Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/2007

Italian War of 1542–1546

The first real article I've written in more than a year now; I'd be very appreciative of any sort of feedback that others might provide. Obviously, copyediting and additional images are needed, and I'll be providing both; but I'm particularly interested in the content itself. Is the narrative clear everywhere? Are there parts that need more detail? Less detail? (I've tried to avoid descending into too much trivia, as I'm wont to.) Do some points need more or better explanation? Kirill 05:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

victor falk

I did some wikilinking. In general, I don't think there is too many details; but it is a very detailed article, and I think an very short overview (just a 'graph with a few lines, not a section) between the lede and the prelude would be helpful, maybe just a slightly modified version of the stub [1]. the treaty of Crépy: its article is now redundant; it should either be merged & redirected into the #Treaty of Crépy section, or that section should be merged & redirected to the treaty article, and summed up in a few words that link to it. The first option has the advantage of consolidating, the second of making the article more concise.--victor falk 08:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the linking. I intend to expand the lead by another paragraph or two; that will probably provide a good overview once it's done. I'll look at the Crépy article; unless there's a lot of additional detail there (and I doubt there is, based on what I know of the treaty), I'll probably wind up merging it here, to avoid having the article sitting without the full context available. Kirill 12:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In which Crépy was this treaty signed?--victor falk 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Don't ask stupid questions you already know the answers to.":) It was [Crépy]], the red-linked one of course. I'll stub it.--victor falk 18:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Larry Dunn

The article looks good. It's got lots of good detail and many cited sources. It'll be a useful article to broaden the scope of your article on the Battle of Ceresole.

I made a few minor changes -- I checked around and Piedmont seems to be referred to more often in modern english as simply "Piedmont" rather than "the Piedmont." The Wiki article on Piedmont does not use the "the."

At the risk of looking ridiculous I might suggest a map -- yes, the war was of a truly gigantic scope, but a map might help to bring the whole thing together. This would be an ambitious one for someone like Mapmaster to sink his teeth into.

The article gets a little dense sometimes -- now and then, it's a bit terse when there's lots going on, and I dropped the narrative thread a few times, although I am very familiar with these campaigns. It might be productive to open up the text a bit so it's not so compact.

Small points though, as the article appears to be in great shape. Larry Dunn 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments! A map (or several maps, more likely) would indeed be a quite helpful; as I'm a very poor cartographer, unfortunately, I'll have to go look for help on this. You're probably right about the prose being too dense; my normal style tends towards the unduly ponderous to begin with, and the strictly chronological ordering of points may break the narrative thread. I'll be copyediting the article quite a bit in the future, so hopefully I'll be able to smooth over some of the rough spots.

(But it'll probably be a while before I get back to major work on this; I've just gotten a copy of Cecil Roth's The Last Florentine Republic, so I'll likely be focusing my attention on my earlier, never-completed article on the Siege of Florence.) Kirill 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what that's like -- I wanted to finish up the analysis of Pike and Shot as well as the Battle of Tagliacozzo, but haven't been able to find the time to do the research in a while. Larry Dunn 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06

Not my period at all, so it's a bit hard to hold the thread of events. The main actions seem to have occurred in the north, but I assume the convention, given the casus belli was Milan, to call it an Italian War? Is this the usual historians' title? Buckshot06 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The name comes from the Italian Wars. Historians are pretty consistent about labeling the entire series of conflicts, but the nomenclature within that tends to vary quite a bit. This particular war, for example, could also be called the "Ninth Italian War", the "Fourth Italian War between Charles and Francis", or even just "the 1542—46 war"; I've decided to go with the dated option for the sake of simplicity. Kirill 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle Assembly

I started this article about the latest nomenclature for US Army Reserve monthly meetings as there wasn't one previously. Hope you like it. --Eplack 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

Very informative article, but a few things:

• Expand the intro to summarize the entire article.
• Needs many more inline citations and sources. If you want it to be A or FA level, I would suggest having an inline citation every paragraph. There must be other books or websites that detail what the Army Reserve is and how it functions.
• Some questions you might try to answer in the article:
  • Where are reserve garrisons usually located?
  • Where are their field training sites located?
  • Do they usually use regular Army sites for their field training, or does the reserve have it's own field training sites?
  • Since their battle assembly can last from two to four days, how many days are they actually getting paid for, and how does the whole battle assembly pay structure and retirement system (points for "good years" etc) work?
  • What happens if a soldier is injured during a battle assembly and do injuries occur very often?
  • Are there any special preparations that a reserve unit undertakes during assembly if they know they will be deploying in the immediate future?
  • Are there any full-time positions in active reserve units and what is there role in planning, preparing, and participating in weekend assemblies?
  • What do the soldiers do on Saturday night? Do they return home, or do they sleep in the garrison or field location somewhere?
  • Do they take their weapons and equipment home with them, like they do in some European countries, or is all of their weaponry kept in the garrison or another location?
  • Do they ever take part in any ceremonial assemblies, like presenting awards, honoring fallen comrades, marching in a local parade, presenting the national colors at an event, or honoring a visiting dignitary?
  • How are reserve members notified if an assembly schedule or location changes suddenly?
  • What do reserve members do between assemblies? Work regular jobs? Are they in contact with their comrades at all? Are they required to keep a certain level of physical fitness or remain within a certain area?
  • What is the history of assemblies? How were they originally structured? How have they evolved over time?
  • Who decides what type of training takes place at an assembly? Is there direction from national leadership, or almost wholly local? Is an annual training plan developed, or is the unit training plan shorter or longer than that?
  • How is the assembly structured? Does it begin and end with a unit formation? Is roll call taken? What happens to soldiers who don't show up or arrive late or leave early without authorization?

I know that some of these questions are answered in the main Army reserve article, but any of them that pertain at all to assembly you might should consider addressing in this article. All in all, an excellent start on the article. Cla68 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Just a thought but why isn't this part of the United States Army Reserve article? That isn't so long that it would struggle under the weight of this as well .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Vasa (ship)

The Vasa is one of the oldest preserved warships in the world, and me and User:Peter Isotalo have been working on it to bring it to FAC, with GA (it is currently a candidate) as an intermediate goal. Feedback from the milhist experts here would be much appreciated on how to improve it further. henrik•talk 09:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very good article, overall; a few suggestions, though:

• ✓ The bulleted list in the "Armament" section may be better as prose or in a floated box of some sort.
• There are some statistics in the "Ornamentation" section that need to be cited.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated; if the terms can't be linked to sensibly in the article, they typically don't need to be linked at all.
• ✓ "Sources" should probably be "References".
• ✓ Some of the external links seem a bit questionable.

Kirill 18:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The See also-links are highly relevant to the topic at hand, namely naval warfare (especially that of the 17th century) and marine archaeology. Trying to work them into the article would needlessly burden the prose. I'm all for cleaning up link farms, but a mere five links doesn't exactly smack of excess.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see:

• Maritime archeology - could this be easily linked under, say, "marine archaeologists" in the lead.
• Kronan - this, as the two other ship links, is a reasonable "see also"-type link; but I wonder if it might not be better off in a navigation template of some sort, given that all the ships will be interlinked this way.
• Mary Rose
• Batavia
• Royal Swedish Navy - this definitely ought to be linked the first time the Swedish navy is mentioned.

Is any of that reasonable? Kirill 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, they're much appreciated. I've taken the liberty of marking the suggestions that (hopefully) have been addressed with a ✓ the same way I saw User:Oberiko do. henrik•talk 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when has there been consensus that "See also"-sections should be eliminated or that they can never repeat a link buried in prose? I've certainly heard the complaint before, but I just don't understand what the point would be when dealing with an example that has only a handful of both useful and relevant links.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That has been my impression of what FAC reviewers prefer to see; obviously, if you don't intend to take the article to FAC, then this may not be particularly relevant to you.

(Personally, I don't like "See also" sections; they give the impression of material that ought to be mentioned in the article but isn't, reducing the sense of the article as a completed piece. But that's more personal preference than anything else.) Kirill 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is actually the reason we have "See also"-links; to include linkage that would simply be awkward or irrelevant in prose and that can lead the interested reader to other related articles. The "complete" article would probably be the perfect article.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)

I have rewritten this article and I would like to have it promoted to a higher class in the fututre and I would like to see how I can improve it. Kyriakos 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, as usual. A few suggestions:

• An article on the Byzantine-Norman Wars would be nice, even if it's a stub to start off.
• Any chance of getting a tactical map of the battle? Or is there not enough information for that?
• Staggering the images along both margins will clean up the layout, I think.

Overall, though, this looks good to go. Kirill 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Kirill. At the moment I am trying to get a tactical map of the battle or maybe make one myself. I have moved a few images around and I will create an article for the Byzantine-Norman Wars. Kyriakos 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "Robert had no intentions for peace; he sent his son Bohemond with an advance force towards Greece, then followed shortly after." Robert was the one who followed shortly after?
• "Modern historians put the army's size between 18,000 to 20,000 men." Source? Otherwise, it is weasel. Even if it is the same source you have at the end of the paragraphs, the use of "modern historians" expression not only justifies but demands the addition of a citation here IMO.
• "Near Dyrrhachium on 15 October." "The Battle of Dyrrhachium or Siege of Durazzo took place on October 18, 1081 between the Byzantine Empire." MoS issues with the inconsistency in the way you write dates. Check the whole text and fix these inconsistencies.
• "The Normans immediately set the church on fire, and all Varangians perished in the blaze.[6][22][23][21]" When I have more than one citations in a row I use to merge them (see El Greco and also see Sandy's "patent" in Tourette syndrome. But again I don't think this is a prerequisite for FA status. I have seen articles passing without doing what I advised them to on this particular issue!
• In "Aftermath" I see only Haldon's assessment of the battle. I would like to have a more thorough analysis of the outcome of the battle. Haldon is an important modern historian, but what other modern historians say? Again neither is this a prerequisite for FA status. It is just an advice for the article's thoroughness, leaving aside FA criteria. Now, if you add more modern assessments, you may reconsider the necessity of having a box where only Haldon's views are exposed.
• Instead, the lack of a a tactical map of the battle, as Kirill pointed out, could be a problem during the article's FAC.

In general, the prose is nice (it could be further improved), the structure is rational, the referencing satisfying, and the article seems to cover its topic quite thoroughly. IMO, it is already in FA level (though, I must point out again that a map would add to the article), and I think this is the best job you've done up to now Kyriako.--Yannismarou 10:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Colmar Pocket

Has the looks of a possible GA, but knowledge isn't only about looks. Some specialist's feedback should be useful. Thanks, RCS 11:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A few points to consider:

• The lead should be lengthened considerably; as it is, it doesn't really summarize the article.
• As the citations are never repeated, it should be possible to combine neighboring ones so as to avoid having two footnote numbers in the same place in the text.
• The images would look better staggered along both margins. The image sizes shouldn't bounce around quite so much either.
• The structure of the sub-headings is almost incomprehensible. The use of the parenthesized Roman numerals isn't going to be obvious or meaningful to the average reader, and full unit names aren't the best section titles in any case. I'd suggest a chronological or geographic breakdown for these sections instead.
• The order of battle would be neater placed as a (floated?) table rather than as a bullet-list section.

Overall, though, this looks quite good. Kirill 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1868 Expedition to Abyssinia

I've made numerous substantial additions to this article over the last month -- incluing adding some images (which historically have been my weak point), & would like some suggestions on what more I could do to further improve this article. (Yes, I know it needs a map -- what else? ;-) -- llywrch 03:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite good, overall; a few suggestions:

• The lead should be lengthened considerably; as it is, it doesn't really summarize the article.
• {{Infobox Military Conflict}} ought to work here.
• This may just be personal preference, but I dislike article titles that begin with dates; perhaps something like Abyssinian expedition of 1868 might be neater?
• The "See also" section should be eliminated; the lone link there can easily be mentioned in the text when the treasure itself is being discussed.
• And, yes, a map would really help. ;-)

Kirill 17:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

B-52 Stratofortress

A very good article, I've spent the last few days add/cleaning it up, referencing it, etc. Needs a review before I can put it up for FAC. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very good article, overall. A few points to consider, though:

• The lead could stand to be a bit longer.
• Horizontally-stacked images (e.g. those in the "Design and development" section) tend to cause layout problems on small resolutions; I'd advise against using them.
  •  Done Moved to vertical. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Is there some convention re: aircraft that all designations should be bolded? If not, the bolding in "Design and development" is rather excessive.
  •  Done Removed the bolding on the sub-models, left a few for very important versions.. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• The explicit placement of the footnote at the start of the "Variants" section is forced; I'd just move it to the "The B-52 went through several design changes and variants over it's 10 years of production" sentence instead.
  •  Done - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Using definition tags (e.g. ; NB-52A : The last B-52A (serial 52-0003) was modified and redesignated NB-52A in...) rather than sub-sections for the individual variants may be neater, given how short they are.
  • The sections were added here by User:LanceBarber citing that "because I have referenced these sub-sections with pipe construct in numerous other articles", I'm not sure if they should remain in deference to that, or that removing them is the best thing to do. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs)
    • If you need to retain the link anchors, you can just use a span; e.g. ; NB-52A : <span id="NB-52A"></span>The last.... Kirill 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • AHA!!!  Done - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• The "USAF Stations" and "Surviving B-52s on static display" sections are too short. If they can't be made more substantial, I'd suggest integrating their content into the main body of the text, either as a floated box (as in, e.g. War of the Grand Alliance) or directly in the prose.
  •  Done - merged sections into article - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• The external links are excessive, considering that we have actual articles for, say the Fairchild AFB crash, which should be linked instead.
  •  Done - removing some unneccessary or repeated links - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the great work! Kirill 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)  Done and  Done ;)

JKBrooks85

Fantastic article! I've only got two questions/suggestions, and both are stylistic:

• The design section of the article is a little long. Some subheadings might break up the text a little bit and make it easier to read and access for readers interested in only a portion of the design history.
• The B-52 has a fairly rich history in fiction... would it be appropriate to create a "B-52 in fiction" section? There's certainly enough films, books, and television shows for a separate article, so if you do go down the route of creating a fiction section, I'd suggest creating a separate article with room for a full list. A brief coverage of B-52 fiction would be all that's needed in your article. I don't think it's absolutely needed, but it's something that I've seen a lot of similar articles have.

Keep up the good work! JKBrooks85 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at adding 1 or 2 subsections to the development. The "in fiction" section maybe harder. There is some info that can be used from the B-52 Stratofortress trivia page, but we don't want the new section to become a trivia section. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a trivia page for the B-52. Thanks for pointing it out! JKBrooks85 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Yes, really good article - well done Trevor and other editors. My only comments:

• The first two paras look titchy. FA intros are commonly three paras, I'd do the same here. It might just take a bit of rearrangement of what you already have, in fact you could just combine the first two short ones for my money.
• While it may not be a rule, I always think FAs look better without red links so you might consider creating ones for the Wright T-35 and North Star Bay - even stubs - or just lose the links for now.
• Best to have a citation at the end of each para - para 2 of Design and development is missing that, for instance, and there are a few others.
• Don't know whether you want to note that BUFF also stands for "Big Ugly Fat Fella" (in polite company). Can provide a citation for that in Bill Gunstan's Modern Military Aircraft if needed.
• I'd combine the third and fourth short paras in Vietnam War. If you add that Linebacker took place "the following month" (from the loss on 22 Nov 72) or something similar then it follows quite naturally.
• Wonder if a brief, parenthetical explanation of "mission capable" or "mission capable rate" would help the uninitiated.

That's it, keep up the good work! Cheers, Ian Rose 09:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Admiralty Islands campaign

This article was formerly just a stub. The new article covers the campaign in considerable - perhaps excessive - detail. Let's see if it can be taken all the way to Class B. Hawkeye7 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

A few things:

• The intro should be expanded by another paragraph or two so that it summarizes in a little more detail the entire article.

 Done Expanded the introduction.

• There's enough pictures available that you can put a picture in the infobox instead of a map. This frees the map up to be used in the article somewhere.

 Done The map has been swapped with the picture of the landing

• You should have more background on why and how the Japanese forces ended-up on those islands in the first place. What was their strategy behind occupying the Admiralties? What was their strategy to defend them? I added a reference that perhaps might help with the Japanese POV.

 Done Added a section explaining this.

• The language of the article seems slightly biased in favor of the Allies, which is difficult not to do since the sources are probably written that way. Remember that we're supposed to write the articles in a way that the reader can't tell who the writer wanted to win in the battle. One way to avoid Allied POV is to put mention of awards of the Medal of Honor and other decorations in the footnotes instead of in the main text.
  • Japanese POV accounts of this campaign tend to terminate abruptly, probably due to the death of Ezaki and his staff. I'll ask the Japanese-reading types if they have anything. Hawkeye7 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Checked but they have no more material on this campaign.

• I usually separate the references into "Books" and "Web" sections so that it's not such a big, overwhelming list.

All in all, a lot of good work on the article, with good detail and well-organized. Cla68 11:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth

• I agree with Cla68 that there should be more detail in the Background section on the Japanese forces involved. His questions for this are excellent. Also, minor point, but as for the commander Colonel Ezaki Yosho, was his name Yosho, Yōshō, Yōsho, or Yoshō?

 Done Typo. It should have been Yoshio.

• The pro-Allies POV issue continues throughout the article - the disparity between Japanese and Allies in the degree of detail provided is enormous. There really needs to be more on Japanese tactics, their view of the battle as it progressed, and various actions and troop movements made from their point of view. As Cla68 suggested as well, it is perfectly understandable that, given the types of sources I imagine were used, the POV of the article would come out this way. Still, efforts for objectivity need to be made in all sections of the article.

 Done Added some more material on Japanese perspective.

• The final analysis section in particular is probably the most unbalanced POV of the whole article. The base building portion, in the aftermath of the battle, is of course told from the Allied point of view, as they had now won the islands, and there were no more Japanese to speak of. But in the final analysis, you write exclusively from the Allied point of view, and the language used makes it sound like one of those over-dramatized History Channel programs. "No general could ask for more" has got to go, and the rest of this section needs to be rewritten to be better balanced, relating not only the Allied benefits in capturing the islands, but also what it meant for the Japanese to lose them, and other aspects such as that.

 Done Added some more material on Japanese perspective.

• It's good that you link such terms as APD and LCVP, but many other terms are not wikilinked and are therefore unknowns; I think maybe it might be better to also spell them out fully the first time they are used. What do APD, LCVP, LCPR, LST, LCR stand for?

 Done Added more wikilinks. Cleaned up wiki articles on landing craft a bit.

Fixing these POV issues is going to be a lot of work, but outside of that, the article is really great in every other way. Long, detailed, well-organised, well-written, with lots of maps and pictures, and quite well-cited. Thanks for your efforts, and keep up the good work. LordAmeth 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

John Babcock

Have brought this article on the last surviving Canadian World War I veteran up from a Stub to a B Class article, and now I want to focus on bring it to GA class and beyond. My biggest problem (and the reason I hadn't nominated for peer review yet) was that I have been unable to acquire a photo to be used on the article. There's a good picture here at Veteran's Affairs Canada, but their non-commercial use is not sufficient for Wikipedia and they never responded to my inquires on whether or not I could use the picture (I used the formal request template too!). I hope that my work thus far has proven that I am willing to work to get this article to at least GA class, which is the reason I am nominating this for peer review. As a side note, however, if anyone has any good ideas on how to get a picture, I would really appreciate it. Cheers, CP 02:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555

It is a good article overall but i have a few suggestions.

• Take a look at WP:LEAD. (In summary: the lead should summarise the whole article in a couple of paragraphs.)

 Done Sort of a short lead, but it's also a short article. Cheers, CP 20:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Some of the sections are just individual sentences. I think some could be merged to form paragraphs as the prose does not flow well.
  • e.g. "Babcock claimed a harrowing ocean voyage to England, where he got seasick." This sentence does not mean anything, claimed what?
  • e.g. Babcock asserts that he would have fought in the war, given the chance,[4] the war ended before he could be brought to the front lines. Again, this sentence is two sentences merged together. "The war ended..." should be a separate sentence.

 Done Although I may split some of them up again once I deal with your point below. Cheers, CP 20:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• In general, some of the text needs to be "beefed up" a little bit.

 Doing... I'm not having much luck finding more sources. Could you perhaps suggest some specific areas to beef up, so that I can look for more specific things? Cheers, CP 23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Could "last surviving" not be a level 2 section header?

 Done Cheers, CP 20:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Early life section needs expanding. If he has an autobiography out, this should provide some info.

 Done Cheers, CP 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could find out the isbn of the autobiography and list it in a "further reading section."

