war. This article recently went through GAN, and I reckon it is ready for ACR. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit
  • Per MOS:HYPOCORISM, remove "known as Bill Madden" from the first sentence.
  • "..during the eponymous campaign, during which he.." The close repetition of "during" makes this sentence a little awkward, try to rephrase.
  • "3 RAR's parent brigade.." MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid beginning a sentence with a figure, although this is a slightly odd case.
  • "..included severe restrictions on the food he received, but he shared this with other sick prisoners." This sounds a little off. Maybe something more explicit? "..included severe restrictions on the food he received, but what he did get he shared with other sick prisoners."
  • "After the war ended, Farrar-Hockley wrote affectionately of Madden to his sister, Florence." It is unclear here whether Florence is Farrar-Hockley or Madden's sister.
  • Consider archiving online sources.

Nothing much wrong with this, nice work! Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, all done except most of the archiving. Wayback is having trouble digesting the Parliament House, Trove, AWM and DVA urls, but I did the ADB one. I will try again later to see if it was a site issue. Thanks for taking a look, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HF

I'll look at this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting; I read through the article and have no concerns for A-Class. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Back soon! - Pendright (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Madden served in the New Guinea and Bougainville campaigns in the latter stages of World War II, and returned to civilian life in 1947.
and "he" returned to
  • Madden participated with his unit in the constant offensives and counter-offensives of early 1951 before being concussed and captured during the April Battle of Kapyong.
constant offensives and counter-offensives -> against whom?
  • He was beaten and punished, and his physical condition deteriorated. Following a long forced march into North Korea, he died of malnutrition as a result of ill-treatment in November.
  • Since beaten is a form of punishment, should punished be more specfic or generalized?
  • November 1951
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Bill, as he was known, was working as a fruiterer's assistant when he was mobilised for service in World War II with the Militia on 26 May 1942 at Morisset near Newcastle, north of Sydney.[1][2]
Consider a comma after Morisset
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military career

  • He was enlisted as a driver, and allocated a new AIF service number of NX173860.[4]
  • Drop the comma after driver
  • allocated "the" new AIF service number of NX173860.
  • He later served as a driver with the 5th Motor Ambulance Convoy Platoon on Bougainville during the campaign on that island, and then the 253rd Supply Depot Platoon on the island of Morotai in the Dutch East Indies.
  • on this island
went with "there" instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and then "he served with" the 253rd Supply Depot
  • After the war ended his unit was then posted to Japan as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force.[1][4]
How about a comma after ended?
  • After leaving the army, Madden worked as a nurse at the psychiatric hospital in Morisset for two years,[2] and then as a moulder.[1]
Dropp the comma after years
  • On the day Madden joined the battalion near Pakchon, 3 RAR had its first engagement with Chinese forces, which had recently entered the war [in support of North Korea].
Suggest the above additio
  • On 25 January 1951, the United Nations forces launched an offensive aimed at reaching the Han River, and [they] were able to advance 60 km (37 mi) in two weeks.
Suggest the above addition
  • In early February, 3 RAR was again in reserve, this time [it was] in positions around Yeoju and [where] in the face of a Chinese counteroffensive, it participated in the relief of UN forces at Chipyong-ni later in February.
Suggest the above changes
  • [Later] I [i]n February, 3 RAR's parent brigade had been reinforced with a Canadian unit, [known as] the 2nd Battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI).
Suggest the above changes
It actually isn't clear in sources when in February this happened, and I don't think it needs [known as], that was its proper title. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eighth Army line was advanced in stages with consolidation at each stage.
Is it the "U.S." Eighth Army?
The brigade then pushed forward to the "Utah Line" , with 3 RAR capturing two hills with the assistance of US air support.
Suggest U.S. rather than US
Either is fine in an Australian article as long as it is consistent, per MOS:US. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After consolidation of the position, 3 RAR and its parent brigade were withdrawn into US IX Corps reserve, and handed over the [its]] captured positions to Republic of Korea (ROK) forces.[7]
Suggest the above changes
  • On the night of 22 April, the ROK forces on the "Utah Line" were heavily attacked by large Chinese forces and almost immediately gave ground, and then broke.
Drop the comma after ground
  • On the afternoon of 23 April the 27th Brigade was ordered to establish a blocking position north of the village of Kapyong.
Add a comma after April
  • Initially a precautionary measure, [but] by evening disorganised and panicking groups of ROK soldiers were moving south through the brigade position.
Suggest the aboce addition
  • There were two main battles within the 3 RAR perimeter, one in front of Hill 504, and one around battalion headquarters, and Chinese troops tried to infiltrate the Australian positions by mingling with the fleeing ROK troops.[8]
Suggest the above change
All of these done, with exceptions noted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture and death

  • During the fighting withdrawal, Madden struggled with the effects of [his] concussion, and when urged to move by his platoon sergeant, he told him he was "stuffed" and needed a rest, but would "catch up".
Suggest the above changes
  • Madden highly valued his World War II service medal ribbons, and when the Chinese took them from him, he roundly abused them.
Suggest the above changes
  • In November 1951 he was one of a multinational group of prisoners who were forced marched 300 km (190 mi) north to Changsong on the Yalu River.
Add comma after 1951?
  • After the war ended, Farrar-Hockley wrote affectionately of [him] Madden to Madden's sister, Florence.
Suggest the above change
  • He had been with Madden when he died, and assured her that "he did not die in pain; and was only semi-conscious throughout the last two days of his life, at the end of which, unable to stand a final bout of enteritis, he passed away."[3]
He "was" with Madden... -> Ordinarily, "Was" is used to describe anything from the past that has already ended and there was no duration. "Had been", on the other hand, is used to describe something that has taken place in the past and continued for a definite duration.
  • Madden remained posted as missing in action until 1953, when his family was told of his death.
Drop the comma after 1953

@Peacemaker67: Done - Pendright (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of these done, thanks so much for your corrections, Pendright!
@Peacemaker67: Supporting - Happy New Year! Pendright (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass: Zawed

edit

Disclaimer: I worked on this article back in 2012 to bring it up to B-Class, and made a couple tweaks since then. I think enough water has passed under the bridge since then that I can at least do a source review. I won't do an image review though as I added one of the images currently used.

  • Sources themselves look fine, and I am personally familiar with the work of Ashcroft and Horner
  • Formatting: The Department of Veterans' Affairs sources use a hyphen in the title when I *think* it should be an em dash?
Sure, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given history of nominator, I wouldn't normally worry about spot checks but for sake of completeness did some of the online sources: cites 4, 5, 14, 16. All of these generally check out, but in the case of cite 14, that doesn't give his sister's first name.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Zawed! And for your work in getting it to B-Class. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good, marking Source review as a pass. Zawed (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass

edit

Nice and easy. Consider adding alt text to the images, but I'm happy to mark this as passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:27, 1 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2024/Promoted&oldid=1253588929"