Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers
Instructions
Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an article:

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
  2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
  3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
  4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
  5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  7. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
  8. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).
Restrictions
  1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
  2. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
  3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.
Commenting

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Demotion

If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

Current reviews

edit
Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): AirshipJungleman29 (talk)

Battle of Köse Dağ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Although I've taken various MILHIST articles to GA and FA, this is my first A-class nomination. The Battle of Köse Dağ was a decisive event for the Middle East, marking the end of real Seljuk power and another feather in the cap of the Mongol war machine. One of the great powers of the Mediterranean was overpowered on its own territory by an army half its size operating 4,500km away from its homeland. Quite an achievement, by any measure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

After quite a bit of time away from formal review processes, I'm getting back into it (I think we both know you missed seeing the stream of German warships passing through ACR). Berlin had an interesting career across three German navies, and was one of the few larger ships to survive World War II (though simply as a barracks ship). Thanks for taking the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Project Pluto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Introducing one of Wikipedia's stranger articles, an artifact of the Golden Age of Mad Science, which ran from roughly 1945 to 1970. It was fun to write. The project aimed to use a nuclear engine in a supersonic cruise missile. It would operate at Mach 3, or around 3,700 kilometres per hour, be invulnerable to interception by contemporary air defenses, and carry up to sixteen with nuclear weapons with yields of up to 10 megatonnes of TNT. What could possible go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Marking a spot. This will probably be a bit episodic. Nudge me if I seem to have forgotten about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The need to maintain supersonic speed ... meant that the reactor had to survive high temperatures and intense radiation." I can see how "The need to maintain supersonic speed at low altitude and in all kinds of weather meant that the reactor had to survive high temperatures and intense radiation" but why should the low altitude and the kind of weather raise the reactor temperature and radiation levels? Similarly in the main article.
    checkY Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
  • The second half of "Development" is probably not in summary enough nor non-technical enough terms for FAC, but it scrapes by my personal ACR threshold.

Down to "Test facilities" and so far it is an excellent read with very little to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh! You wouldn't get away with that at FAC.
It will do. You don't have to use the converter "in line". You could insert "$2 billion" by hand and keep the same cite.

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi, ran the IA Bot on the page, will post my comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

John S. McCain Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The World War II admiral of Guadalcanal fame. "Slew" McCain and his son "Junior" McCain were the first father and son to become four-star admirals in the US Navy, although Slew's promotion was posthumous. (In fact, the only ever posthumous promotion to that rank.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

edit

This ACR seems malformed - the usual headings aren't in place.

This is a problem with our Template:WikiProject Military history. See Template talk:WikiProject Military history#A class preload boilerplate for deatils. MSGJ (talk · contribs) is working on it. In the meantime, I have added them manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer the following comments focused on the World War II section, with the proviso that I'm going to be travelling without Wikipedia access for a month starting next week.

I only just got back from Poland and Paris. Have a great time! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D, any further comments to come from your end? If not, could we have your vote, now that you're back from your break? Matarisvan (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

  • In the infobox, when we already have we listed John S. McCain Jr. in the Children label, why have we listed Jr. again as Sr.'s son in the Relatives label?
    checkY I don't know; another editor added it. Changed to "3" per Template:Infobox person. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that caused destruction of": might "that caused the destruction of" be better?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "report to the armored cruiser USS Pennsylvania on the West Coast": do we know where exactly on the West Coast?
    I have checked three different sources and all they say is "on the Pacific coast". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "escorting shipping": "ships" instead of "shipping"?
    "shipping" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCain left the San Diego on 26 May 1918": Do we know why?
    checkY For a new assignment. Changed wording to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to U-boat on first mention in the Early career and World War I section?
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consisted of VF-4...": perhaps we could rephrase this to clarify that these were squadrons? I had to click on the VB-4 link to confirm they were.
    checkY Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could be released from 200 to 300 feet": What was the earlier range of the Mark 13s?
    checkY Clarified that this refers to altitude, not range. It had a maximum range of 6,300x. ("Mk XIII Aerial Torpedo". National Museum of the United States Air Force. Retrieved 16 October 2024.) Is this worth adding? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce and link Knox and Halsey on first mention instead of second?
    checkY Already linked on first mention. Unlinked on second. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "completion of a new airfield on Espiritu Santo": Are any dates available for this completion? Also, wouldn't "construction" be better than "completion", since this was a new airfield and not a brownfield one?
    checkY The wording emphasises that McCain pressed to get it ready in time. The construction of the airfield without engineer units was a saga in its own right. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "revictualing": Gloss as "loading supplies", perhaps in brackets, for those not familiar with military terminology?
    checkY Linked to the wiktionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my support, all the issues I had raised have been addressed. Matarisvan (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Source review