 Not done Looks like it was just friends and family only. I did find another article during my search, however, so I'll try and use that to flesh out the early life section. Cheers, CP 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, an image needs to be found. (You know this already, but still worth mentioning)

 Doing... They responded to me with a form that I have to fill out, so we'll see if I can do that. Cheers, CP 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a good article at the moment, it just needs some more work. Excellent start though. Woodym555 01:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll get on these right away! I'm especially disappointed that I forgot to expand the lead, especially since that's my number one comment when reviewing for GA. I'll also look to see if his autobiography is available or not - from what I understand, I think it was more of a personal thing that he distributed to friends and family - but I will have a look. Thanks again! Cheers, CP 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig Ernst von Brunswick-Lüneburg-Bevern

Any suggestions for bringing this article up from B (which it easily reached) to GA? Neddyseagoon - talk 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

A few suggestions:

• Expand the intro by one more paragraph so it summarizes in slightly more detail the entire article.
• Instead of using "he" to refer to the article's subject as often, try using Ludwig at least every other time, and especially at the beginning of a section.
• I think you could change the "family" section title to "origin" or "birth" so that it will appear that you have more information on his early life.
• I think you have too many one paragraph sections. Whenever possible sections should contain at least two paragraphs. Perhaps some of them could be combined.
• I would suggest having a citation in at least every paragraph, preferably at the end of the paragraph, even if it's the same citation for the following paragraph.
• The grammer needs going over again, there are some problems. For example, "according to some with the intention restraining William's older sister Carolina" and "It is not impossibly that Ludwig had an influence in bringing prince William V"

All in all, very good work on the article. Cla68 23:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

My concerns echo Cla68's. The biggest current problem is the inadequate referencing, which is an absolute bar to further progress. (You will see that it fails B-class for the same reason.) Otherwise, a comprehensive and broadly well-written piece. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Operation Battleaxe

Self-nomination. I've expanded the article pretty heavily (I'm not done yet), but would like to get some feedback on what areas still need improvement thus far. Oberiko 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope no one takes offense to my editing their comments, but I'm adding ✓'s to points that I think I've addressed. Oberiko 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall; a few points that stand out as needing some work, though:

• The lead could stand to be a little longer; it doesn't mention much about the operation itself. ✓
• "Casualties" should be part of "Aftermath", no? Putting them under one of the days seems a bit counterintuitive. ✓
• The section names could stand to be a bit terser. ✓
• Since the footnotes don't provide full bibliographical information, that section should be titled "Notes", and "Bibliography" changed to "References". It is, in any case, nearly impossible to navigate these sections if the authors are never mentioned in the notes, particularly when the titles are already given in shortened forms.
• Can the lone OOB link in the "See also" section be worked into the text somehow? That would allow you to get rid of that section. ✓
• Some of the external links seem of questionable scholarly value; and, if you're going to have that many, there probably needs to be some sort of logical ordering to them. ✓

Keep up the good work! Kirill 01:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

• Kudos for the map!
• I concur with Kirill about a longer intro. ✓
• Sentences are a bit long and complicated in places. (Many of the semi-colons could be replaced with points.)
• Section name are sometimes long. Perhaps consider replacing "Outcome of the second day and plans for the third" with "Outcome of Day 2 and plans for Day 3" etc (which is how days are referred to in the main section headers)? ✓
• Notes, references and further reading/bibliography do need attention. Perhaps short titles in "Notes"; full titles in "References"; and everything else in "Further reading"?
• Occasional AmEng spellings have crept in (defense, center, armored). I've changed these to BrEng.
• Times are handled inconsistently. Perhaps 24:00 clock throughout, with 05:00 for 5:00 etc? ✓

Fine stuff though. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Factotem

Very nice article, well worth pursuing. Some constructive criticism comments and questions...

• The references/bibliography really needs attention. Cites 4 and 6 don't even appear in the bibliography as far as I can tell. If they do, it just underlines the difficulty of viewing the sources.
• Is it standard for infobox stats to be cited? I don't think it looks good and the information is anyway provided and cited in the main article. ✓
• I think that the quote of Wavell's concerns is too big. Wouldn't this information be better worked into the narrative using your own words and supported with cites from this quote? ✓
• Do you think it worth while including a narrated (as opposed to a bare listed) order of battle for both sides at the start of the article, perhaps expanding on the plans section. I find this helps to place units that appear subsequently into context and aids in comprehending the battle narrative. As an example, the 2nd Queen's Own Camerons suddenly appear in the attack on Halfaya Pass, when the plans section earlier informed us that this was part of 11th Indian Brigade's task.
• Some of the sections are a little short (e.g. the 1st 2 on Day 2 of the battle). This comment was levelled at my work recently and whilst as an editor I prefer neat organised sections dealing with specific events, as a reader they do tend to break up the flow of the narrative. Can the sections be expanded or the narrative re-worked to merge them?
• "Numerous" breakdowns? Can you be more specific? Especially as the British suffered terribly from unreliabable equipment.
  • Unfortunately no. While almost all sources cite large numbers of breakdowns, none of them provide any details as to the amount. Oberiko 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• IIRC correctly the Western Desert Force suffered terribly and repeatedly from its failure to press home attacks with coordinated combined arms actions in the way that the Germans did right from the invasion of Poland. Certainly here the separation of tanks from supporting infantry and artillery cost the Commonwealth forces dearly, especially in terms of armour. Is it worth including something about this in the aftermath section?
• General need for copyediting (some awkward sentences, redlinks, etc)

--FactotEm 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleomenean War

I have wanted to push this article towards FA for a while and I decided before I go I'll see what I can improve on it. All comments are greatly appreciated. The article was last peer review in September 2007 here. Kyriakos (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene

Congratulations on a fascinating, enjoyable article. I've commented in more detail below; because you mentioned FA, I've been quite picky, so I hope you don't take my criticisms too much to heart. Your hard work on this article is very much appreciated!

Prose: this would benefit greatly from the detailed attention of an FA-experienced copyeditor. Some examples of awkward prose flow, grammar and lack of clarity:

• "In inner politics, he ordered the killing of the ephors in the meantime."
• "Later that year, the ephors sent Cleomenes to seize the Athenaeum, which was near Belbina, one of the entrance points into Laconia, disputed at the time between Sparta and Megalopolis." Too much going on in a single sentence; could be split.
• "In response, an Achaean army arrived, relieved the city and inflicted a minor defeat on the part of the Spartan army nearest to the city walls." Remove "..the part of..."
• "In 226 BC, the citizens of Mantinea appealed to Cleomenes to expel the Achaean garrison from the city. One night, he and his troops crept into the city and expelled the Achaean garrison before marching off to Tegea." Repetition of "expel"
• "Historians Polybius and Sir William Smith claim that Cleomenes seized the city by treachery" Should this be "cities", plural?
• Macedonian phalanx image caption uses "weren't"; change to "were not" (also needs a source for the caption)
• "The ephors looked after the day to day running of the state and where the arbiters of war and peace." "where"→"were"
• "In the Achaean League, the position of strategus was the highest. A strategus was elected annually..." "strategus"→"strategos"?

Completeness: there are a number of places where additional detail would be useful for the reader (even if only an explanatory word or two), especially where relevant wikilinks don't exist. Some examples are below, but it may also be useful to try to re-read the article from the perspective of someone completely unfamiliar with the period (difficult, I know!). This should help to highlight the sections that need further explanation; obviously the article mustn't wander too far off-topic, but neither should it oblige a reader to follow too many wikilinks in order to understand it ;) Some examples:

• Why "two royal families" in relation to Sparta?
• Why would Cleomenes take Tegea, Mantineia, Caphyae and Orchomenus in Arcadia? What was the Aetolian League?
• Why was ravaging the area around a city an important tactic in Greek warfare?
• Why was increasing the Spartan citizen count important (and who were the perioeci)?
• Who is Pausanias (why is his opinion important)?

Sourcing etc: this looks ok, though I can never predict how well the use of primary sources will go down at FAC ;) I spotted a couple of other points:

• Ref 23 (Plutarch, Life of Aratus) seems to be either dead or broken
• Inline citations are needed for every controversial statement, statement of opinion, and facts and figures. Although you've sourced most paragraphs, I think more detailed sourcing may be needed in some places - to take one example, it's not clear whether the cite at the end of the "Cleomenes estimated that Argos would be easier to capture..." paragraph refers to just the last sentence or the preceeding ones too (and the claim that "no Spartan king had ever managed to seize Argos" needs its own citation).

Manual of Style compliance looks good - I didn't spot any obvious problems anyway.

Images: these seem to be fine, although I'm not sure about using the infobox map in such a prominent location as it relates more to Aratus than Cleomenes. A more focused map would be good, if possible.

Thank you for submitting this article for peer review - I think it has the makings of an excellent article, and wish you all the best on your road to FA! EyeSerene^talk 21:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

• Remove the map in the header it's misleading. Elis was a Spartan ally as you write and not part of the Achaean League as the map suggests. Another issus is that the legend of the map could be improved to enhace understanding what these colours and symbols mean. You could copy the specific battle symbols and have them as small illustrating images in the legend of the map.

• The drawing of the phalanx is misleading because the shields are as big as with the hoplites you show. I know this wrong image gets recycled for every Macedonian phalanx, but you have to write a disclaimer and explain that not only the shields are wrong. Next issue is the length of the sarrissa that did change over time. I judge these sarrissae to be 5m and less, thus an early Macedonian phalanx, while this battle took place in late Hellenistic times. Another issue you have to clarify. Best search for a fitting image on the web like this, this or [2]. You can use Template:External media for linking. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq

The article is well cited right now, but it's relatively short for an article of this importance. Revolutionaryluddite 16:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

The article seems very heavy on the political aspects of the report, particularly the response to it, but light on the substance. A large portion of the article should be devoted to summarizing the content of the report itself; as it is, there's only hints of this material in the testimony sections. I'd suggest reorganizing the article along these lines:

1. Lead
2. Background
3. Content of report
4. Congressional testimony
5. Responses

Kirill 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

JKBrooks85

I'd second Kirill's suggestion to break down the report into its component parts. Right now, the responses section is really heavy in comparison to the rest of the article. There's not much about the report itself when set against the amount of space devoted to responses. The graphs are a nice touch, but it isn't made clear whether those have been taken from the report or if they're simply used as illustration in regards to what the report is covering. That can be remedied by a quick fix to the captions. The rest of the article is a bigger task, and it'd probably be best to sit down with the text of the report and go through it section by section, filling in citations where needed. JKBrooks85 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Francis Harvey

British Royal Marines First World War Victoria Cross recipient. Looking to hopefully go places with this and as always WP:Military History/Peer review is the first port of call. Let me know of any issues, all comments gratefully welcomed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall. A few specific points:

• The main thing that stands out as needing some thought is the heading structure. The single sub-header in each section is quite jarring (and probably a MoS violation, although I can't recall where I've seen this particular setup mentioned); I'd suggest either eliminating them or bringing them out to be level-2 headers.
• The "References" section needs to be alphabetized. I'd also suggest not using citation templates if you have sources with no author; the resulting date-first form looks quite strange, in my opinion.
• The ordering of text in the lead is somewhat strained; I'd suggest placing the second paragraph immediately after the first sentence, and the having the details of Jutland after that, so as to preserve a roughly chronological order.

Keep up the great work! Kirill 03:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, I think I have addressed these issues and hope the article is improved. Any futher comments?--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Pēters Vecrumba

Excellent level of detail and very readable.

• Both of the paragraphs seem a bit like opening paragraphs on their own, maybe they can be integrated--it could just be a matter of personal style.
• The headings might be simplified, perhaps Origins, Military Career,... then the major phases/events all as subtitles within.

Just a couple of thoughts! PētersV (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, I have addressed both these concerns in the manner suggested by Kirill above, but your comments were helpful and appreciated.Any further comments?--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I took another read-through the narrative...

• I'd like to understand a bit more about the reprimand from the Admiralty regarding Harvey's unfavorable report on San Diego harbor--was Harvey really at fault? did he fail to play politics? How did the circumstances of this incident reflect upon his character?

This is only sketchily covered by the sources I have. Snelling reports that Harvey was reprimanded right before he returned home as the result of an unfavourable report he released on San Diego, but the contents of that report are unclear. Reading between the lines (i.e. an opinion which cannot be fully supported by the evidence), the report was probably critical of the port's defences at a time Britain was attempting to woo the United States as a strategic ally. Harvey was by all accounts and honest and honourable man and probably refused to censor it for political reasons. As he was not a senior officer at the time the reportwould have done minor damage to international relations, but nevertheless brought him a minor charge of insubordination. However, this is supposition more than fact and I don't feel comfortable inserting it into the article.

• Marriage to Ethel Edye--did this courtship start after his appointment as Assistant Instructor for Gunnery at Plymouth Division or sooner (that is, was this an affection that had survived long distance romance while Harvey was at sea)? Again, something that might reflect on personal character and commitment.

Hmm tricky, I have no information on their romance, only their vague date of marriage. I can't ad more detail to this without more information from sources. It is likely their courtship occurred during his service with the Channel Fleet.

• Q turret on the HMS Lion--more to the HMS Lion article, but it would be interesting to know which turret in particular it was, were these the main guns on the ship?

HMS Lion had three turrets which could all participate in a broadside. Two had 3 x 13.5" guns and one had 2 x 13.5" guns. Q turret was (I believe) the three gun turret closest to the stern (of course, I meant bow) and in front of the bridge. Sources differ between Harvey controlling only "Q" turret and being in charge of all gunnery on the ship. The truth as ascertained from the most reliable avaliable sources is that he was responsible for organisation, training and operation of the turrets but targets would be chosen by the bridge staff. Harvey's office was in "Q" turret which is why he is sometimes stated to have controlled that turret only.

• "First World War" sentence needs copy edit... "Lion was left exposed by the poor performance of HMS Tiger a new ship which had and significant troubles in recruiting crew and training.[8] " (superfluous and)

Will do.

• Jutland -- date? (two day battle, assuming it's June 1st, 1916)

Will add this info to article.

As I said, I particularly enjoyed the style of narrative. So, again, kudos! PētersV (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, I have addressed them above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious, have you tried contacting the National Archives? On the report on San Diego, it would be significant that this was at a time that Britain was evaluating the U.S.--at least that's some additional context, and you can simply state that the contents of the report are not known but that Harvey was by all reputable accounts an officer of integrity. One can state what is uncertain without necessarily drawing "original research" conclusions. PētersV (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to think on this. As for the archives, although I am a member at the Public Records Office in Kew, I'm too busy right now to go searching for this document. I'll probably follow your second suggestion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-dreadnought

I have been working on this article (following on from battleship and ironclad warship which became FAs) and want some feedback. I haven't exhausted my to-do list on it yet but there will inevitably be some things I've missed. The Land 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ready for A-class review, do you think? The Land 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A-class review now open. The Land 18:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maralia

• "The last ships which can be considered the 'first pre-dreadnoughts'" . . . you've lost me here. Can't there be only one set of 'first pre-dreadnoughts'?

(More to come later - got interrupted for real life stuff!) Maralia 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm. Yes. The basic problem, as with all naval terminology, is that there is no hard and fast definition of what a pre-dreadnought is - no-one sat down and thought "I'm going to build a pre-dreadnought battleship". So you have some people arguing the Admirals (1889) are fundamentally pre-dreadnoughts, or that they aren't but the Royal Sovereigns (1892) are - only with the Majestics do you get a genuine consensus that the pre-dreadnought design had been reached. So the Majestics are the last first pre-dreadnoughts. I agree it's a very confusing phrase and should probably be changed ;) The Land 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made it through the rest of the article now. Made various typo fixes and such; my edit summaries should explain those. A couple more issues:

• "The first French battleship after the lacuna of the 1880s was Brennus" Lacuna is a fairly obscure word that I only barely remembered—and I had 8 years of Latin. You might want to rephrase this.
• "In some ways these ships prefigured the later battlecruiser concept" Perhaps presaged rather than prefigured?

Thanks for an interesting read! Maralia 02:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. The Land 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I went through the changes you made since yesterday, and made some typo fixes again. A couple new issues:

• "battleships worldwide started to be built to a similar design" Can you reword this out of passive voice?
• "the chaotic appearance of the ironclad warships" This reads as though individual ironclads had a chaotic appearances; it doesn't really convey what you mean. I'm drawing a blank on a better way to say it, but I'm sure we can come up with something. Maralia 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Chaotic development does the trick. The Land 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: the formatting within References and Sources is inconsistent. Examples:

• References 9, 10 and 13: "title. page" "title, page" and "title page"
• Sources 2 and 3: publishing date is in different places

From a prose standpoint, I think it's ready for A-class review. Maralia 17:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks quite good, overall. A few specific points:

• The caption for the diagram of the HMS Agamemnon mentions "five turrets amidships". Are you counting turrets along a single broadside? There are six turrets making up the secondary battery, as far as I can tell.
• External links should be placed after the reference section(s).
• I'd suggest changing all of the footnotes to short form and having a separate section for an alphabetical bibliography. The long-first-note style doesn't lend itself to a medium where text can be moved in an article; here, for example, Roberts and Gardiner both appear in short form before the actual publication data is given.

Kirill 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Agamemnon - you are right, six turrets. Have added the sources in full, will return to the full-length footnotes later. The Land 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident

I believe I've taken this article about as far as it can go right now and would appreciate if someone could point out any errors or improvements that could be made. Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Very good article, well written/referenced/illustrated. It looks good enough to me for A-class, assuming that's where you're heading next. Just a couple of things:

• First line, "The 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident was an incident at Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base...". Suggest "The 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident occurred at Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base..." to avoid repeating "incident". Also in that line you use a linked date range which would look fine to you with US date preferences but for those of us using British style it comes out "29 August – 30, 2007". Not sure what, if any, is the standard solution for that but thought I'd mention it...
• In the last para of Response by the U.S. government we mention "the new Air Combat Command commander, General John Corley" without having said what happened to the old ACC commander, General Keys. Later in Aftermath we find that he retired but was he relieved from ACC over this incident or what? Like to see that noted before we mention General Corley.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments. The sources aren't clear on Keys' retirement/replacement situation so I'll need to do more research. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

TomStar81

Verying interesting (if somewhat disturbing), I enjoyed reading it. I concur with Ian Rose that this is good enough for A-class, but I have a few comments first:

• Does the AGM-129 missile have a codename (like tomohawk or harpoon or something along those lines)? If so it would be nice to make mention of that.
• Was General Keys a four star General, or was he a lower ranking General? The article does not say, and I am curious.
• Do you have any idea how long suggested changes resulting from this may go into or stay in effect? I will not hold this one against you, I am merely curious if you have heard anything. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments and suggestions. I don't believe the AGM-129 has a nickname but I'll check to make sure. Keys was a four-star general, which is just called "General" in the USAF. I'll check the wikilink for the first instance to see if it helps make that clear. Nuclear weapon handling procedures in the USAF are classified, so details and schedules of the changes that come out of this incident may not be publicly available. I don't personally have any special or informal sources of information on this. I'll have to rely on publicly available sources of information and will add any more information to the article if and when it comes out in a verifiable source. Thanks again. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Army (Soviet Army)

Part of a series on Soviet military formations on which myself and user:W. B. Wilson have been working (See Formations of the Soviet Army for the full list of pages). Not sure how far up this can go given its nature, but would appreciate suggestions for improvement. Buckshot06 14:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• The name of the article is quite confuse - I propose changing it to "Army (Soviet Union)", or more simplier "Soviet Army". --Eurocopter tigre 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Off to a good start. I think this will likely be most suitable as a list with a moderately-sized introduction; see, for example, Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army, which is a featured list with much the same structure.

So, broadly speaking:

• Change the bulleted lists to tables.
• Get rid of the OOB sample; it's not useful here, and each army's article will have a proper OOB anyways.
• Add a few images to the intro.

And you should be good to go. Kirill 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Gebora

The third of my Peninsular War campaign. This one was a bid to reduce some of the content from the Albuera article, but it was a bad choice; the new article doesn't really allow me to cut much from the latter's content. However, it turned out to be a pretty good article, albeit fairly short, in my opinion. I have it nominated for GA at the moment, even though it's brand new and barely out of its wrappings, but my past peer reviews here have always been helpful so here's hoping for further constructive advice.

By the way, could someone also check out the, to me, rather strange "start class" rating it's been given; I can't see anything substantive missing from the account that would prevent at least B class, and indeed I'm even slightly tempted to try for A class or FA on this one! Carre 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Will be archiving this in a few days, I think, but will be bringing the article to A-class review shortly after, so plenty of time for comments :) Thanks. Carre 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

Great article! A few issues:

• Needs a picture in the infobox.

• Yup, agree completely. Unfortunately, this battle was so minor there aren't any nice fantastical artistic portrayals available to me, which leaves me pretty much with the images already used. I'm hesitant to use any of the portraits, for fear of drawing POV complaints, and I don't want to move the map up there; I'm open to suggestions.

• A little more background is needed. Why were these two forces at war with each other in the first place? A short paragraph on the cause of the war would allow the article to stand on its own without forcing readers to go to another article to obtain all of the background.

This one surprises me, to an extent; this is the Peninsular War, and indeed I was anticipating criticisms that the background section was too long! The lead needs extending, I feel, so that may address your concern, but asking for "a short paragraph on the cause of the war", for the Peninsular War, seems odd. That war lasted something like seven or eight years, the causes are complex, and this particular battle fell in the middle of the whole. Kirill suggested, in his review of the Battle of Albuera, that an overall article covering Soult's campaign in Extremadura would help that article, this one, and probably others that I intend to write in the forthcoming months. I agree with his suggestion, but the task is a huge one (I anticipate 100k+ prose) and so I haven't tried to start such an article.

[Edit] I should also here admit to a bit of an embarrassment; in writing the article, I totally ignored the lead, with the intention of going back to write it properly once the main prose was finished. When I posted the text, however, I had forgotten to do the lead, and so the second para of the lead was a 5-second hack...it certainly needs sorting! Carre 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• The link to the article in the campaignbox doesn't appear to be functioning correctly.

Haven't checked; in the article itself, the campaignbox should show black text (no link) for this article, whereas in related articles the wikilink should work.

• A short paragraph at the end of the article on how the battle affected the entire rest of the campaign would help tie it to "the big picture" of the entire war/campaign.

An excellent point; I am considering extending the last "paragraph" (it's currently little more than just a sentence) to indicate that Mendizabal's disgraceful actions led directly to the 2nd Badajoz siege and the Battle of Albuera.

All in all, a well-detailed and informative article. Cla68 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now expanded the consequences section to pull in 2nd Badajoz, Albuera and 3rd Badajoz. Is that better, or would you like to see more? Thanks for the review, btw. Carre 11:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I forgot to add this review to my watchlist...I think the article is looking much better now. One thing though, I don't agree with you that background on the peninsular war is unnecessary or too difficult to add to the beginning of the background section in a concise manner. A sentence that says something like, "At the turn of the 19th century, France and many of the other countries of western Europe were at war with each other for a myriad of reasons, the most significant being ____________________(whatever they were). As part of this war, French armies were campaigning in the Iberian Peninsula with the overall goal of ______________ (whatever it was)." And there you would have your short background that explains why the overall war was occuring in the first place. I myself don't know much about European history, and know almost nothing about the Peninsular War, so when I read the article I quickly realized that I had no idea why these armies were fighting each other in the first place. Otherwise, the article is looking great. Cla68 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cla68. We may have to agree to disagree on this one, but I shall give it some thought. The British involvement in the Peninsular War is probably pretty easy to explain briefly, but as any Spaniard would tell you, Britain vs France was really quite a small part of that conflict. I may be able to come up with something regarding the Continental Blockade, which was the primary cause of the whole lot – it led to the invasion of Portugal by Franco-Spanish (the two were allies at the start) forces, which in turn led to both Portuguese and Spanish uprisings against the occupying French, and Britain coming in to defend her interests in Iberia. Heh - indeed, it looks like I've just done what you wanted! Although a reader would still need to click on Continental Blockade to see what that meant, just as they can now click on Peninsular War to read the full details.

I'd be very interested in hearing other opinions on this, before deciding where to go. Cla68 has a reasonable point, but I worry about the relevance of the causes of a war in an article on a battle set three years after the start of that war. I certainly didn't do this in Battle of Barrosa, an FA; do, to pick other long-term wars, articles on later battles in the First or Second World Wars address the causes of the wars? Carre 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend against putting too much detail here, actually. While a battle article needs to establish context, I think it ought to do so by focusing on the preceding narrative of the war rather than going off on a tangent about the underlying causes. Of the two sentences suggested by Cla68, I'd drop the first one; some in media res variation on the second (e.g. "In late 1810, the war in Spain...") should be sufficient. Kirill 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill; the current first para or two of Background takes it all back to 1810 and the Lines of Torres Vedras, the immediate causes of Soult being at Badajoz in the first place. I think this is what you're getting at - perhaps you could have a quick glance and see if you agree? Thanks. Carre 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the first sentence ("Following the victory at the Battle of Bussaco, Sir Arthur Wellesley, Viscount of Wellington was forced, by Marshal Masséna's manoeuvring, to retreat behind the Lines of Torres Vedras") could use some more detail; it makes too many assumptions about the reader knowing dates and places. Off the top of my head, something more explicit, like:

Having defeated the French at the Battle of Bussaco in September 1810, the Allied army under Sir Arthur Wellesley had been forced to retreat behind the Lines of Torres Vedras by Masséna's manoeuvres.

may be clearer. Kirill 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[undent]Yes, that's a good idea. This one hasn't been copy-edited yet, but Battle of Albuera, another of mine, is currently undergoing a CE, and I can steal and edit the first few paragraphs from that one. That's where these few came from originally, but they've since been improved under the copy-edit process, so probably time to re-steal. The new version at Albuera has the explicit dates in it. Carre 22:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First couple of paras in Background now updated. Carre 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Air Force of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution

Came across this while looking at a series of horrifically messy under-referenced pages on Iran's military, and have done a net sweep for some well based sources. Would appreciate feedback and especially leads on new sources for what aircraft the Revolutionary Guard are actually operating. Buckshot06 19:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

I suspect sources will be quite hard to come by, particularly English-language ones; Iran is not a state that habitually publishes a lot of OOB data for its forces.

Aside from that, a few (mostly stylistic) suggestions:

• {{Infobox military unit}} should work here. For best results, I'd suggest converting the current navigation template to use {{military navigation}} and nesting it under the infobox. The same can probably be done with the bottom navigation template as well.
• I'm not sure that a solid/liquid fuel distinction is the best way to break that section apart, particularly as the "Other Missile Systems" part intersects with that.

Kirill 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

JKBrooks85

Moving off of Kirill's suggestion, perhaps breaking missiles down by range -- tactical, theatre, strategic, intercontinental -- would work better. Throwing a suggestion out there. JKBrooks85 23:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Albuera

The second in my current campaign to extend or write Peninsular War related articles. Following the last one's peer review, I hope I've avoided most of the mistakes this time. A couple of things I personally am not sure about are:

• Are the Background and Prelude to battle sections too long? In their defence, it's largely because the details aren't available in other pages - the background information, in particular, should probably go in the Lines of Torres Vedras and Second Siege of Badajoz (1811) articles. I will probably create the latter, and update the former, before taking this article too far.
• Does the Organization belong in the article? This was a legacy from the version before my rewrite. I'm in two minds about its presence - it's not a normal feature of the better rated articles, I think, but then I found it useful in writing the prose. Also not having to remember to give ranks and first names on first occurrence, since they're already in this section, is a boon! So - keep or delete? If keep, in that place, or elsewhere (Weller and Oman and the like put this sort of detail either in an appendix or at the end of a chapter)?

Other than those, normal review I guess - prose, grammar, punctuation, silly MOS mistakes and so on :) Thanks. Carre 08:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This one's been idle for a little while now, so I think I'll archive it shortly if no-one has any objections. I haven't, yet, addressed all of Kirill's points; I'm in the process of writing some supporting articles (just done the Gebora one), and once I've done with those I'll trim the Background and Prelude to battle sections, add some historiography, and mention the Napier/Beresford war-of-words. Carre 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

An excellent article, overall. In response to your questions:

• The sections do seem rather long. A dedicated article on the campaign might help here; you can have the overall narrative there and provide only a summary of the preceding events (with a {{details}} link) in each battle's article.

• Hmm, a dedicated campaign article - hadn't thought of doing that... A daunting task!

• In a set-piece battle, the material in the organization section could be worked in with a description of the troop placement (as, say, here). If the two are separated, then you wind up with, essentially, an order of battle. This can work as prose, but you might consider using some manner of table instead, as it's mostly numeric data if one doesn't need to describe positions. The material ought to be cited directly, in either case.

• I think I'll lose the section. A disposition section wouldn't be appropriate, I think, since there was so much manoeuvring during the battle. I can certainly source the numbers, but haven't the faintest idea how to make a table in wikiland!

Aside from that, a few suggestions:

• The quotes seem to be a bit short to use block quotation formatting with; you might consider simply placing them inline with the text instead.

• OK - I did have them in {{cquote}}s at first, until I read an MOS policy against the use of that sort of quotation template.

• Is there anything interesting to say on the historiography of the battle? There are some allusions to various sources made (e.g. "British sources state that the Polish cavalrymen refused to accept surrender..."), but these aren't really followed up in any detail. Oman—in the works I've read, at least—tends to mention sourcing issues quite frequently; is there any potential in this topic?

• For that particular part, Oman cites the journal of Major Brooke from the 48th and the regimental annals of the 66th. However, (I don't know if you already know the answer to this and are gently suggesting?) the most interesting part is the subsequent war of words between Napier and Beresford, that lasted for something like 40 years and coloured all future histories. Fortescue, for example, takes his lead from Napier and is scathing about Beresford, while Oman favours Beresford and indeed has several pages refuting some of Napier's statements. This battle is one of the few cases where Fortescue's and Oman's accounts differ drastically. I was actually going to put some of this in the Consequences section, but wasn't sure if it was more appropriate to the Napier/Beresford articles.

• Ideally, "References" should be "Notes" and "Bibliography" should be "References"; the use of "Bibliography" as a section header is a bit confusing, as it may refer either to references or to further reading.

Keep up the great work! Kirill 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - a lot less than my last one! Carre 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Williams (RAAF officer)

Self-nom for this heavily expanded/rewritten article, whose previous brief content had been largely copied straight from Williams' AWM biography. I've upped it from Stub to Start-class but believe it currently meets all criteria for at least B-class. Like to get this one to A-Class and also gather opinions on what it might still need to consider FA (reckon the fundamentals are all there, perhaps not long enough - anyway, let me know). Cheers, Ian Rose 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall; just a few points to look at:

• Categories!
• Is the external link really necessary? I'm not sure that it adds anything for the reader beyond what is already present in the article.

Other than that, everything looks up to par. Keep up the great work! Kirill 01:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, knew there was some thing missing from the end - cats added. Yep, the text in that external link was obviously by Alan Stephens, distilled from his published histories, which I've used heavily anyway. To be honest, main reason I put it in was so people could see the painting - but removed now. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose 02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Not much to add to Kirill's comments really other than to say that I thought it was well and briskly written and it could do with more images (preferably colour ones). I personally like quirky anecdotal material in biographies; they say so much about a person's nature and add much to memorability. Is there any suitable material? Otherwise, I'd support it in a FAC at its current word count: I've never seem the point in writing to an arbitrary length just for the sake of it. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, agree on all points. Think I've grabbed most of the good 'clear copyright' images available from AWM, all of which are black-and-white except one very long shot in colour that wouldn't be of much use, plus a colour painting from WWI which is copyright but I'm making enquiries... I also favour the quirky and/or controversial things and hopefully a fair bit of that's in here with the interservice and interpersonal rivalries that spice most of the RAAF-related articles I've written or expanded (is there a pattern here, I ask myself) - but I'll keep an eye out for any other such items. Cheers, Ian Rose 09:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a quote in the WWI section around life expectancy for AFC pilots... Cheers, Ian Rose 18:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

• "Williams rescued a pilot forced down behind enemy lines, an action that earned him the Distinguished Service Order."

I checked the Gazette. It lists this as one of two reasons:

"Capt. Richard Williams, Flying Corps. "For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. Flying at a low altitude under intense anti-aircraft fire, he attacked and dispersed enemy troops who were concentrating on our flank. On another occasion, whilst on a reconnaissance, he landed in the enemy's lines, and rescued a pilot of a machine which had been brought down by hostile fire." London Gazette Issue 30234 14 August 1917

Thanks, I'll incorporate the additional info and citation/link. IR

Done. IR

• He was commissioned in 1911 and joined the Permanent Military Forces the following year.

Okay, this checks out. I would have noted that he was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in 1/5 AIR (on 5 March 1911) -- this lets us know his actual rank. He reached the rank of sergeant as an enlisted man.

Will do. IR

Done. IR

• His Army file says that he was posted to Point Cook on 18 September 1914, not August 1914.

Stephens at the very least has the course starting 17 August 1914, with Williams on it. I don't think my wording is in conflict with your info. Participating in a course doesn't imply being 'posted' to Point Cook at that time. IR

Haven't altered anything around this, per above. IR

• He lists his wife as Mrs Constance Esther Williams.

Does the article need to change? Griffiths was her maiden name. IR

Added "Esther". IR

• "At the time the squadron was equipped with B.E.2 fighters"

In Australia? (Which it didn't depart until March 1916?) Cutlack p. 32 says that 1 Squadron departed without aircraft.

I'll make it clear that the B.E.2s were after the Squadron reached the Middle East. IR

Done. IR

• "Initially involved in isolated tasks around the Suez Canal, the squadron began to operate concertedly in December 1916"

But wasn't Williams was attached to No. 14 Squadron RFC in Somalia from 21 April 1916 to 17 February 1917, except while he was hospitalised at 3 AGH for petrol burns to his foot in July-August 1916?

Could I have your source for those? I don't think my wording - which refers to the squadron in general - is in conflict with that info but happy to drill down to that level re. RW's movement if I can cite it. IR

His Army personnel file at the National Archives. It occurred to me that since he wasn't in the Army in WWII, his file would not have been consolidated with his WWII record and would therefore be available online. Your wording is quite correct; I just thought it might mislead.

Mentioned RFC attachments without going into exact units/timeframes. BTW, think it was Ismaïlia, not Somalia, for 14SQN. IR

• Found his OBE in the 1919 New Year's List. There is also a 1927 CBE for his flight to the Solomon Islands. (He also received the The Order Of Al Nahda from the Kingdom of the Hijaz)

Thanks, will incorporate. IR

Thought I might leave out the Order of Al Nahda but mentioned the CBE. IR

• "All other senior RAAF commanders who were veterans of World War I, with the exception of the-then Chief of the Air Staff, Air Vice Marshal George Jones, were also dismissed"

Really? I seem to recall guys like E. C. Wackett and G. J. W Mackinolty. Weren't they senior RAAF commanders who were with the AFC?

I think you're confusing E.C. Wackett with L.J. Wackett. L.J (Lawrence) was in the AFC in WWI and resigned from the RAAF in the early 1930s. E.C. (Ellis) only joined the RAAF in 1923 after a year with the RAN; I don't think he saw any action in WWI or was ever involved in the AFC. Mackinolty however was AFC, as a mechanic, and he did indeed survive the 'purge' of 1946. I guess "All other senior RAAF commanders who were veteran pilots of World War I" is more accurate wording. However I could also change to "A number of other senior RAAF commanders who were veterans of World War I" to be safe. Opinion? IR

Sounds good. I had indeed confused the two Wacketts. E. C.'s file is also online.

Modified earlier. IR

Hawkeye7 21:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully these have all been adequately addressed now - tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose 18:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm

This article covers the final hours of Ngo Dinh Diem at the end of the 1963 South Vietnamese coup; he tries to excape the palace , does so, but later surrenders and is promised safe exile, but is executed (widely believed to be on the orders of Duong Van Minh). I obviously need to fill in the summary in the lead, as per the B class reviewer, but I was looking for other things needed for an A-class. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall, but a few points (aside from the lead, which you've already noted) need work:

• The coup is overlinked; I see no less than three links to it—two pulled out as explicit sub-article references—in the first two paragraphs of the article. There's no need for so many pointers to it, in my opinion.
• The first half of the "Surrender and debate" section is uncited.
• The quoted dialog snippets ought to be formatted a bit neater. I assume the all-caps names are copied from the source, but there's no reason to retain such formatting unless you're going to put the entire thing as a blockquote.
• The "See also" section should be removed; the items are already linked in the text.

Other than that, this looks good to go. Kirill 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Ostend Raid

Article I created from scratch and hopefully the first of a series of articles on naval actions of the First World War. Am hoping to go all the way with this at some stage (though not right now) and any comments would be greatfully recieved.--Jackyd101 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

A very promising and engaging article. My criticisms are mostly about style, which could easily be resolved with a rigorous copy edit.

• The text is slightly repetitive and in places tends towards wordiness.
• Some of the sentences are overlong (usually because of lengthy subordinate clauses) and could do with recasting.
• Finally, it probably needs a map.

Please let me know if specific examples will help. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 22:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have run through and copyedited the text, let me know if you think its any better. As for maps, haven't found one yet either free or fair use (cos if there was a fair use one I could copy it out), so not much i can do with that at the moment. Thankyou for your attention.--Jackyd101 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Carre

Whilst not a member of this wiki project, I have an ongoing peer review, so I thought I'd contribute something in return, albeit very minor. First of all, I'd like to express my amazement at your having brought an article from nothing to this quality in such a short space of time; I am impressed. And now, a very slight MOS point:

• Last paragraph, Bruges section - shouldn't have "the" in front of the date, per WP:DATE: dates don't use ordinals (5th, 3rd, etc) or articles (the). In fact, without the ordinal, the article looks out of place anyway.

And that's it! I did think it looked under-referenced at first glance, but closer reading proved that first impression wrong. Carre 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will remove that errant "the" immediately.--Jackyd101 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Dak To

Have made extensive modifications to this article and am looking for constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Another excellent article. A few minor points that need some attention:

• The lead ought to be expanded to two/three full paragraphs; as it stands, it doesn't really summarize the article.
• The map of the II Corps Tactical Zone should probably be pushed a few paragraphs down, so as to avoid squeezing text between it and the infobox.
• There's probably little need for an explicit "more details" link for Giap; it's not really a sub-article, and the link is present in the text.
• The extended quotes in blockquote formatting don't need quotation marks.

Overall, though, this is fully up to your usual standards. Kirill 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Boden Fortress

I've been working on and off on this one for about 1½ years now (in my sandbox). I recently moved it to mainspace and have continued to improve it somewhat, planning to go to FAC when it is good enough.

1. General comments are appreciated. Is something missing? Is something unclear? Is something too detailed?
2. I'd also like a copyedit from someone that has English as their native language, obviously my English is good enough to write so that people understand what I mean, but I also know that my English is somewhat rugged, in short, it's not brilliant prose.
3. Another part of that is that I haven't been able to find appropriate translations for all terms originally in Swedish (there are, AFAIK, no books or longer articles on the fortress available in English). So please tell me if a term or translation doesn't sound 100 % and we'll try to find a better one.
4. Don't be afraid to tag sentences with the {{fact}} tag, I'll do my best to add a note.
5. I prefer all images on the right, but I know this is not the general opinion. Good or bad? Too many images?

Thanks in advance! – Elisson • T • C • 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Overall, a very good article. It could, as you mention, use a bit of stylistic copyediting; if nobody turns up, you could always leave a request with WP:LOE. Aside from that, some minor points:

• My own preference is to have images staggered along both margins, but this is more a matter of personal preference than anything else; so long as there are no formatting problems, either layout is fine. The gallery at the bottom should really be moved to Commons, though.
• The "See also" section can be eliminated; all of these terms are (or should be) linked in the text itself.
• The "kan" and "haub" designations in the tables are one thing that stands out as needing translation. I would assume that these refer to "cannon" and "howitzer", but someone more familiar with early 20th-century artillery may be able to clarify this further.
• The longer quotes may look neater in <blockquote> formatting than in {{cquote}}.
• The lead might be expanded a bit to include the use (or lack therof) and eventual fate of the fortress.

Keep up the great work! Kirill 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

JKBrooks85

Awesome stuff! I like the way you've structured the article and it seems to be written in a clear and concise way that made understanding easy, even for someone new to the subject, like myself. There's a few things that I think need to be addressed before you submit it to an FA review, because I know they'll come up there:

• A good copyediting is needed to check for misspellings and odd turns of phrase. If you don't mind, I'll go through the article and do this.
• Adding Imperial measurements after the metric ones. This is going to be a big job because you've got so many measurements, but it's something that would probably be brought up in an FA review. IIRC, the style is something like 38cm (16 in.) for measurements.
• Expanding the pictures and maps. You've got some great maps in there, but they're so small that they're almost impossible to read. Don't be afraid to blow them up to 300-400 pixels if they'd look better that way. In addition, feel free to alternate sides on the pictures. They don't all have to be shoved to the right margin.