edit

That was all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, I will be doing 12 spot checks, ~10% of the total refs. Here go the spot checks:
  • Ref #19: all 19 pages of the source being cited to support McCain's work at the Bureau of Navigation seems excessive. I think 1-3 pages would be enough, no?
  • Ref #20: ok.
  • Refs #23 and #25: I think citing all the pages of the sources is not necessary. We could just cite the sources without adding page numbers for these two refs, and the first one in this list.
  • Ref #45: ok.
  • Refs #62 and #63: ok.
  • Ref #106: ok.
  • Refs #107 and #109: dead links, you may have to remove these.
  • Ref #110: ok.
  • Ref #115: ok.
Matarisvan (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have substituted another newspaper for fn 107.
  • fn 109 is a book and is not dead. Do we have the right reference number?
  • 19, 23 and 25 are provided so the reader can look up the original works by McCain. The reader looking for a hard copy will need the page numbers. The text is supported by the secondary reference.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, I meant ref 108, the Arlington National Cambridge website. The URL doesn't load on both my laptop and phone, and the archive URL also does not work. Matarisvan (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, the link might not be working outside of the US. Anyway, everything else is good, so the source review is a pass. Matarisvan (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am outside the US. Strange. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current reassessments

edit
Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)}

USS Texas (BB-35) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#USS Texas (BB-35) A-Class reappraisal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reading the concerns raised by voorts were as follows:

  • A1: The citation style is inconsistent. There are refs (including some bare URLs) mixed in with {{sfn}}s. Some claims are cited to irreputable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71) and primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
  • A2: The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources. It also lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024. Additionally, given the sourcing issues, the article may not be factually accurate.
  • A3: The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with "unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources". Unnecessary detail is when an article goes off on a tangent and becomes for a time about something other than the topic. Use of primary sources is acceptable, and so long as they are about the subject, is not unnecessary detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. It's not always true that primary source use leads to unnecessary detail. But, if secondary sources haven't covered an aspect of something, there might be a WP:BALASP issue if primary sources are overused. Here, 18 out of the 116 (or ~16% of) references are to primary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have initiated work on this article. I have finished the biblio formatting and hope to get this rewrite done soon, hopefully within a month from now. Matarisvan (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

edit

I'll be travelling for a month without Wikipedia access from the end of this week, so will only comment (mainly on the World War II section which I'm most competent to comment on) rather than vote on whether the article should be delisted. My comments are:

  • The DANFS references should be replaced as it's no longer considered to be a reliable source. It should be straightforward to do this for an article on a very famous battleship.
  • The multiple notes and citations in the lead are undesirable, and the notes are unreferenced
  • There's too much detail on the current restoration work on the ship in the lead
  • The construction section should cover the context in which the ship was ordered (e.g. why was the USN ordering battleships at this time? What role were they intended for? Was Texas ordered as part of a broader program, etc)
  • "At that point in the war, the doctrine of amphibious warfare was still embryonic. Many Army officers did not recognize the value of prelanding bombardments. Instead, the Army insisted upon attempting a landing by surprise" - I don't think that this is correct, and illustrates the limitations of DANFS. The US Army was hoping that the French in North Africa wouldn't fight and didn't want to fire the first shots as a result. This was a largely successful strategy.
  • "Texas was one of only three U.S. battleships (Massachusetts and New York) that took part in Operation Torch" - this doesn't read well, and "only" is a bit odd given that three battleships is rather a lot!
  • I'm not sure if the para on Walter Cronkite is needed: this is much more significant to the article on the journalist than that on this ship.
  • Why was Texas still escorting convoys through the North Atlantic in 1943 and 1944? The Royal Navy had largely ended the use of battleships for this purpose in the North Atlantic by this time as the remaining German surface fleet was focused on Norway and the convoy routes to the Soviet Union.
  • The 'Rehearsal' section would benefit from a trim and a better title
  • The 'Battle of Cherbourg' section doesn't really say what the outcome of this engagement was
  • It would be good to say more about the experiences of the ship's crew
  • The '1988–1990 dry dock period' section is too detailed
  • The 'Dry berth project' section seems over-long
  • Ditto the 'Leaks' section Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]