Keep it up! JKBrooks85 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Pliska

This is being created for the User:Lantonov. Any comments would be welcome. Woodym555 10:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I added new material in this article in the past week. I do not have much outside opinion about how it looks now, except a perusal and approval for meeting criteria for B article by User:Kirill Lokshin. Before my involvement, there was an opinion in the talk page that the article is not POV-free by anonymous user who, by his words, is acquainted more with Byzanthine than with Bulgarian history. As far as I could, I removed the statements, objected to by to him. Being a Bulgarian, I tend to lean on the Bulgarian POV because I use mainly Bulgarian sources, monographs, textbooks, etc. Besides, I don't know if the content is right in regard to omissions or superfluous material. A review will be helpful on improving the quality of the article. Lantonov 11:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyriakos

Overall the article is good but there are some issues that need to be addressed before you can advance the article any further.

• The article doesn't seem to be too Bulgarian POV. However, it is good to mix up some Bulgarian source with some Byzantine ones to keep people like thae placing POV tags.
• At the moment, the lead section is short. Expand it so that it is a summary of the entire article.
• Some paragraphs and some sections are un cited. It would be good if you could add some more cits.

Ok those were my issues. I hope that my review helped with your improvement of this article. Kyriakos 22:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kyriakos. I made some edits towards meeting your suggestions.

• I ordered and improved the sources, also added some sources by Western scholars, like Sir Steven Runciman, and John Fine. I plan also to look up and add material from Bury and Mercia MacDermott. The most complete secondary source I could find on the battle is by the Bulgarian Medievalist Prof. Vasil Zlatarski. Although I cite him in several places, the facts that he gives belong to the many primary sources he uses, the principle ones those of the Byzantine writers Theophanes and Michael the Syrian. So, if we look on number and weight of sources, the article is somewhat biased towards the Byzantine view. I think that this is right, however, because most chroniclers at the time were Byzantine, and it is always the best to use such original materials for events so distant in the past. I will try to find some Bulgarian primary sources. Bulgarian (meaning Bulgar) sources are very few, and they are partly read inscriptions on stone in Bulgar language which used the Greek alphabet. They do not add many details about the battle. Other Bulgarian sources are from later time (centuries later) and many of them are simply translations from Byzantine sources.
• Expanded the lead section. Plan to expand it a little more.
• Corrected some dates and facts and put citations on them.

Regards, Lantonov (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Air Transport Auxiliary

I have done my best to complete this topic. Perhaps it is ready to be taken from stub status to another.

Xcnick 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A good start, overall, but there are a number of areas that could use another look:

• The lead should be longer, and should briefly summarize the major points of the entire article; two or three meaty paragraphs are typical for a developed article.
• Somewhat denser citation might be helpful; as a rule of thumb, at least one citation per paragraph is usually a good minimum to aim for in all but the most straightforward articles.
• Block quotations don't need to be marked off with quotes.
• I would suggest using CMoS short-form footnotes (e.g. "Jones, Big Book, 122" rather than "Jones, E. B., A Big Book of Aircraft, 122"); if you're going to maintain a separate bibliography, there's no sense in repeating the full data everywhere.
• It's far more typical to have "Notes" and "References" sections rather than "References" and "Bibliography" ones, in my experience.
• Works cited directly shouldn't be repeated in a "Further reading" section; the general convention is that "Further reading" contains only the works not consulted.
• More generally, have the works listed as further reading been consulted and merely not cited (in which case I would put them in the bibliography anyways, to avoid any question of intellectual impropriety), or not consulted at all? If it's the latter, I'd suggest that some explicit effort to determine which of them could be a resource for further expansion of the article; while I don't know enough about this topic to tell if this is actually the case here, the appearance of a large list of further reading and a small list of references in an article as short and as narrow in scope as this one suggests incompleteness rather than purposeful selection of sources.
• The "See also" section should be trimmed if possible; in general, if something isn't worth mentioning in the text, it's not worth mentioning at all.

Kirill 01:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Korean War

Previous peer review

Listed for Mr. Killigan. Kirill 13:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RM Gillespie

Just browzed the article and alternated the images. As to the conflict (as depicted in film) all of your selections are either Korean or Chinese. Why not add Bridges at Toko-Ri, which reveals the prejudices and attitudes of Americans at the time with unforgiving clarity. For a bleak and fatalistic view of the ground war from the American perspective, Tony Mann's Men in War is a masterpiece. The depiction of an actual battle (and the glossing over of American military mistakes) is best depicted in Lewis Milestone's Pork Chop Hill. For the depiction of a Dutch soldier's small war see Field of Honor. RM Gillespie 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Johnston L. de Peyster

So I started this one as a stub to support the main John Watts de Peyster article and I found a lot of interesting stuff on the son. Unlike his father, there are very few sources to draw from, and they mainly discuss the flag raising incident over Richmond. I can't foresee getting much more information on his life--he was in the war at 18, then with Sickles in spain, then in the Assembly for two terms, and then dead at a young age. If I can get a copy of the Legislative Record of NY I may be able to flush it out a bit more. My main query for this article is layout, style, and language based--any suggestions or improvements would be welcome. Right not the article reads as one long paragraph. MrPrada 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite good, overall; a few layout suggestions:

• A leading left image coupled with an infobox produces an utterly unreadable layout on smaller-resolution monitors; the image should really be staggered down below the lead.
  • Moved it down into the first section–is that far enough?
• The article can be easily broken down into several sections, albeit short ones: early career, Richmond, later life; this will also help with the layout some.
• The letter and the image next to it create similar layout problems, and should be similarly pulled apart; or, alternately, the letter can be pulled out of the box so that it can wrap around the image.
  • Not sure how to pull the text out of the box. If you could make the adjustment, it'd help me understand exactly what you mean. MrPrada 01:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, done; please feel free to change it back if you don't like the effect. Kirill 16:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill 01:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh Campaign

Raised this one up from a starter and it balooned into a monster. I realize that it should be broken into constituent pieces, but the pertinent sub-articles are pretty abysmal. Still hammering at it, but would like some constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 01:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

It's a bit on the long side, but it's not necessarily too long at this point; if you're planning on adding more material, of course, then moving some things out into real sub-articles will probably be needed. Aside from that, a few thoughts:

• The source for quotes ought to be introduced in-text in addition to being given in the footnotes, as it's otherwise difficult for a reader to follow where the material is coming from; this is present in most cases, but there are some which are missing it (e.g. "Almost gone was the hope...").
• It may be valuable to create some articles—even if only stubs—on the major PAVN and ARVN formations that are discussed here.
• I would try to vary the usage of "PAVN" and "ARVN" with "North Vietnamese" and "South Vietnamese" a bit; some parts of the article are quite acronym-heavy.

Overall, though, this is an excellent article, quite up to your usual standards. Keep up the great work! Kirill 01:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks Kirill. I think its about as big as it is going to get (thank God!) Have followed your prescriptions on quotes and acronyms. Getting ready to do some stubs (mostly North Vietnamese commands). RM Gillespie 02:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Greece

Prior peer-review here.

Hmmmm ... I got rusty here ... I even forgot how to submit a peer-review! Anyway ... This is not the first peer-review of the article. User:Periklis* was the first to improve the article, and bring it to A-Class status. The article owes a lot to him! Next goal? FA of course! And it is my first military battle article! I know it is not "there" yet. Further improvements needed. For instance I haven't yet managed to verify note 117 etc. But I thought it is time for further feedback, especially after an extensive rewriting, two external copy-edits (by Awadewit and Ceoil), and the addition of maps made by French Wikipedia user Aeleftherios, and translated by Raymond Palmer (I am grateful to all these users). So, ready to listen to your suggestions ...--Yannismarou 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Pretty good article all round. Some comments:

• "Defense and attack forces": The caption on the picture of Blamey, Wilson and Freyberg says "Lieutenant General Sir Thomas Blamey, commander of the 6th Australian Division". He wasn't at this time; Blamey had handed over command of the 6th Division to Iven Mackay in March 1940. In Greece, Blamey commanded I Corps.

• Corrected.--Yannismarou 08:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Olympus and Servia passes": "Tubby" Allen (Australians would prefer his name that way rather than in full but it's your call) was only a brigadier; he was not promoted to Major General until August 1941.

• Corrected as well.--Yannismarou 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Blamey's name is mis-spelled "Blamney"

• Corrected.--Yannismarou 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot accept the characterisation of the Olympus-Aliakmon line as "strongly fortified mountain positions". There were mountains alright but no pillboxes, belts of barbed wire, cleared killing zones, or minefields. It was just a position, resolutely held.

• Rephrased, although the caracterization comes from an "official history" of the war (Long [1953]).--Yannismarou 10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why isn't Iven Mackay's name wiki-linked?

• It is in a previous section.--Yannismarou 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "inadequacy of the British expeditionary force"? This needs to be clarified.

• According to the sources that the Imperial force was small and inadequate to fight the German forces. Unfortunately not any argument can be analyzed in detail. I found more sources on this issue, and I will try to further enrich it with arguments. It is also explained above, when I mention that "The British did not have the necessary military resources in the Middle East to permit them to carry out simultaneous Iarge-scale operations in North Africa and the Balkans."--Yannismarou 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Apart from what happened in Britain, the campaign caused a furor in Australia, when it became known that Prime Minister Menzies was told that Blamey had approved and Blamey that Menzies had approved. Blamey noted that Field Marshal Dill, the CIGS, was wholely in favour of the operation, which Blamey felt carried grave risks. The size of the German force (not all of which was actually sent to Greece) was known in advance by the British through ULTRA.

• Very interesting point! I made some edits in "Assessments". Please check them, comment on my edits, and make yourself or propose any changes you regard as worthy.--Yannismarou 10:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oberiko

• Was the Battle of Crete considered separate from the Greek campaign (Battle of Greece)? My understanding was that the Battle of Crete was the last battle in the larger Greek campaign (which itself was a sub-campaign of the Balkans Campaign), rather then a subsequent military operation.
• Two images for the Battle of Crete is one to many, especially when their piled up beside each other like that. I'd recommend removing the map since that is better left on the main article for the Battle of Crete.
• I'd like a few sources for the statement "Some historians regard the German campaign in Greece as decisive in determining the course of World War II, maintaining that it fatally delayed the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union". I've read that myself as well, but "some historians" comes across somewhat weaselish. In my opinion, I think it'd be better to state "According to historian/notable person X 'The Battle of Greece delayed the Soviet invasion.'"
• The Greco-Italian war should be a "main article" under the Greco-Italian War heading Oberiko 14:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Murray William James Bourchier

The article has been substantially rewritten and expanded since initially assessed as Start class. Suggestions for improvement on the section about his military career would be appreciated. Dbromage 05:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian Rose

I took the liberty of making some formatting mods and one or two minor rephrases. The article looks pretty good and appears to meet most or all B-class requirements. At roughly the current level of detail I could imagine it going one or two classes higher. Some suggestions:

• Lose the Trivia section. The info is worthwhile but I would just integrate it into the last part of the Political Career section unless there's somewhere better. On the other hand, if there's something you can add regarding any long-reaching effects of his military or political career, a Legacy section would be the perfect home for it. In that case you could transfer the Lighthorsemen tidbit there and ditch the Popular Culture section as well, no bad thing.
• Be good to hear a bit more on his career between WWI and politics. If you can add more there, you could split Military Career into World War I and Post-War subsections.
• I think a little more detail all round would help so that the quotes/citations, though worthwhile in themselves, don't overbalance the article.

Cheers, Ian Rose 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

John Watts de Peyster

This article was apparently began as a "throw away" by another editor who was covering the boot monument. I've tried to add as much as possible. I'd love some feedback on what further direction (if any) I should take, and what should be done to get this to GA class at least. I would love as much feedback as possible, I own many of the reference materials I cited. MrPrada 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This is very nice, overall. A few suggestions:

• The lead could stand to be lengthened; two or three full paragraphs is basically the expected standard now.
• "THE DECISIVE CONFLICTS OF THE LATE CIVIL WAR, OR SLAVEHOLDERS REBELLION" doesn't need to be given in all-caps; we aren't bound to the typographical conventions of nineteenth-century printers.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated; the only term there is already linked in the text.
• The ACW template at the bottom is rather excessively large, particularly given that Peyster isn't even linked from it. I'd suggest replacing it with {{portal|American Civil War}}, which will provide the same content one link removed.

Kirill 02:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Boyle Ewing

This article is a few corrects away from being what I would consider GA status, and the ACW could use as many of these as possible. I would love as much feedback as possible, I own many of the reference materials I cited. MrPrada 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A nice article, but a few points that could use some work:

• The lead needs to be considerably longer, and should be a (brief) summary of the entire article rather than a mere introductory preface.
• I would suggest using blockquote formatting (or perhaps {{cquote}}, if you prefer a more visually striking look) for the extended quote. In either case, there's little point to having his name following the quote when the source is explicitly introduced before the quote is given.
• Having Google links in all the citations is quite problematic, not least because it introduces an undue reliance on Google's particular URLs for these; I'd strongly suggest removing them.
  • Is this in reference to the google books? Or google cache? I believe that googlebooks helps provide verifiability but I could remove them. MrPrada 02:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• There's no real benefit to having an extra sub-section below "Further reading" when only two works are listed.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Galatian War

I started this article earlier this month. Since then it has been promoted to B class. I would like some outside opinions on hhow to improve the article. Thanks. Kyriakos 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. A few points to consider, though:

• The article is very reliant on direct citations to Livy and Polybius. This isn't necessarily bad, or even avoidable; but are there additional modern sources that could be thrown into the mix here? Having a more balanced mix of ancient and modern historiography may help avoid complaints down the line.
• Normal blockquote formatting seems to be preferred over {{cquote}} now.
• The normal form, as far as I know, is "Mount Olympus" (or, in the extreme, "Mt. Olympus"); but "Mt Olympus" isn't correct in formal writing.
• More a point of personal curiosity rather than an issue, per se, but is there any specific information on how high up the slopes of Olympus the Galatian entrenchments were? I assume the fighting took place in the foothills rather than on the peak itself, but I could be wrong here.

Keep up the great work! Kirill 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Kirill. I will try and find some other secondary sources. I will also fix the rest of the points. Kyriakos 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven

Hoping to bring it to FA standard. DrKiernan 13:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

• Every paragraph should have at least one citation, even if it's a repeat of the citation for the following paragraph. It keeps the article from looking like it has uncited text.
• You don't need to put citations mid-sentence, you can combine them at the end of the sentence.
• You don't need in-line citations in the intro if the same information is repeated with citations in the main body, which appears to be the case here.
• You don't have to have citations next to each other, you can combine them into a single citation.
• The information that gives Mountbatten's opinion on something, such as the naval skills of the Turkish navy, should make clear that this is Mountbatten's opinion, not necessarily a generally recognized fact as the text appears to indicate.
• Quotes that are four lines or longer should be blocked (placed in an indented paragraph-see the WP:MOS).
• The last paragraph in the "final years" section needs a citation.
• Identical citations can use the "refname" citation format to combine them in the footnotes section. Instructions on how to do it are here: [3].

All in all, a well-written, informative, and enjoyable article to read. Nice work. Cla68 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! DrKiernan 07:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

AZPR

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Islamic military jurisprudence

I hope to bring it to GA status eventually. Evaluate it for the usual (sources, NPOV, grammar etc). Constructive criticism is welcomed. In particular, I would like to know the following:

• Is it fairly easy (for someone with little or no knowledge of Islam)to understand the content?
• When you read the article do you feel that it is jumping from one topic to another without giving adequate linking between two topics?

Unfortunately, I've tried looking for images, but couldn't find any relevant ones. Thanks in advance.Bless sins 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle

The first issue is NPOV. All opinions need to be attributed to the scholars, rather than stated as this is the correct opinion. In addition, the article is one sided; where it makes Islam look good, there is elaboration, where it makes islam look bad, the issues are barely touched, as if to deminish attention to that section. As this topic is closely related to Islamic terrorism, there probably is more said on this which isn't covered in this article. I have also noticed some views have been censored out since 2 months ago.

Second issue: As the qur'an isn't being used as a primary source, quran quotes should not be in the <ref></ref> format.

As for FA status, maybe in the future, but the article isn't ready yet.--Sefringle^Talk 03:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

In response to your specific questions:

• Yes, I think it is difficult for people with no background in Islam to follow. (For instance, you open with a reference to "lesser jihad" without explaining what it is and some of the explanations are dense.) Perhaps the solution to this is to have a clear introductory/summary paragraph at the beginning of each section in exceedingly plain English, followed by the academic explanation (which introduces the applicable Arabic terms).
• Yes, it does jump from section to section but that is not a fault. Each section deals with a different aspect and trying to link them with narrative would just add verbiage.

Other reactions?

• Highly commendable attempt to cast light on a complicated and controversial subject.
• Well-referenced and broadly lucid, though probably too dependent on Islamic jargon (if you'll forgive me using the expression in this context) to attract the general reader.
• Use of the common era calendar in parallel to AH might be handy to give non-Muslims a time fix.
• Rather too densely written at the moment. Needs to drip-feed information so that it's easier to assimilate.
• I didn't have any particular NPOV concerns in reading it.

--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or

First and foremost, Wikipedia articles must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. This is where this article fails spectacularly. For the most part, it's sourced to primary sources, like the Qur'an, the hadith, and some Islamic scholars; academic sources are few and far between. This approach is not acceptable because drawing conclusions from the Qur'an and the hadith is original research and when one cites an Islamic scholar directly, one may give undue weight to a minority point of view. This is exactly what's happened in this article; the mosr frequently cited scholars are Ghamidi and Maududi: both are modern scholars with rather idiosyncretic views, especially Ghamidi, neither counts as a classical authority for any school of Islamic jurisprudence. At this point in the development of the article, it makes no sense to delve into further details; above all, the issue of sourcing must be fixed. Beit Or 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

After removing this one sentence([4]) it looks like every sentence is sourced. (Note the lead is an exception as it is a summary of the ideas in the article). Bless sins 03:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comments carefully. The problem of this article is not a lack of sources, but the lack of reliable secondary sources. Beit Or 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's make one thing crystal clear: all sources used are either secondary or tertiary. I don't see the use of primary sources (without supporting secondary ones) anywhere.

Secondly, which source is not reliable on Islam? Just because someone is not a "classical" scholar doesn't make him/her unreliable. I have already discussed on numerous articles how Maududi is a very reliable source on Islam. Ghamidi was even on the Council of Islamic Ideology which is government body meant to advise the Pakistani parliament on Islamic matters of governance and legislation.Bless sins 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

American Gulf War Veterans Association

American Gulf War Veterans Association is about an organization covering an important issue, but the article is strongly biased. Revolutionaryluddite 05:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's been stubbified. Perhaps withdraw and resubmit when there's a little more content? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 01:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Barrosa

Before I started working on this article, it was hopelessly inaccurate, poorly referenced, and a stub. I spent a fairly small amount of time on it, using the reference material I had to hand, and Kirill Lokshin kindly promoted it to B-class on 3 September.

Since then, I've added significant detail, and loads of good, well regarded references (Oman, Gates, Glover, etc), and believe it to be a pretty good article now. I am therefore requesting a peer review, and if the results are favourable, I think I'm going to take it for GAC!

All comments would be appreciated, and I shall action them if I am able. Carre 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

A few points:

• The intro should be a little longer, about two paragraphs. You can expand it by naming the opposing commanders and more details on the actual battle and its aftermath.

  Agreed - I had pretty much decided the same, and have been giving thought on more wording. Should get it done tomorrow.

   Done Better?

• Although the Siege of Cadiz article gives more background, you should still expand the background section in this article to at least two paragraphs so readers won't have to look at the other article to get sufficient background info.

  No problem.

   Done Better?

• You don't need to have citations mid-sentence, they can be combined together at the end of the sentence.

  Is that just a personal preference? There aren't that many occasions of mid-sentence cites, and a couple of those are used to illustrate particular points (for example, Browne's quote on the Spanish running away - MOS says quotes should be immediately referenced, I think, but I could be wrong). I confess to not much liking multiple refs bundled together, but that is definitely just a personal thing. Actually, looking at them, I could probably just ditch some of them altogether.

  Mid-sentence citations cause some formatting problems for the article, making the article's lines appear distorted or with uneven spacing. End of sentence citations also can cause this problems, but by having fewer, combined citations in the paragraph it helps reduce the problem. Cla68 01:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Done Think I got them all - if you spot one I've missed, feel free to shuffle it.

• Do you have a map of the battle, or do you have a map of the Cadiz area as it appeared at that time that you could draw your own battle map on using image editing software?

  Unfortunately not - there are a few out there on the web, but I'm not sure of their copyright status, so have no intention of loading one. The lack of a map is my major concern on the whole thing, as it happens. I've tried drawing my own, but my artistic skills aren't up to it. I've also considered tracing one from somewhere like Oman or Gates, and entering it onto the computer using a graphics tab and Inkscape, but I'm not very good with Inkscape and efforts so far have been pretty poor :(. If someone knows of a PD image of a map, I would certainly like to see one in the article.

   Done - got a couple of excellent public domain maps uploaded, one for the battle, and one for the march from Tarifa northwards. :)

• Avoid one sentence paragraphs.

  Are there any? (other than ones at the ends of sections, which would be awkward to extend... I'll see what I can do about those, but if you can point out others, I'll try and fix.) I've asked WP:LoCE to look at the article too.

   Done Except for the very very last sentence... which I can't think of a way to expand.

• The aftermath section should explain what affect the battle had on history since the battle, if any.

  OK - Oman has a load on that, which I didn't like to use too heavily since he's my only real source, but I'll put something in.

   Done

• The French side of the battle isn't represented very well. What were their intentions and plans before, during, and after the battle? What did they know of their adversaries intentions and how did they respond to them?

  Just the battle, or the prelude too? I can add to the battle bit, I think - again, Oman has good stuff for sourcing details. I think the prelude has about as much as can go in, without vastly expanding the whole section.

   DoneThe Background and Prelude sections now have much more on why Victor stayed put, how he got intelligence on the Allied movements, and what he did about them. The Battle section has a lot more detail in it all round, including what the French did and when. Largely though, all they could do was react to an incredibly aggressive, and unexpected, counter-attack from the the British. I hope I've captured that.

Otherwise, the article is well-written and appears to describe the battle well. Good work. Cla68 17:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for the feedback; I shall see what I can do tomorrow to address your points. Carre 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I really wish I had a map there now - the Battle section is pretty long and would be much improved with one. Do you think this is GA-worthy now, or would that lack hold it back?

Thanks a lot for the pointers - I've really enjoyed researching and writing this article! Carre 14:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article looks very good now. One thing, however, I'm still left hanging when I read the article...what ever happened to Cadiz under siege? Were the French ultimately successful in taking the city? If not, what happened? Also, two other things I've learned recently is that sentence fragments in image captions shouldn't have punctuation and the – (anddash;) format should be used for all hyphens. Nevertheless, excellent work on the article and I think it may be ready for A-class review although you could keep it here for a while to see if anyone else would like to comment. Cla68 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A-class? Wow - I was only going for GA! Thanks very much! To your couple of points

• The &ndash – all the hyphens are actually endashes already, they just don't use the HTML code for them... if you look at the edit screen, below the save page and show preview buttons, you can see a couple of dashes in the Insert bit; the first is endash, the second is emdash. I could change them to explicit endashes, but I hate seeing those when editing - I find it makes it harder for an editor to read.
• Punctuation in sentence fragments in image captions. I could have sworn I recently saw a comment in an FAC complaining about missing punctuation in captions, which is why I put them in (they were originally not there). I'm happy either way. Found the FAC review, and I'd remembered it wrong - you were quite right, and I've removed the trailing full stops. Carre 08:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I shall add a little about the end of the siege - I learnt yesterday that one of our Spanish colleagues is translating my article for the Spanish wiki, and he has put in something about the siege being in force until... whenever it was - sometime in 1812. I could put something similar in the lead and the consequences/aftermath section. I'll follow your advice and leave the article for a while, to make sure it stays stable, before going for A-class. Thanks for your kind words and pointers. Carre 06:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

jackyd101

I was going to comment on this the other day and was called away and since then the nominator has commented on my article above so I figured it was only polite to return to where I left off. In fact however, I lot of the points I was going to raise last time have since been addressed. Nevertheless, there are still a few points I want to raise regarding this excellent article.

• The sentance structure throughout the article is far too comma-heavy. Try to trim about half the commas from the article, which will help it flow better. I also have this problem and usually have to read my articles aloud to work out where commas should or shouldn't go in a sentance.

• The article is in the hands of WP:LoCE for that very reason! I know I'm heavy handed with commas, and have, believe it or not, already pruned many out! Unfortunately LoCE is heavily swamped at the moment, so haven't looked at it yet. I shall try and remove some more.

 Done - sort of. I don't think I'll take any more out, because I'm worried I'll totally destroy the prose. When I take this to GAC, it should bump the article up the queue for the LoCE, and they're bound to be able to improve matters :)

• That brings me (sort of) to my second point. The article has a few ocassions where you use contractions like couldn't, didn't or likewise. All of these need to be written out fully as they are not very encyclopedic.

• Aye, I read that in MOS yesterday. Some of them I can replace with better structure, but I find "could not" and "did not" somewhat stilted. I'm trying to come up with alternatives to avoid the cumbersome.

 Done - didn't write any of them in full, just rewrote the sentences to avoid their need.

• A few names need clarification, for example I don't think Whittingham or Keats are explained. If there is no wikilink then at least give a full name for readers to use in further research.

• Keats was a recent addition - I should be able to wikilink him (haven't looked). Whittingham will be extended, and I'll look for any other instances.

 Done Whittingham's rank given, and a footnote provided to explain who/what he was. Keats is wikilinked now, but none of my sources actually explain why he was there. Oman is the only one who mentions his name...I think he was in command of the RN force helping to defend Cádiz, but I could be wrong, so I won't speculate in the article.

• All numbers under nine (some say twelve, up to you) should be written out as words rather than digits.

• Damn, thought I'd got all those, but just spotted the "2 days behind"... consider it changed

• Just a minor stylistic point, but you might consider some sub-headings in the Battle section. Thats quite a chunk of unbroken text.

• Again, something I've been thinking about myself. I think the only way would be to split the Ruffin and Leval fronts into two sections. At present, the article switches to & fro between the two fronts, which I did for ease of reading. If I bring each front into continuous narratives in their own subsections, it would address this, and also fix the next point which was also more of a stylistic thing to aid ease of reading than anything else. Just have to watch what happens with the images, but should be easily enough.

 Done - Not 100% happy with the subsection titles (would prefer "The French attack", for example, but not supposed to use articles in section headings).

• Where you say: "Returning to the battle between Wheatley's brigade and Leval's division . . .", who is doing the returning? If the reader, then this should be changed as its unencyclopedic. Something like "Meanwhile, in the battle between . . ."

• As above point. Also, I've already used "meanwhile" and "in the mean time" quite a bit. Doing the subsection split would remove the need for this, anyway.

 Done

Other than these fairly minor issues, this is an excellent article on an often nelected battle and congratulations on all your hard work.--Jackyd101 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. Once fixed, I shall leave a note here, then leave the article a while before trying for A-class. Cheers. Carre 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, I'd vote for A-class for this article (and I will if I'm around when it goes up for it). congratulations and all the best.--Jackyd101 17:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Issy Smith

An interesting recipient of the Victoria Cross who, after initial difficulties, established himself in Australia post-war. I do intend to nominate this article for both GA and A-class status. I've resigned myself to accepting that this article has reached its full potential and will never be elevated to FA status :-(. Although modest in length, I believe the article to be comprehensive considering the paucity of material and limited availaibility of sources. Awkward prose undoubtedly exists (for obvious reasons ;-)), but needs to be identified by fresh eyes. Compare the article's present condition with a revision dated 11:15, 25 June 2007. As ever, constructive criticism is welcomed. SoLando (Talk) 13:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A very nice article, overall; I see no reason why it could not be successfully nominated for FA status. (Certainly, WP:TROP has demonstrated that short articles can make it through the system.)

A few suggestions, though:

• The citation might look better if it were placed in the prose at the point where he received the award, rather than being its own section. I'd also suggest using blockquote formatting rather than a template.
• The references need to be cleaned up to a standard format; as it is, even the general list contains no less than three different styles.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 15:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555

I would agree with Kirill, it is overall, a very nice article. For FA, consistent formatting is a must. Wikipedia:Citation templates are popular but not compulsory. As long as they are consistent and have a Retrieved on parameter, they will be fine.

• The 500 casualties part in First World War needs a reference. Statistics like that need citations.
• I would integrate the citation between thoroughly than he did or around that area, it is up to you.
• The currency needs to be piped, what kind of dollars? Also £ should be [[Pound Sterling|£]]
• Only dates should be fully wikilinked, 13 December should not be wikilinked, December 1915 should not be wikilinked, only 13 December 1915 should be wikilinked.

Don't be disheartened. Smaller articles are getting through as long as they are comprehensive. I recently got Victoria Cross for New Zealand through the FA process and it is a small article. Given the paucity of references, you have done an excellent job! If you want me to fix some of the problems like dates, and other, obscure things i have come across in FAs, leave a message here or on my talk page. So, in summary: great work. Woodym555 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• PS, you might want to try and integrate some of the remaining VC migration text on the talk page or archive it. Given that it is inherently POV and almost 1st party it probably won't be a Reliable source though. Woodym555 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 13 December should indeed be wikilinked, as otherwise the date auto-formatter won't be able to handle it. Compare:

• December 13 and 13 December
• December 13 and 13 December

Kirill 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected,:( (in my defence, i think i should go to bed!!) though my point was really one about providing years with dates to avoid cases of ambiguity. In any case they seem to be having fun at MOSNUM debating the intricacies of this specific section of the MOS. For User:SoLando the link to the MOS is WP:MOSNUM#Dates and WP:MOSNUM#Autoformatting and linking. Good luck. Woodym555 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response; I've essentially been inactive since World Cup 06. As Kirill stated, dates should be linked to enable account preferences. To answer:

• The casualty total, although somewhat imprecise, will have to be replaced with the more ambiguous "hundreds" as the relevant source from which the figue was extracted is no longer in my possession, so Mileham will have to suffice.
• Citation standardisation: Ah! I hadn't noticed the inconsistent formatting of the notes (hence the absence of page numbers for n16 and n18). Woody, I've long been disinclined to render citations using templates such as {{cite web}}
• I have indeed observed the marked increase in relatively "small" FAs over the years, but I'm an inflexible cynic even though articles such as Hurricane Irene (2005) and Hurricane Ismael do tempt my curiosity as to whether Issy Smith would succeed.
• I'm pleasantly surprised that more susbtantive prose issues (even if only minor and therefore not requiring a request at WP:LoCE) haven't been identified ;-). I'll address the linkage later.
• And finally, I shall submit to consensus and incorporate Smith's citation into the main body. A separate section does appear to be unwarrented.

Thanks to both Kirill and Woodym.SoLando (Talk) 09:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

I'll echo Kirill and Woody's remarks about an interesting and well-written article. Some thoughts ...

• If you can be bothered, you could eke it out (a bit) I suppose by explaining the multiple year references for his DOB.
• Some more information about what he did in the Middle East would be interesting, if available. According to British Regiments, 1/Manchester were in Egypt Mar-Dec 1918, so they may well have been in Allenby's 1918 Summer/Autumn blitzkrieg (Megiddo, Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo).
• Picky point: can he really be called English as against British?

--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your comments and contribution to the article's development.

• I've been attempting to determine the most coherent formulation to explain the date discrepencies, ideally in the form of a single sentence. Any suggestions? There is even some confusion regarding where he grew up, but I consider the Australian Dictionary of Biographies to be the most authoritive source available.
• There is indeed a wealth of information documenting the 1st Manchesters' activities in the Middle East (1 Manchesters were engaged in the Megiddo Offensive), but unfortunately almost nothing concerning Issy Smith. That has been a recurring issue with many recipients of the VC.
• As England arguably didn't constitute his primary home due to his emigration, perhaps British-Australian? Although I am unsure whether he was granted Australian citizenship. SoLando (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure ...

• I wouldn't bother to explain them. There just wasn't the same obsession with recording dates that we have now (though it's amazing really that this remains unresolved: as his father was French, there's bound to be a French Acte de naissance on file somewhere and his attestation - with a DOB, which he may have lied about - on joining the British Army will probably still exist at PRO Kew but both of these are original research, of course). Instead, I'd be tempted to use one date (the most authoritative) in the opening paragraph, with a footnote giving its source to the effect of "Australian Biographical Dictionary etc. Other sources differ: 18nn (SourceA) and 18nn (SourceB)".
• Yep.
• This came up elsewhere in talk a month or two back (I can't find the article). I don't think that Australian citizenship existed until well after his death. Certainly, Australians were issued with British passports until 1949.

--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jackyd101

Apologies, I don't have time right now to look through the article at length, but I don't believe there is much to add to those comments given above. I would however like to show you Thomas Crisp and Ronald Niel Stuart, both of which I took through FAC. In addition, if you are able in anyway to get your hands on this book [5], you'll find it very helpful in expanding the article and its refs a little more, i have used others in the series to great effect. All the best, good job and keep it up.--Jackyd101 00:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle for Henderson Field

Respectfully request a peer review on this article that I've been working on for some time. I appreciate anyone's comments and/or suggestions. Cla68 12:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Excellent article, as usual. A few specific points:

• Are there any useful statistics on the numbers of wounded?
• I'd suggest using blockquote formatting instead of {{cquote}}.
• The page ranges in the footnotes should use en-dashes instead of hyphens. (Horribly nitpicky, I know.)

Overall, though, this is basically ready for FAC, I think. Kirill 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments you provide in spite of your busy schedule, as always. Cla68 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Enfield revolver

As the other major British service revolver (besides the Webley Revolver), I think the Enfield deserves an equally good article, but would like some input so I have some idea what needs improvement and what can be left as-is. I realise people will bring up the citations thing (which I am working on), so I'd prefer to get input relating to other aspects of the article if possible. --Commander Zulu 11:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Ignoring citations for the moment—I'm sure you're on top of that issue at this point—there are a few areas that could be improved:

• The lead should probably be lengthened to present a bit more information; as it is, it says very little about the revolver itself.
• The combination of the infobox and the image at the top of the "Enfield No. 2 Mk I Revolver" section causes a problem on smaller monitor resolutions. I'm not sure what the best layout here would be, but some sort of staggering is needed to keep the column of text from being squeezed into non-existence.
• The structure of the "Variants" section is pretty bizarre; the bulk of the content is logically in the second subsection, even where it relates to the topic of the first. To be honest, I don't see the point of having the sub-sections there; it would be better, I think, to just have this material in a single, continuous section.
• The bolding in the "Other manufacturers" section shouldn't be there; straightforward paragraphs would work better there than an attempt at definition-style writing, in any case.
• There's very little discussion of the performance of the No. 2 Mk I in combat. Is this due to a lack of sources, or some other reason? I would have expected there to be something, if only in the form of anecdotes from individual soldiers.

Overall, though, this is quite nice; keep up the good work! Kirill 03:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply- Thanks for the input, Kirill... I've taken most of it on board, and it's greatly appreciated. Seeing how it all goes, I might then submit the article for either A-class or FA-class review soon, too. --Commander Zulu 05:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army

I've been working on this for more than a month now (though the article itself it quite new; research started way back) and now it's finally presentable. There are still areas to be improved, which is what I'm hoping reviewers will point out. I'm specifically interested in opinions of the layout, presentation, etc. With any luck, a WP:FAC hopeful. -- Миборовский 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks very nice, overall, although I would think that WP:FLC would be a better fit than WP:FAC. A few largely formatting-related remarks:

• The colors are a bit too bland; I'd suggest using a slightly more distinctive color for the table headers, to make parsing the table a bit easier. (Might I suggest our ubiquitous lightsteelblue?)
• {{KIA}} would be better than raw characters in the commander lists.
• I assume the asterisks in the lists of battles mean something important, but I can't find any indication of what that might be.
• Are the army groups and commanders not wikified due to a lack of articles at this point? The bulk of them would qualify for individual ones, I would think.
• What does "No information available" mean, in this case? (Or, more precisely, to whom is it not available?)
• The internal borders don't seem to render very consistently, but it might just be me. In any case, slightly varying the background color to create a striped effect may be easier to work with than trying to get such complex borders to work right (particularly if you change the table header color, as mentioned above).

Hope that helps! Kirill 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can always count on Kirill to provide a prompt and discerning review. ;)

• I was using FAC generically. FLC will probably be the most correct destination. :D
• I am m using class="wikitables" and its default header color is that really light blue/aqua. I'm not sure how to override that.
• Done.
• The asterisks will be gradually removed and their true destiny shall be revealed. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of... They're an editing help and I can't remove them right now, but the finished product will not have them (or will use them in another capacity, which of course shall be duly noted).
• Most of them would indeed qualify for an article, but indeed, there is insufficient "infrastructure" at the present, so the article would be a mass of red if they were wikified. Creating individual articles for the army groups would also be very, very time-consuming, unless I just copy-paste what I have on this page to their individual pages... not the best course of action IMO. In the following days I will probably create articles for the various commanders, but individual articles for all army groups might not be created for quite a while.
• I have not been able to find reliable, accurate, complete data regarding these units. These 3 were formed after the war with Japan, and the vast majority of source content I have deal with 37-45 exclusively. Yet I don't want to change the scope of the article... so they are "no information available" at the moment.
• You mean an alternating white/light color stripe? That could work instead of having a header for every single entry... I wouldn't know what colors to use for that though. As for the borders rendering, it's a problem I noticed a while ago working on another article. Borders don't render very well in extremely long/complex tables, or when they are a lot of them (10+) on the same page. This is also why I grouped the entries into 10s instead of all together. Cutting the redundant headers could work...

Thanks for the review. -- Миборовский 04:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of borders, I actually meant vertical rather than horizontal stripes. In other words, something like this:

Unit	Organization				Commanders	From	To	Major battles
31st Army Group 第三十一集團軍	Established	Jun 1938	Downsized into 26th Corps	Dec 1946	Tang Enbo 湯恩伯	Jun 1938	Sep 1943	Battle of Wuhan* Battle of Nanchang* First Battle of Changsha* 1939 Winter Offensive* Battle of South Henan* Second Battle of Changsha*
					Wang Zhonglian 王仲廉	Sep 1943	Dec 1946	Battle of Central Henan* Battle of West Henan-North Hubei*

The color change in the "Organization column is, admittedly, a bit bizarre; perhaps a straight horizontal layout would be better for that than a multi-column vertical one:

Unit	Organization	Commanders	From	To	Major battles
31st Army Group 第三十一集團軍	Established Jun 1938 Downsized into 26th Corps Dec 1946	Tang Enbo 湯恩伯	Jun 1938	Sep 1943	Battle of Wuhan* Battle of Nanchang* First Battle of Changsha* 1939 Winter Offensive* Battle of South Henan* Second Battle of Changsha*
		Wang Zhonglian 王仲廉	Sep 1943	Dec 1946	Battle of Central Henan* Battle of West Henan-North Hubei*

This would eliminate the need for most (all?) of the internal borders. Kirill 05:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah interesting. It looks cleaner and better-defined than my current version. However the mass of wiki-markup required looks quite intimidating... and the lack of horizontal borders could possibly lead to some unclearness over which commander fought which battles. I think I could tweak this a bit... stay tuned. -- Миборовский 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unit	Organization				Commanders	From	To	Major battles
1st Army Group 第一集團軍	Established	Aug 1937	Disbanded	Apr 1938	Song Zheyuan 宋哲元	Aug 1937	Apr 1938	Tianjin-Pukou Railway Operation Battle Northern and Eastern Henan
	Reestablished	Oct 1938	Reorganized into 1st Army Corps	Sep 1947	Long Yun 龍雲	Oct 1938	Jan 1939	N/A
					Lu Han 盧漢	Jan 1939	Mar 1945	Battle of Nanchang First Battle of Changsha 1939 Winter Offensive* Second Battle of Changsha* Third Battle of Changsha* Battle of Zhejiang-Jiangxi* Battle of West Hubei* Battle of Changde*
					Sun Du 孫渡	Mar 1945	Sep 1947	N/A
Unit	Organization				Commanders	From	To	Major battles
2nd Army Group 第二集團軍	Established	Sep 1937	Reorganized into 4th Appeasement Area	Oct 1945	Liu Shi 劉峙	Sep 1937	Feb 1938	Beiping-Hankou Railway Operation Battle of Taiyuan*
					Sun Lianzhong 孫連仲	Feb 1938	Aug 1943	Battle of Suizao* 1939 Winter Offensive* Battle of Zaoyi* Battle of South Henan* Second Battle of Changsha* Battle of West Hubei*
					Liu Ruming 劉汝明	Aug 1943	Oct 1945	Battle of Changde* Battle of West Henan-North Hubei*

Something like this. Thoughts? -- Миборовский 05:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice, but I'm wondering if the multiple "columns" within "Organization" are going to be obvious to the reader without any sort of visual distinction. I'm not sure what a good way of formatting the text to avoid that would be, though. Kirill 12:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are probably correct... maybe I should change it to the two-line format you used, and also combined From and To dates in one column, ie. "Sep 1937 - May 1939"... Of course there's still the problem of the code being a MESS, with potential for the server to fubar while rendering it... -- Миборовский 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now completely revamped as per suggestions above. -- Миборовский 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

I've been improving this for a while, and have already incorporated a few of the ideas from an informal peer review. Would appreciate other suggestions on how to improve the article. Buckshot06 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

BanyanTree

Wow, that's a great expansion of an underserved topic. Here's some initial feedback:

• The lead paragraphs include information that is not covered in the main body unlike the guideline stated in Wikipedia:Lead section.
  • For example, EUSEC DR Congo is not mentioned anywhere in the main body of the article. - BanyanTree 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• The sentence "Ugandan and Rwandan troops remains in some numbers inside the DRC, along with Rwandan rebel groups like the FDLR." requires sourcing to a current ref. It also needs rewording to clarify that the FDLR is not a Rwandan government group in the DRC, not an anti-DRC government group from Rwanda.
• Groups with acronyms should be written out in full when they first appear, followed by the acronym in parenthesis, e.g. "Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR)."
• Rather than referring to the list at Second Congo War#Glossary of armed groups, a list of currently active groups, including those being integrated, should be added to this article. I do realize that figuring this out can be baffling, as they seem to change every month.
  • I think I've now named them all - comments welcome!Buckshot06 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Neat. One thing is that the RCD-Goma remnant led by Laurent Nkunda is no longer considered a part of the government forces, at least as far as the last news report I read, so is described in the wrong section. - BanyanTree 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• The very early history could do with some detail of the colonial structure with officer corps composed of Belgiums, as the line "new army suffered from a dramatic deficit of trained leaders, particularly in the officer corps" is otherwise unexplained. Similarly, there should be mention of how this flowed into the Congo Crisis, especially in the rebellion of the enlisted ranks and Mobutu's coup.
• I would also like to see a bit more of how Mobutu increasingly used the military from the 1970s as a check on internal dissension, e.g. by creating units charged with overlapping responsibility for his protection responsible only to him, which harmed the effectiveness of his army but kept his potential enemies busy currying his favor and looking out for knives in the back, both figuratively and literally.
• The section titled "History 1960-1993" goes to 1999.
• I'm a bit obsessed with the conflicts in the Great Lakes of the mid-1990s, but I don't think I'm out of line in asking for a bit more detail on the development of the conflict from the Great Lakes refugee crisis to the AFDL invasion, in particular in how the FAZ basically proved to have been hollowed out by the mismanagement of the previous decades, which of course echoed the general decline of the country under Mobutu.
• The section "Organisation Today" is a valiant attempt at making sense of the mess and I think it does a good job saying what is known and what is basically guessing.
• The section "Land Forces" would be a good place for the list of groups outside of the government, as well as those integrating, which I mention above.
• Please format refs so you aren't using naked links.
  • Also, please format your references so the title of the work is linked, while author (if available), institutional affiliation and date are included. Note that links to allafrica.com, which is a great resource, are to items that were already published in other African news outlets. As allafrica.com archives articles for a paid subscription, please try to find the link to the original source, or at least detail the original source before you lose access to that information behind the subscription. - BanyanTree 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• I was considering recommending the creation of Military history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for the history section, but I think the length of this article is OK and the history goes a long way towards explaining the structure, or lack thereof, of the military.
  • You make a fair point on my talk about how this isn't necessary. - BanyanTree 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• - BanyanTree 05:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Some nice improvements. I have no doubt that the article, as it stands now, is one of the better sources on the subject available on the net. I am particularly like the paragraph on reintegration, the importance and difficulty of which is matched by the degree to which it is undercovered in most media sources. Like Aldux below, I would like to see still more detail. But I think the simplest course is to recommend that you start adding a source for every paragraph or contentious assertion. As you do so, I have no doubt that you'll find that you want to expand and rearrange some content. - BanyanTree 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aldux

I also would like to express my admiration for the work Buckshot's making: it's really impressive! Trying to be ultra-fiscal to find some flawes, I'd say:

• my deepest objection is to the treatment of some of the sections of the land forces. I don't know much about the military structure in Congo, but in African Francophone countries the structure is 1)main army 2)police (as in Francophone African countries it is generally a gendarmerie, or militarized police, that maintains public order) 3) Presidential Guard (generally an extremely important pretorian unit, often deliberately seperated from the bulk of the army and subjected directly to the President). 4)I also that you speak of "a government paramilitary force". That seems to be called "National Service". It's official role in the armed forces should be cleared, and if there is any law justifying it's existence.
• All these sectors of the armed forces should be treated IMO to a higher level of detail, possible with a section each; and more in general, particularly important, I think some effort should be done to better clear the structure of the army corps with relation to the central command. For example, are the National Service and Republican Guard depend from the commander in chief of the land army or submitted, directly to the Chief of Staff Mbandakulu. Maybe giving a look at the constitution can help you here, as it often delineates the main corps of the army.
• The third paragraph of the section "Land Forces" seems unsourced.
  • If you mean the reform process and brassage, there is a footnote saying it's from the ICGBuckshot06 06:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding the beginning section, maybe an expansion on why the Mobutu army disentegrated so fast in 1997 wouldn't be bad. Maybe it could also be interesting to know about the composition of the new Armed forces, and if there is some continuity among especially the current officers and those that served under Mobutu.

Keep on with the good work,--Aldux 23:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jean de Carrouges

Lengthy (41Kb) article I have just written on a medieval French knight involved in an infamous duel in 1386. Looking to take this to FA at some point in the future and would appreciate any advice on the piece. --Jackyd101 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06

This is extremely good, reading a bit like a thriller. Only problem I can see it that it is cited a bit too heavily on Jager; re-citing some of the references to the primary sources might work better. If it were me I would give this A-class immediately. Buckshot06 17:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

An excellent article; just a few minor things to fix:

• Any chance we could get an infobox here? I don't see any particular layout reasons for avoiding one, given the image positioning.
• Having single sub-sections strikes me as unnecessary; it would probably be neater to just combine the section headings than to break things apart that way.
• The image sizes should be standardized a bit more; as it is, they're all over the place.
• The citation form is not one I'm familiar with, and not one common among scholarly writing, I suspect. Pretty much all forms place the page number after the author/title/whatever else is being used to identify the work.
• Repeating the source in-text at the end of the Britannica quote seems unnecessary, given that it's explicitly note beforehand.

Keep up the great work! Kirill 03:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

George Jones (RAAF officer)

Self-nom for this new article. I've placed no rating on it yet but believe it currently meets all criteria for at least B-class. However I think there's reasonable potential for FA, so like to hear opinions and then start down the A-class review path first. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555

First off i would like to say Well done. I have upgraded it to B-Class, it easily fulfils all the criteria. I have given this article a thorough look through and can find little wrong with it. My problems are listed below

• The "early life" section could do with some expansion; a possible point of expansion would be to explain the militia and cadets section.
• The "Later life" section is rather limited. Given that he had an active retirement; his failed attempt at becoming an MP seems like a good point for expansion.

Thanks Woody. I'd agree they were probably the two areas that needed a little filling out. There's not a lot more I have on his post-RAAF career (though Grant65 has pointed out his interest in UFOlogy, which I've added) but I've expanded somewhat on his early life. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For A-Class and FA several pargraphs would need referencing:

• As mentioned earlier the early life section needs another reference for the second half. Or if it is covered in the existing reference, move that one.
• The second paragraph of Inter war years could do with another reference for the all the appointments in the second half.

Thanks, believe I've taken care of these two. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• In terms of the WP:MOS i couldn't find anything wrong with it and the images are all free-use

Other than these problems i think it could quite easily pass through A-Class review. Woodym555 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

I'd agree with Woodym555's comments on the overall quality of this excellent article. My only suggestions are:

• Is the reason Jones transferred from the light horse to the AFC known?

Speculation that the mechanical side of flying appealed, but that's not from Jones' own mouth. Trauma of infantry service may have been a contributing factor so added a line on that.

• The wording on the reason for Jones' selection as CAF is a bit unclear, as the focus of these two paras is on why he was a surprise choice and the reason for his selection (the Government's disapproval of Bostock) is buried in the middle of a para.
• It might be worth discussing whether the selection of Jones was justified given his skills and experience. It seems reasonable for the Government to not want a CAF who was known to strongly oppose Government policies (and its hard to see how such a CAF would have been in the interests of the RAAF or the war effort), so the issue of Jones' suitability for the position is important. Jones' political views might also warrant a mention in this section - did they play a part in him being selected?

Will add some more on these two points.

• Can anything be said about Jones' life between 1961 and his death? At present the article does not cover these years. Also, the article does not discuss his private life - was he married? Did he have children? Did he and Bostock continue feuding after the war?

Not much after 1961 bar the UFOlogy in the 60s and the autobiography in '88, which are already mentioned. Private life I can add, will look over some other WP military bios and determine best spot for it. Impression is he and Bostock never even spoke after the war but no refs as yet.

However, these are all minor issues, and the article should soon be able to pass A/FA reviews. Congratulations on the great work. --Nick Dowling 08:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose 14:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Echoing the "well done" from the others (above). I have only queries:

• Why is the allegiance "Commonwealth of Australia" instead of just "Australia". What is the standard here?

I took "Commonwealth of Australia" as the standard based on other Oz-related bios - however if anyone can demonstrate it's not standard I'm more than happy to switch it.

• Should "Cadets" should link to "Australian Army Cadets" ?

Wasn't aware of the link - makes sense.

• I checked his CBE citation and it says "For services as RAAF - Director of Training". Which is correct?

Both, I expect. The above looks like the 'high level'; what I quoted (from Helson) is the detail. Can I ask where you located that citation?

• I don't like the characterisation of Kenney as "chief of Pacific air operations". He was commander of the Allied Air Forces.

Fair enough.

• Calling the F-86 Sabre, P-2 Neptune and CAC Winjeel "venerable" makes them sound old. They are now, but at the time they were purchased, they were cutting edge aircraft.

"Venerable" was meant according to the definition "worthy of veneration", but perhaps "enduring" (as in "long-lasting") is appropriate.

Thanks for these comments, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for Australia

This article is part of a series of articles relating to the Victoria Cross. It is currently in the process of being nominated for WP:FT, but this is on hold to see if any other articles can reach FA. I am asking for opinions on what this article needs to reach A-Class or FA status. Thanks in advance. Woodym555 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall; a few minor points:

• The citations in the lead seem to be redundant with those given in the relevant sections of the body; I would suggest omitting them unless there's some reason to believe those statements will be particularly controversial.
• I'd recommend blockquote formatting over {{cquote}}.
• The "Similar decorations" section is just crying out to be converted into a template; it's something that would be replicated across dozens of articles, one for each country that has a comparable award.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated, if possible; most of these items are (or can easily be) linked elsewhere in the article.

Keep up the good work; it'll be great to see this turn into the first military history FT. Kirill 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about the large gap between addressing your comments, i have been on holiday IRL. Thanks for your comments, i hope to implement the general suggestions such as similar decorations, see also across the other articles. I have implemented all of your suggestions and i was wondering whether the template is adequate?

• Looks pretty good. I've converted it to use the new standard base template we've developed. It may be better, perhaps, to place the country names after the award names in parentheses, rather than having commas everywhere; but that may be just a personal preference. Kirill 18:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just personal preference, i tried commas, colons, semi-colons and dashes but neglected parentheses. I have put these in now and it does look better. I will start adding the template into the constituent articles. Woodym555 09:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackyd101

As Kirill pointed out above, a nice article. At the moment it is probably too short and too focused on the VC as a concept rather than specifically the Victoria Cross of Asutralia to gain FA status, I suggest some more information focused on the award itself, for example what did people think of the seperation of the VCA from the VC? Veteran groups? Media response? Also, does the original VC Royal Warrant still apply to this award or were changes made? Am I right in infering that the post-nominal letters have not changed? Just a few ideas. There are also a few stylistic points:

• Having an image of the Victoria Cross twice in the same article and no other images strikes me as a little redundant, even if they are different images. Are they any other images which could be used to add variety - perhaps the Australian War Memorial when you discuss its collection of VCs?
• The VC navigation box should probably go right at the bottom of the article, it seems to divide the page where it is (although this may just be my interpretation).
• As Kirill noted above, the similar decorations should be made into a nevigation box. In any case, as it stands it is too long and other than the different VC awards is verging on a little irrelevant where it is. I'd suggest either creting the box or removing the list, especially those awards outside the Commonwealth.
• As above; references not needed in the lead, blockquote over cquote and goodbye to the see also section.

In conlusion its a nice Good Article, but it is too short to make FA at the moment. It also suffers from problems relating to relevance, only the last paragraph actually deals with the uniquely Australian award. I'm aware that the rest of the information is pertinent but more is needed on what makes the award Australian. Good work and all the best.--Jackyd101 11:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The argument on shortness is always a divisive one. Criterion 1b of the WP:FACR states that the article must be comprehensive. The length of the article does not preclude it from FA status. I agree though that the Australian sections need some expanding and i will try to do that in the coming days. I have put in two more pictures, one of sevastopol and one of the AWM. I have moved the nav boxes to the bottom of the page. For your other comments see my reply to Kirill. Thankyou for taking the time to review the article. Woodym555 18:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edmund Herring

Hawkeye7 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite good, overall; a number of possible improvements, though:

• The lead needs to be considerably longer; it should be a brief (two or three paragraphs) but thorough summary of the article, not a one-sentence blurb.
• Section names should be in sentence case.
• Long quotes will look much neater if properly formatted with blockquote tags.
• The "Further reading" section shouldn't repeat works already listed in the references. Beyond this, I would recommend against the long-form first citation style; if the order of material in the article is rearranged, the citation will no longer make sense. I would suggest instead using short-form citations throughout and having a separate listing of references; see, for example, here.
• The long quote in the "Quotes" section needs to be worked into the text or moved to WikiQuote.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated; if the links are important, they should be given in the text.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All done, although the short form citations make me wince Hawkeye7

Jackyd101

Not bad, but some points.

• Lead should be longer, recommend two sizable paragraphs explaining who he was, what he did and why he was notable in greater detail. Write in a clear and concise way, without references.

Writing clearly and concisely goes against my grain but I have inserted three paragraphs.

• Did Edmund and Mary begin a relationship soon after they met? It jumps from them meeting to married; perhaps a short clarifying clause needed.

Yes, they had one month in January 1918, and corresponded after he returned to Salonika and Oxford. They got back together again in 1920. Added a couple of clauses.

• "He joined the Young Nationalists, an organisation founded by Robert Menzies and Wilfred Kent Hughes." When and who were they?

I've wiki-linked it.

• In Greece, the piece implies he abandoned his men, is this the case? And if so, didn't anybody have anything to say about it?

It does say that he "was ordered to evacuate from Greece". I have elaborated this episode.

• At Buna it jumps from difficulties in supply to victory without any explanation. a sentence briefly explaining the battle would help. The following paragraph is also quite choppy, recommend smoothing the text out a bit.

• "it was not Savige's fault". Its not clear what exactly Savige was being blamed for. Also, wording is a little awkward.
• Decapitalised wikilinks where it makes grammatical sense. I have done a few but keep an eye out for them. (especially Battle of . . )
• "However" used too much at start of sentences and even paragraphs. It is sometimes redundant and should be removed or replaced.

Done

• World War II section too long, break into smaller sub-sections "Western desert", "Return to Australia", "New Guinea" etc.
• World War II section has several short paragraphs of one or two sentences. Incorporate them into longer paragraphs above and below.

• All quotes not embedded in the text should be in blockquote format.

Done

• Chief Justiceship has broken and short paragraphs.
• Is there a wikilink to Lieutenant-Governor of Victoria?

No.

• Some sentances have too many commas.
• What is ANGAU? The story is interesting and links to any further information would be useful.

Australian New Guinea Administrative Unit. I'll probably have to write this one.

• Red links in general, whilst not bad per se, can detract from the article stylistically. Maybe consider writing short bios for some of the red linked generals?

No, but I have prepared long ones on Downes, Berryman, Vasey and Northcott. Coming up: Burston, Fairley, Savige, Secombe, Sturdee and Steele

• Long quote should either be incorporated into the text or moved to Wikiquote.

done

• "References" should be come "Notes", "Further reading" should be come "References" and "See Also" should be incorporated into the text

done

• Metadata needed, see Ronald Niel Stuart under edit this page at the bottom for an example.

Done

• All texts used should be added to the new references section

Done

In all a good piece with a lot of information and some nice ideas. I did a small tidy of space etc. for you, but I think the article requires a full copyedit once the chages above are carried out to tighten it up. Sources are good and some interesting quotes found. All the best.--Jackyd101 11:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Royal Navy

I have just started editing this article and have shrunk the history section. I understand that this article does need some referencing in places but are there any other problems with it. I intend to help this article upto A-Class and beyond if possible. Thankyou for any comments. Woodym555 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Killigan

Some things I think you could add and edit are

• Add a picture of a British navy ship at the top of the article.
• Remove the list of famous sailors, ships, etc to a new article and shrink the list on Royal Navy.
• The "Customs and Traditions" section can also be summarized a bit more.
• Add an explanation of the "Composition of the Fleet since 1960" section.
• Reorganize the "Command, Control and Organisation" section so readers can see the order of rank. You could also add images of insignia.
• The title "Command, Control and Organisation" can be just "Organization", I think that is sufficient.

Hope my comments help! They are only suggestions so don't take them too seriously. If you have any problems, just ask. Mr. Killigan 06:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hongooi

I would agree on taking out the lists of sailors and ships, and also the timeline. Good job on shrinking the History section, but I think it needs some way to go. Also, I'd put back the subsections; at the moment it's one big block of text which looks a bit overwhelming. Conversely, some (much?) of the info in Future of the Royal Navy could fit in here. -- Hongooi 08:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added the subsections back in as i did think it was a large block of text. I had been trying to think of NPOV headings and i settled on dates. With regards to the future Royal Navy, should that go in "History" or in "the fleet today". There is also a fine line between useful data and WP:CRYSTAL. The CVF is still planned and by no means confirmed as are the order details for much of the planned fleet. With regards to the timeline should it be deleted or just turned into a new page? Thanks for your comments. Woodym555 11:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, just having a look at the future of the Royal Navy, there doesn't seem to be that much that actually talks about the future -- much of it is about the force structure as it is in the early/mid 2000s. There's the CVF and the JSF, and that's about it as far as crystal-ball stuff goes. Even the new destroyers and frigates are already in the process of entering service. Checking the talk page, I see that the issue of merging it with Royal Navy did actually come up before. As for the timeline, maybe that can go into the history page. -- Hongooi 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the timeline over to the history page. The future issue has now resolved itself in effect because the Treasury has given(or is meant to give this week) funding permission.[6] The remaining Type 45s have not been ordered yet, there are no plans for future frigates, they were cancelled. The only new stuff really is the Bay Class and the Albion Class. I will add the "future" stuff from that page into the Royal Navy today section, it can be expanded and referenced soon, although with the CVF and Type 45s i am tempted to wait until the final announcement is made. Thanks Woodym555 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How does the latest version look? Apart from the referencing which i am continually adding and improving, does anyone have any further suggestions? Thanks Woodym555 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06

I'd say chop out all the see-alsos that aren't noted in the text, and link some of the available forces the RN contributes to - SNMG 2, for example. What are you going to do about the Future of the Royal Navy semi-fork page? Cheers Buckshot06 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have cut down the see alsos, i will try and integrate a few more within the text soon. I will try and wikilink the Nato forces when i find the articles! The future of the Royal Navy is more problematic. It is essentially an essay discussing the possible future of the Royal Navy from a 1990 standpoint. It needs rewriting if it is to reflect current thinking and current developments. Astute and the Type 45s are mentioned almost in passing. I don't see why much of the information cannot be moved here or into the History of the Royal Navy. It seems to be a breach of WP:RECENT in that it gives a whole article to the last 15 years when the main article covers 800 years. I have tried to move some information over but am trying not to put a recent bias on it. A delicate balance.

What are your opinions on how to integrate the graphs into the text? Whilst i don't think they are unsightly, i do think they need to be integrated somehow or moved to a new Royal Navy post World War II article which could also consume the Future article.

Thanks for your comments. Woodym555 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanished user

I'm not sure you haven't cut the history a bit too much; I mean, it practically defined Britain from, say the defeat of the Spanish Armada to the Victorian period, but we're instead getting most of the time on the World wars. The graphs are kind of ugly, I'd run them over to WP:GL/IMPROVE. I'd like some more historical ships, if possible, we don't actually see a ship until the section on the World Wars. Perhaps the Navy in Popular culture? (H.M.S. Pinafore, Corcoran's song about the change to steam in Utopia, Limited's act I finale, etc, etc. Also, the later parts are a bit heavy on statistics, not always very well presented. WP:GL/IMPROVE may be able to help there as well.

I don't know. I am a Victorianphile, so that might skew my views about the history section a bit. Vanished user ^talk 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I will be the first to agree that the history section needs some refinement. As i have stated on the Royal Navy talk page in that mammoth discussion on the Battle of Cartagena, the world wars sections need cutting back and the 18th/19th century might need some more expanding. I think we do have to keep WP:SUMMARY in mind though. The place for detailed discussion on the History of the Royal Navy is on that page and that page primarily. The Royal Navy page is meant to be a summary and we have to be careful not to expand it too much.

With regards to popular culture there is an in fiction section which already exists and this could probably go in there or the section could be renamed. We do already have the page List of famous ships and sailors of the Royal Navy. This is already quite subjective, what makes a ship famous beyond the obvious Victory and the Mary Rose?

I will admit that the graphs need improving and better integration within the article. Any suggestions on how would be most welcome. Woodym555 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ALR

I think this article needs some focus for a start. The RN is a huge topic, and at the moment this doesn't really have a clear idea of whether it's about the RN as it is today, or the RN as a historical thing which just happens to still exist. To me, it should discuss the RN as it is today, and drop out issues to subordinate articles as required.

IMO the history section still needs shrunk even further, an entire article exists which is heavily replicated here. Frankly anyone wanting to read about the service is unlikely to make it to the bottom of the history section.

The section on the future force structure is pretty speculative, unfortunately any doctrinal material about future force structure and the Versatile Maritime Force is classified, even if only RESTRICTED, so unable to be used as a source.

I think the graphs are inherently meaningless without interpretation, and any interpretation is both OR and of limited value without the VMF material.

The C2 section is incomplete, and needs to reflect the RN in the Joint Environment and within MOD, I can do that when I find some time. Unfortunately again most of that material is not easily sourcable as the primary sources are classified.

Pushed for time, so that's the lot right now

ALR 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments about the graphs. I have stated before, here, and on various talk pages that the graphs need to be interpretated, expanded or removed. I think they have little meaning without any expansion. and they are inherently unneccessary; I think the table shows the data perfectly adequately. The idea of the History section as it stands is to be a summary of the History of the Royal Navy article.

I think this article does drop out issues to subordinate article. That is the idea of the section headers such as notable sailors, customs and traditions, history of the Royal Navy etc. I have tried to conform to WP:SUMMARY in that respect. As mentioned above, and elsewhere, various articles need to be merged or moved. The future of the Royal Navy is limited in its scope. I do think that the Postwar period- Composition of the fleet should be merged, the graphs deleted and the table kep. The royal Navy today would then flow seamlessly with the rest of the article. As it stands, it's disjointed.

With regards to the Focus, i think it is focused towards the current Royal Navy. Everything below history is about the Royal Navy today. Admittedly the information that is there needs reorganising but it is there. I think the Royal Navy today should provide an overview of capability through the integration of ship descriptions such as, Amphibious/Escorts/Submarine/other. This would add some new information but again we have to follow WP:SUMMARY and not duplicate future of the Royal Navy. I think the future article needs a complete refocus or at least a rename.

What we have to avoid is this page turning into a duplicate of the Royal Navy page or turning into a mixture of a myriad of different official documents. I think some of the terminology is straight out of an official document and as such is inaccessible to the layman. I think excessive use of acronyms, although mirroring the Royal Navy, will complicate the prose and make it hard to read. I think the C2 section does need clearing up, but it is hard to do that if it is not clear in the first place. I don't think it is clear to the Royal Navy, to be perfectly honest. What i have suggested to you in the past, is a diagram showing the command structure, i am still awaiting your response on that proposal.

Sorry if this has turned into an essay but i think this is an important article that needs some discussion and action. I will try and work on it tomorrow, by combining the sections as discussed above. Woodym555 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern about the table is similar to my concern about the graphs. Without a fairly lengthy exploration of the context, both technological and geo-political, they don't add anything useful. Sheer numbers don't mean anything useful, for example a 1950's destroyer could exercise direct fire sea control over an area about thirty miles diameter, although control waterspace over somewhat more than that, roughly a couple of hundred miles, a modern Frigate can exercise direct fire sea control over an area of about 180 miles, controlling waterspace of about 800 miles diameter, more if in company with other assets. your problem with all of that is finding a reliable reference to discuss it from. That source is what is lacking.

I think we just need to agree to disagree over the current history section. At over two screen lengths it's about the maximum that the average screen user will actually read before moving on somewhere else. It's neither a summary, nor comprehensive, as altready highlighted regarding the WWII emphasis. Personally I don't think it should be more than about three paragraphs.

I acknowledge your concern about this turning into a replica of the RN website, and would agree with the sentiment although disagree that it's likely. The RN site isn't comprehensive, and tbh it's wrong in a number of areas. It's an outsourced effort and there is quite a lot of dissatisfaction around it.

I'm not sure what you're aiming at with the comment about excessive use of acronyms, there are very few there at present, howver maritime warfare does have a specialist language, and we need to assume a level of intelligence from readers.

With respect to C2, my previous point stands. No sources are easily available to you, hence the majority of the readership, with respect to the current organisation. As I previously highlighted to you, FLEET is undergoing yet another re-organisation so there is unlikely to be anything published in the near future. Any diagram is OR, and I'm surprised that wasn't clear from what was said before. Similarly with respect to the relationship with MOD, DPA and DLO merged this year, leading to the Controller and NML being part of the same organisation, both LAND and STRIKE are undergoing similar change programmes to the one that FLEET undertook last year. Things are very much in flux.

ALR 09:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Operational Headquarters at Northwood, Middlesex, co-located with the Permanent Joint Headquarters and a NATO Regional Command, Allied Maritime Component Command Northwood. CINCFLEET is also Commander AMCCN. I think this highlights the problems of acronyms and official language. To the layman, or even the uninformaed this would seem complicated. To be honest the whole section is, and should probably be rewritten by somone knowledgeable, or should be removed.

I don't think you can summarise British Naval History in three paragraphs, created, fought, lost, stopped Armada, beat Spanish at Trafalgar, lost a few battles in the World Wars, won a few battles in World Wars, Fought the Argentinians over Falklands, been in decline ever since. Good summary? Even then it starts to get long. I admit the World Wars need cutting down. Other than that, i agree about agreeing to disagree.

In terms of the graphs i will start a debate on the talk page, and will probably remove them. I do think the numbers serve a basic purpose though, they do show the decline in numbers of the fleet. I know capability needs to be taken into account but on a basic level you can't be in two places at once. With one ship replacing two it leaves a gap and that is what that table is showing. There are numerous article that talk about declining numbers and capabilities and i will reference them when i rewrite the section. Woodym555 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be accurate needs a reasonable degree of formality around language, particularly when you decontextualise the paragraph. In the article CINCFLEET has already been explained, NATO shouldn't need explaining and I really do think it somewhat OTT to repeat Allied Maritime Component Commander Northwood twice in two sentences. It seems complicated because, frankly, it is. I'm not denying the language could be improved, but I'm very concerned about dumbing it down too much.

fwiw, I wrote the section on C2, and I am knowledgable on the subject.

ALR 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject, you do seem to be well-informed. The sentence was meant as a general example of the problems with the whole section. Given that the Royal Navy was included in the Wikipedia CD for schools i think we have to keep in mind that the language needs to be accessible. I am not saying write it on the level of a 10 year old simply to keep in mind that most people do not have a clue about naval terminology and may find the whole thing confusing. I know that many officers find it confusing as well, but we do have to try and keep it accessible. I think a simple paragraph explaining that the C2 now has a new facility at HMS Excellent and a new command structure that liks in with the DPA, DLO and MOD. It is a complicated structure, revised constantly, but currently there are ... in positions. Go onto explain or list positions. I don't think all of the links between departments of The Civil service and MoD need to be there. We need to state that the exist but any detailed explanation will confuse the whole matter. The reader needs to be able to read the paragraph once and be able to understand it. At the moment even i (and i do have some experience in the whole thing) have to reread it to fully understand its meaning. Woodym555 19:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fort Kearny (Washington D.C.)

This is an article typical of the ones I've been creating for American Civil War forts that protected Washington, D.C. during that war. I've created a template box, and I'm in the process of creating articles for each of the major forts. As this article is typical of the ones I've been creating, I'd appreciate feedback in regards to style and content, and anything else that comes to mind. Thanks! JKBrooks85 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen

I performed a light edit for format, links, etc. Nice job overall. My only remaining comment would be that your citations to historical letters needs to identify the secondary source(s) where they can be found. I am guessing that they came from the Official Records, but you need to state the volumes, pages, etc. in the footnotes. Hal Jespersen 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, they came from a National Park Service website. What's the correct way to indicate that in the citation? JKBrooks85 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! I also added a section detailing the decommissioning of the fort and added a fortification infobox. JKBrooks85 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06

Very good overall. I've taken two looks at this now and the only thing I can think of is whether there are other sources available - anything not from the official records? Might widen the coverage a little. Cheers Buckshot06 12:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll dig around and see what I can find. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a research library where I live, so everything comes via loan, and it's not a quick process. JKBrooks85 22:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Military

This article has been a subject of an important reorganization and reformulation since a couple of weeks now. I think most of the areas related to the subject has been covered but may be some more work is needed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

Broad, general topics such as this one are difficult to write about and I commend you for taking on this subject. You appear to cover all the areas of the subject, the "what, where, when, why and how". I think you might consider adding more info on the purpose of military forces, whether as instruments of state power, to secure national objectives, as self-defence, etc. Cla68 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06

Second cla68's commendation: appears to be a lot of good material here. Some thoughts:

• Logistics could use a little more description, possibly with the ageless quote that amateurs discuss tactics while professionals talk logistics included.
• The military zones map doesn't appear to serve any purpose
• There could be a lot more citations throughout to back up your text.

Buckshot06 14:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Roger

Here are some initial thoughts. (I've not commented on sections I've been involved with.) I'd like to see the whole thing loosen up a bit, perhaps approach the subject with a little less earnest reverence (but that's probably just me).

2 Military science

Section intro could do with expansion. Perhaps putting into historical perspective, the siege machines of Archimedes and Leonardo di Vinci; development of chain-mail, invention of the stirrup (both these changed the battlefield immeasurably).

2.1 Organization

Reads a little like an extract from an induction lecture (perhaps that's where the editor remembers it from). More detail, more referenced anecdote.

2.2 Intelligence

Again, perhaps a bit stilted. More anecdotal stuff perhaps. Spies in history (Alfred the Great sneaking into his enemy's camp; Mata Hari); espionage methods: invisible inks, cyphers. No mention of great intelligence coups: Patten as a decoy for D-Day etc. Changing methods of intelligence, dawn of electronic surveillance etc

2.3 Strategy and tactics

Currently a bit bitty. Really needs a tighten up. I can probably do this, but not until September/October.

2.4 Logistics

No mention of food and drink; yet crucial factor in many battles. Food: "An army marches on its stomach" (Napoleon). Water: crusaders -v- Salah-el-Din Battle of Hattin. Weather and lines of communication: Napoleon's Retreat from Moscow, Hilter's Battle of Stalingrad. Petrol shortages: Battle of the Bulge, Afrika Korps at El Alamein. Ammunition shortages: Germany for most of World War One.

2.5 Technology and equipment

No mention of military inventions that have filtered across to the civilian world yet there are thousands of them. GPS and the Internet are of course modern examples. This is particularly true in medicine. Specific medical advances are often driven by a surge in specific battlefield injuries (plastic surgery for fighter pilots, prosthetics[7], blood plasma, knee reconstructions in Northern Ireland etc). This could probably be a separate sub-section Military medicine, which could also take about deveopment of field ambulances, MASH, Red Cross etc.

3 Military history

Strange opening sentence. Intimately connected with the study of tactics and strategy. Old battle scenarios often dusted down for modern use: Gen. Schwarzfkopf revisiting Guderian and Rommel to plan Operation Desert Storm.

4.4 Militaria

Needs creating, then expanding. Some focus on badges, ranks etc (we have people interested in that here).

5 Other uses of "Military"

A bit apologetic. Needs expanding

--ROGER ^TALK 08:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Korean War

Previous peer review

Listed for Mr. Killigan. Kirill 13:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RM Gillespie

Just browzed the article and alternated the images. As to the conflict (as depicted in film) all of your selections are either Korean or Chinese. Why not add Bridges at Toko-Ri, which reveals the prejudices and attitudes of Americans at the time with unforgiving clarity. For a bleak and fatalistic view of the ground war from the American perspective, Tony Mann's Men in War is a masterpiece. The depiction of an actual battle (and the glossing over of American military mistakes) is best depicted in Lewis Milestone's Pork Chop Hill. For the depiction of a Dutch soldier's small war see Field of Honor. RM Gillespie 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Parâkramabâhu I

This article failed a previous FA nomination mainly due to WP:MoS issues, a lot of which were noted in a previous peer review. I went through the article and try to fix as much problems as I could, and would appreciate some input into any further problems in the article or corrections required to the article. Thanks. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Old peer review
• Failed featured article nomination

Just thought I'll create a list to keep track of the new articles created to explain a few items mentioned on this page. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Polonnaruwa Kingdom
• Vikkamabahu
• Kitti Sri Megha
• Gal Vihare

Jayron32

• Spelling error in the first paragraph of the lead. "beatification". Do you mean he made the capital city a saint? If not, if you meant he made it more "beautiful" then the word is "beautification". If you mean something else, than try a different word. I would have fixed it myself, but I wasn't sure what you meant...
• There are a few referencing issues, such as:
  • Nevertheless he retained the entirety of Bhaddavati’s dowry for himself, and entered into secret negotiations with Gajabahu’s general Gokanna. Gajabahu eventually grew suspicious of Parakramabahu’s activities, perhaps alerted to the situation by the prince’s bizarre usage of an elephant in heat to further his spy network, and Parakramabahu yet again departed in secreacy, and returned to Dhakkinadesa. Where does this info come from?
  • However some members of Parakramabahu's army disregarded his commands and broken open house doors in Polonnaruwa, plundered goods and stole raiment and ornaments from the people of the city. unreferenced.
  • The pillaging of Polonnaruwa was to have dire consequences for Parakramabahu. Angered by the actions of the forces from Dhakkinadesa, the nobles and allies of Gajabahu - including his general Gokanna - appealed to Manabharana of Ruhuna for assistance. Despite having an alliance with Gajabahu, Manabharana remained neutral in the war up till that point. Then, on the eve of Parakramabahu's victory, he stepped into the conflict and launched an invasion of Rajarata. unreferenced.
  • Check for other places where it is unclear where certain historical facts are referenced.
• Otherwise, this looks pretty good. I am a terrible copyeditor myself. Have you tried WP:LOCE to see if anyone can take a critical look at the text? Good luck! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he didn't want to give sainthood to the city :) That's something the spell checker didn't catch.

I cited the material you requested from another book that previously wasn't used in the text. I'll try to cite as much as I can from that (and other books I could find) and also expand the article a little from info included in the book that isn't there in the article. That should help cos at the previous FP nomination a few editors questioned the number of unique sources used in the article.

When I'm done with the citations I'll see if anyone at WP:LOCE will go through the article. Thanks for your suggestions Jayron, they are much appreciated.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

Replace the comparisons with descriptions. Wandalstouring 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean for example sentences like

..similar to the settlement reached by King Stephen of England around the same time, in which Henry of Anjou, son of his rival the Empress Matilda, is allowed to ascend to the English throne upon his death.

Like Basil II of Byzantium his ultimate weakness may have been that he was too successful... ?

If so I would tend to agree they are best not included in the text. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the two comparisons I found. Thanks for pointing that out Wandalstouring, and any other suggestions? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My issues are solved. Wandalstouring 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the input. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

Hi Snowolf; I gave it a run-through and made changes per WP:DASH, WP:MSH, WP:UNITS, WP:MOSNUM, WP:GTL and WP:CONTEXT. The first occurrence of relevent terms should be linked, common words shouldn't be linked, and links already in the article shouldn't be repeated in See also. You may need to review the introduction in terms of creating stubs for some of the people and places introduced there, if they are notable. Examples include:

• Kitti Sri Megha
• Sri Vallabha
• Dakkinadesa
• Ruhuna (there's a link, but it needs to be disambiguated)
• Rajarata
• Gajabahu II
• Dhakkinadesa
• Sea of Parakrama

Many editors (like me :-) may not know these terms, people, and places, so they may need links. Redlinks in the lead are a bit unsightly, so you may want to create the stubs.

Continuing on, there are other terms that may need to be linked throughout the body of the article:

• King Vijayabahu I etcetera ... It's fine to redlink all of these people and places, but stubs are desirable. There are many undefined terms, people and places throughout the article.

If you examine the kinds of edits I made, I may not have gotten everything, I may have missed some hyphens that should be emdashes, and there may be generally more of the same to do. For example, there were some strange uses of single quote marks, there are still common terms that shouldn't be linked, and attention to wikilinking is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very extensive edits Sandy. I'll try to go through the article myself and fix some of the link problems. I'm not exactly sure how the dashes work though. The problem with the red links you mention is there isn't anywhere near as much info about Parakramabahu's predecessors as there is about him, but I'll do my best to create stubs. I'll also try making a few articles about some of his constructions, like Gal Vihare, Ruwanveliseya etc.

Only do them if they're notable and deserve an article; otherwise, ignore me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Sandy. I'm going through history books collecting information, and I should be able to create articles for some of the rulers within the next few days. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Ramillies

Request comments etc for this article. Thank you Raymond Palmer 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Another great article; a few minor points that struck me as warranting improvent:

• "Marlburian", while technically correct, is a bizarre enough form that I'd suggest avoiding it.
• The sub-section titles under the "Battle" section would be better off as purely geographic; explicitly listing everything according to its position in the Allied line is neither necessary nor particularly impartial.
• Some of the longer quotes may work better in blockquote formatting.

Overall, though, this is excellently written. Kirill 03:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Victor Falk

• Excellent... "pontoon train" should be linked to Pontoon_bridge#Military_bridges... --Victor falk 17:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I have made the changes, although on Kirill's last point I have compromised somewhat. The long quotation I think may have been a problem I have reduced by half. I think it's an improvement. Raymond Palmer 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Easter Offensive

Been working on this stub for a while. Turned out pretty long, and would like some constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WT

Looks quite good, but the 'ibid's should be replaced with full citations. Any wikitext can always be changed, leading to wrong citations if a new quote gets inserted carelessly. I suggest to reduce your overall amount of citation and just put references for each chapter. Wandalstouring 16:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank for the suggestions. Have straightened out the "ibid" problem, but do not feel a change in the footnote structure is warranted at this time. RM Gillespie 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Overall, very good; just a few nitpicky points to look at:

• "correct title of which is the Nguyen Hue Offensive" - presumably you mean that was the PAVN name for the operation? It may be a good idea to explain the naming issue more explicitly, even if only in a footnote.
• I don't think it's necessary to italicize PAVN divisional designations; the underlying convention is likely to be totally meaningless to the average reader, who won't understand why some units are italicizes while others aren't.
• The "See also" section can be removed, I think; all of those links are prominently given in the article already, so there's no need to repeat them.
• The external link should ideally be annotated to explain what exactly it's a link to; raw links aren't usually the most helpful for the reader.

Keep up the great work! Kirill 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Kiril, once again a loudly vocal "muchos gracias" for your suggestions. Have added a footnote to explain the name discrepancy and removed the "see also" links. Should the italicizations be removed? I would think that it would remove confusion, since there are so many units identified by numerical designations. It would not really matter if either side were so identified. RM Gillespie 18:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd probably go ahead and remove the italics; while using them to distinguish sides is a clever approach when dealing with an audience that understands it, I suspect most readers won't realize that the different font is intentional. Kirill 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Done. RM Gillespie 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dreadnought

This article was first forked from battleship over the summer. I have far from exhausted my to-do list on it but I'm running out of inspiration, hence the peer review. There was a very brief previous peer review since when I have added a whole wodge of technical material (yes, I know, none of it's sourced- that's next on my list). What does everyone reckon? Regards and many thanks, The Land (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen

Well, you've mentioned sourcing, but let me re-iterate that concerning the "super-dreadnought" section. It was always my impression that the first real super-dreadnought was the Queen Elizabeth, because she incorporated 15-inch guns and oil-burning engines. I'm also a little uncomfortable using Robert K. Massie as a source; he's not careful enough in his research. Marder or something like that would be better. Mackensen (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree broadly about Massie - I think he's a reasonable source for most thigs but he does drop occasional clangers. I don't have Marder, but I do have the relevant bit of Conway's History of the Ship, which indicates that the Orionss were the first super-dreadnoughts. The Land (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Massie is an unreliable source (not much different from a blog). He regurgitates old myths. His books are inadequately footnoted, so it is impossible to know the source of his statements.--Toddy1 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The 13.5in and 14in ships were described as super-dreadnoughts.--Toddy1 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

As you've pointed out, sourcing is probably the biggest concern at the moment; there are large chunks of the article with very sparse citation, if any. Aside from that, a few other points to look at:

• The image placement needs to be reworked; the multiple images stacked along a single margin near section headers produce all sorts of bizarre floating effects on some browsers.
• The prose is somewhat choppy overall, with many short and even one-sentence paragraphs. I'd try to condense things a bit.
• Some of the sectioning is questionable. Why is the single paragraph on Japan in its own section? I'd actually go so far as to suggest that the "Dreadnought building" section contain only two sub-sections, one for the UK and Germany and one for everyone else.
• The section headings could use a bit of work. "Development of the all-big-gun battleship" is rather too long—why not just "Development"—and leading articles should be omitted.

Hope that helps! Kirill 03:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

MBK004

As has been mentioned before, keep working on the sourcing. Other than that, I've uncovered a few things that could use (at least for me) some clarification:

• In the lead: --> The product of British technical superiority and the willpower of Admiral Jackie Fisher, Dreadnought was no bolt from the blue.
  • No bolt from the blue? - What does this mean, perhaps better wording is in order?
• Shouldn't World War I and World War II be wikilinked in the lead?
• Is it really necessary to link to a page multiple times within the article? Isn't one link at the first mention of the term appropriate?
• Long-Range Gunnery section:
  • Wikilinks to Russo-Japanese War, and Naval War College? Could not find any occurrence of these being linked at all in the article.
• The choppy prose and questionable sectioning mentioned by Kirill above is also something I agree with.
• Image placement is also as mentioned above an issue that needs to be resolved.
  • This image: Image:British Grand Fleet 2.jpg needs a proper license tag. Proper image licenses (Fair-Use, PD, etc.) are part of the GA requirements. This is something that was brought up in the GA review of USS Texas (BB-35).

Overall, this is a promising article that I look forward to seeing Featured! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

HMS Ledbury (L90)

Hi, i've just finished writing up this article, and I would really appreciate any help in improving it. Reuv 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555

This is a very good start, there are some areas for improvement though:

• A new ship infobox is available from the following link on Wikiproject ships:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Tables#Table of statistics for a ship.
• The references need clearing up. Are there any specific page numbers? In which case use specific page numbers. If you need an example on how to do this see Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope.
• Also, try to use the ref name format and this will reduce the size of the text. Info can be found here: Wikipedia:Footnotes under the subheading Citing a footnote more than once.
• Could the further action section be expanded slightly. The article is currently based wholly on the Malta Convoys. Did the Ledbury play a major part in any other battles?
• Could Operation Pedestal be broken down into subsections? At the moment there is a very large block of text.

This was a very quick overview, if you want me to expand on any comments then leave me a message here or on my talk page. I will try to check the text in detail when i have the time. On first viewing though it seems like good prose. Woodym555 17:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done on the updates to the article, i have just done a thorough copyedit and i couldn't find many things that were wrong. A few weasel words were removed but little else needed work.

The main problem that i still have with the article is the emphasis on Operation Pedastal. I understand this is pivotal in the history of the Ledbury, but is there any information on any other actions. In the introduction it states "Her already impressive battle honours were further increased during the Allied landings in Sicily and Salerno, and in the Adriatic and Aegean." Yet it does not go into detail on these actions in the article. An expansion of these sections, even one or two paragraphs on each action and the role Ledbury played in it would make it a more rounded article. I hope that this is of some help. Again, any queries can be put here or on my talk page and i will be happy to help. Woodym555 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of Manual of Style related issues.

• MoS:Times It needs to be correctly formatted throughout.
• In the cite web template, you have accessdate and accessyear, it would reduce the text slightly if it was shown in the most common style of '|accessdate=2007-06-28'
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) has a small amount of text related to italics. I don't think that there is a specific rule related to the ship name always being in italics except in a title. The loose rule is that it should be used for emphasis so i do not think that all the instances of Ledbury should be in italics, quotations should be but not the ships name. Use other prefixes such as 'the Ledbury' that omit the italics.
• Wikipedia:Footnotes The correct syntax for the multiple footnotes is

This is an example of multiple references to the same footnote.<ref name="multiple"/>

I think some browsers have problems dealing with your references as they are. Also so that new editors could easily understand the reference it is better to give them a name such as IWMweb13 or ref name="AuthorX"p.13 and not a, b, c as new editors would not be able to understand them.

Other than these small style objections, I would now put it up for GA Review to see what they say and it should be passed easily. Woodym555 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate a lot your help in this article, I've addressed the issues mentioned, removed the italics, arranged time according to MoS, and changed the dates for the references in the suggested style. I also renamed the multiple references and used the format given. Thanks a lot for the hints! Reuv 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Uhud

just passed GA... was wondering what in terms of content, style, expression (or anything else) could be done to improve the article and raise it to featured quality. ITAQALLAH 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

old windy bear

ITAQALLAH I have read the article carefully, and it is just my opinion, but it might benefit from citing from another couple of detailed military analysis of the battle itself, but it is generally quite good and manages to steer the narrow line between religion and history that is inevitable with the early battles during the rise of Islam. old windy bear 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• i'm currently in the process of looking to see if i can get any more in terms of narrative or analysis of this event. Watt's books and the Encyclopedia of Islam cover it quite comprehensively, and most biographies don't tend to go into meticulous detail about it. i'll see what i can dig up. ITAQALLAH 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH Watt is my source also, but I will check further too, but I think you covered it pretty thoroughly. It would be nice to have another good source analysis or two, but as you say, most histories of the period don't go into tremendous detail about the Battle of Uhad.old windy bear 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[User:Itaqallah|ITAQALLAH]] In a final review of the article, I added the fact that Khalid ibn al-Walid(ra) emerged as a brilliant general in this battle, displaying his talent for the first time as he would go on to conquer the Sassanids. Other than that, I think you did a superior job. Nice work! old windy bear 10:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you Oldwindybear. i've got a hold of Tor Andrae's book ("Mohammad: The Man and His Faith"), and i'll see if there's anything else i can add. ITAQALLAH 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian

1. I checked the article and put some comments in the talk page. But why don't you use Arabic histories like Tabari and Ibn Athir. We can't find most of the details in the western histories.
2. You can use Battle of Badr which is an FA article to complete the prelude and get some ideas about what sections can be added like Badr in the Qur'an and Important participants.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The participants idea is a good one, actually. Certainly the Shiites make a great deal out of Ali's role in the Battle. I still think the article is a good one as he constructed it, but a participants section is a good idea. Ibn Athir does not have many more details than are currently in the article, as I recollect it concentrates most heavily on Battle of Badr ?old windy bear 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately Shia and Sunni sources are agreed on Ali's role. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian(t Then it would do no harm at all to put it in the article. I simply wanted to avoid lengthy arguments. old windy bear 00:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or

The general impression from the article is that it is poorly written, does not describe the battle adequately, and is trying hard to demonstrate that the battle "may not have been a defeat for Muhammad".

• The number of Muhammad's troops is incorrect. Muhammad's army numbered 1,000 only before Ibn Ubayy's departure; thereafter they were 700 strong.
• Khalid ibn al-Walid was not a commander of the Meccans on par with Abu Sufyan. Khalid merely commanded the cavalry on the left flank. For this reason, the map that shows him on the right flank is also incorrect.
  • Watt and Muir both state that Khalid commanded the right flank, while Ikramah commanded the left. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• The outcome "strategically undecisive" means nothing, except as an attempt to show this was not really a defeat for Muhammad. Very few battles are strategically decisive; this meaningless "strategically undecisive" expression can be appended to pretty much every battle.
• Why is there no date for the battle according to the Islamic calendar?
• The intro is very bad. It contains very little information on the battle itself, but lots of details on where the Muslim emigrated from, where the Mount Uhud stands, what some scholars supposedly think on the outcome etc.
  • the intro does need to be more comprehensive, which i shall address shortly. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "The Muslims had the worst of the affair" is unencyclopedic style.
• "Prelude" is not an encyclopedic title for a section. Be sure not use the definite article in the titles of other sections.
• "Muhammad had preached the message of Islam in Mecca" is loaded religious language. Avoid such Muslim terms as "message" (risala) and "call" (dawah).
• "tight-knit community of followers" - bad English.
• "but had also succeeded in angering the rest of the Quraysh" I don't think that angering the Quraysh was Muhammad's intention, so he couldn't "succeed" in it.
• "After years of persecution" How exactly were the Muslims "persecuted"?
  • most sources relate the Meccan persecution of the Muslims. i don't think it's appropriate to delve into that here. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Abu Sufyan accompanied a party of 200 men to the city" Which men? Meccans?
  • Watt simply says men. we cannot assume that it was solely Meccans, it may have also consisted of nomadic allies. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "obtaining temporary residence with the chief of a Jewish tribe" What are the names of the tribe and its leader?
• "He then left the city, burning two houses and laying waste to some fields in fulfillment of his vow." Did he do this alone? It's pretty diffcult for one man to lay waste to some fields. Also, the article previously mentions no "vow". This whole passage referenced to Watt (1964) pp. 132—135 is so strange and murky that one needs at least the full quote from the source; meybe then it could be decoded.
  • will try to improve the flow. mention of vow has been made more explicit. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Defeat by the Muslims the Battle of Badr had infuriated the Meccans, who now wanted revenge for their dead kinsmen." Already mentioned above.
• "The following year on 11 March 625 with Abu Sufyan at the helm, they raised another force, often numbered at 3000" And less often numbered at what? In addition, this is bad English.
• Usually, the descriptions of battles start with the order of battle, describing the opposing forces and their location. We can see none of this here, so the account of the battle is haphazard, with archers, cavalry, Khalid ibn al-Walid etc, popping out of nowhere. The course of the battle is thus pretty difficult to understand even with the help of the map. However, a map is not a substitute for the order of battle; in addition, the movements of troops are shown on the map rather selectively. As a result, we know something only from the text, something only from the map, and the reader must string together the events on his own.
  • have tried to make the text about the battle more comprehensive, though i'm not completely finished with that yet. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Shortly before the battle commenced, 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy (the chief of the Khazraj tribe) and his followers withdrew their support for Muhammad and returned to Medina" Wrong, Ibn Ubayy left on his way to the Mount Uhud, long before the battle commenced.
  • "Shortly before the battle" is attributed to Watt. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Ibn Ubayy and his followers would later receive censure in the Qur'an for this act." How and in what verse?
• The article misses the famous story how Muhammad's uncle Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib successfully fought in the battle before being killed by the Ethiopean slave Wahshi. For this reason, "the corpse of Hamza" just pops up out of nowhere.
• Why is there nothing in the article on what, if anything, Muhammad was doing during the battle?
• Why is there nothing on the role of Ali in the battle, according to the Shi'a tradition?
• "after some brief verbal exchanges with Umar ibn al-Khattab (a companion of Muhammad)" is an unnecessary detail.
  • the Abu Sufyan/Umar exchange is frequently mentioned in the accounts of this battle. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Other scholars such as Montgomery Watt disagree, noting that while the Muslims did not win, the Meccans had failed to achieve their strategic aim of destroying Muhammad and his followers; and that the Meccans' untimely withdrawal indicated weakness on their part." Watt may be right in what he notes, but I don't see any "disagreement" anywhere; namely, Watt doesn't state the battle was not a defeat for Muhammad. The who are the "other" scholars? I cannot see any. this appears to be an attempt to stir some non-existing controversy regarding the outcome of the battle, a major flaw of this article.
  • i will see if this opinion is restricted to Watt. however, he does appear to be disagreeing, as he says: "The battle of Uhud has sometimes been presented by occidental scholars as a serious defeat for the Muslims. This is certainly not so." (p. 47) - he then goes on to explain why. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "tactful military leadership of Khalid ibn al-Walid" How can military leadership be "tactful"?
• "A verse of the Qur'an revealed soon after the battle" This is not a NPOV statement: Quranic verses were "revealed" only according to the Muslim tradition.
  • the ambiguity is deliberate: it doesn't say from whom it was revealed. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "The success of the Meccans' rousing of tribes against Muhammad reaped disastrous consequences for him and the Muslims with two main losses: one was where a Muslim party had been invited by a chieftan of the Ma'unah tribe, who were then killed as they approached by the tribe of Sulaym; while the other was when the Muslims had sent out instructors to a tribe which stated it wanted to convert to Islam — the instructors had been led into an ambush by the guides of the would-be Muslim tribe, and were subsequently killed." This sentence is nearly impossible to understand unless one already knows what it's talking about.
  • will try to make the passage clearer. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• The section "The historical record" is unnecessary. The sources for the early Islam are all the same; there is no need to review the sources in every article. The paragraph on the battle in the Qur'an and tafsir must be moved to the section on the Muslim tradition. In addition, a Quranic "chapter" is known as sura.
  • there is substantial discussion dedicated to assessing this battle from a historical perspective in the Encyclopedia of Islam article, so it makes sense to cover that aspect. there is no section about the Muslim tradition, the section on the Muslim reaction is about the response of Muslims in the aftermath of the battle. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or Some of the structural flaws you point out are legitimate. But other issues are not, for instance:

• Khalid, for instance, had begun to demonstrate the tactical, (not tactful), genius that would mark the career of the great general who destroyed the Sassanids, among other huge victories. You fail however to mention it was Khalid's swift movement to take advantage of the archers going after spoils that nearly cost the Muslims the field when you state he was a subordinate commander - the point is this is the day he began demonstrating why military history remembers him, and had the Meccan army followed his lead they would have pressed the battle home and ended Islam at Uhad;
• You state the article should outline the shiite claims regarding Ali - they claim he killed between 2 dozen, and 200 men, which is so impossible to even dignify with putting them in an article. I think you set a bad precedent by diving into the Shiite claims on Ali, frankly. You open a door that leads to religious arguments rather than military ones.
• You state the article is an attempt to sugarcoat a defeat. Quite the contrary - ITAQALLAH was very careful to state most historians regard it as a defeat. But what you do not say is the very simple fact that 3000 men had 700 at their mercy, and failed to follow up on Khalid's lightning advance, and let them fight their way to an effective draw - in addition, the Meccans had Medina at their mercy, and failed to follow up on that at all. Not only did they fail to follow up on the immediate battlefield and press home a victory that could have destroyed Muhammad's army, but even more disasteriously, they failed to attack a city that was effectively helpless. If ever an army managed to turn victory into defeat, it was the Meccan army at Uhad.

I don't want to minimize that you make some points on structure which I am sure ITAQALLAH will address. But I strongly agree with his decision to avoid the trap of discussing the Shia claims on Ali's slaying of hundreds, et al, and no amount of argument can change the fact the Battle of Uhad could have meant the end of Islam had the Meccan army pressed home their victory. Bluntly, strategically it was a huge defeat when you consider that Medina was at their mercy, in addition to the Muslim army, and they let both go. That is the real bottom line: thanks to Khalid's emerging genius they had the field, the opponent, and the entire city had they only fought to a conclusion! Instead in a few short years they were bowing 5 times a day! This was their last real chance to stop Muhammad, and they utterly failed when they could have and should have won a total victory. I agree ITAQALLAH has some language issues, but as to his work on this article, I would maintain he did a good job in avoiding the trap of arguing the claims on Ali, which are really religious in nature, not military, and he wrote a reasoned, basically sound article. old windy bear 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for everyone's input, including Beit Or's. i'll work on all the issues mentioned with some feedback on a few of the points raised. ITAQALLAH 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, for some of the content-based concerns you raised (Muhammad's role during the battle, Hamza and Wahshi, and so on), could you refer me to some academic sources for these accounts? i agree that the intro isn't of good quality yet. as for the section "historical record", i included it because Robinson in the EoI Uhud article discusses this aspect in reasonable depth, and it seems appropriate to relate it in the article. ITAQALLAH 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

the Shia claims on Ali's slaying of hundreds!!!

You're kidding. Please show a notable Shia source which claims. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian(t I really do not want to get into what sources are notable, and which are not. (Actually, the only source which is without question is the Holy Qur'an) But as to others - and again, please understand I accept no source except the Holy Qur'an as notable, for example, for online sources, [[8]] is one that makes such claims. I don't claim this is a reliable or notable source, and this is the kind of argument that I wanted to avoid to begin with. old windy bear 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend, as I know Shia and Sunni sources are agreed on Ali's role and we can use Ibn Athir in this case. I've put a comment in the talk page of the article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian(t My friend, I happily defer to your superior knowledge in this matter. Are you going to let ITAQALLAH put it in, or will you? Your help in this is greatly appreciated. old windy bear 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

as i've opined on the talk page, we should stick to using established reliable sources. i don't have an objection to classical sources in principle, but given that they are frequently misused, they should be related through reliable third party sources. anyway, this kind of discussion belongs at the villiage pump really or some other community forum. ITAQALLAH 01:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH In the end, I feel you should add or not add to the article based on the relevance of the proposed edit to the subject. If the role of Ali is a legitimate part of the military history of the Battle, it is fair to ask that it be included - but that is just my opinion. I feel strenulously that we MUST stick to military subjects. I still feel strongly you did a good job in constructing this article. old windy bear 01:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Old windy bear, in my long list of comments I never mentioned a single editor by name. In your much briefer response you mentioned Itaqallah several times. You may want to move somewhat closer to the policy and comment on content, not editors. You may feel Itaqallah did a superb job on that article. Fine, it's up to you. However, please comment on the article's content, not the person you may feel is its author. Beit Or 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or I always address the person I am speaking to, as in this case, to you. I have reviewed the comments you are referring to, and respectfully, don't feel my comments were inappropriate. I have found that newer editors tend to get discouraged in the process, especially during peer reviews when critiques of the article may be viewed as a personal attack. I feel I commented on the article, and made no personal references whatsoever except to compliment the primary author for attempting to work on a difficult subject. No one except for you felt that my comments were inappropriate. You and I simply disagree on how to review an article, and how to work with other editors. old windy bear 15:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

i have struck through those concerns which have been addressed (just so i know what else needs to be done), and the other points i have either commented on or intend to address soon. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Omaha Beach

First big edit and a lot more work than I anticipated. I think it's finished but I can't see the woods for the trees anymore. I would really appreciate it if others could have a look and let me know how I can improve it. I have a couple of days before real life intrudes and I take a wikibreak for a month or so, but I will watch and action recommendations as and when I can. Thanks. --FactotEm 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to express my appreciation for the review of this article. I have done what I can to incorporate the comments. I believe the biggest issue now remains the lack of any narrative on the impact - I did try but it would only have been a snatched attempt and not good enough. I'll continue to try and improve the article when I get the chance. In the meantime I have added a comment to the discussion page highlighting this review. Thank you. --FactotEm 10:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Land

• Good work! A very thorough account of the American efforts on Omaha. A couple of specifics about the article as it stands:

The frequent references to companies (e.g. B/116) is inevitable but can be confusing; can you explain the terminology in a more prominent place (e.g. the first para of 'Plan of Attack')?

I think the article needs a bit of information about the impact of the battle; concluding at the end of the first day of fighting leaves a lot unsaid. What effect did the landings at Omaha have on the rest of the Normandy campaign and why?

In the lead section, another paragraph outlining the impact and the casualty figures would be helpful (the lead is meant to sum up the whole article).

Are there more sources you can refer to? It is always best, particularly with history, to draw on a range of sources

The biggest issue with the article as stands is that it's entirely written from an Amercan perspective. How did the German defence of the beach compare with their plans? How did the 716th and 352nd respond to the German attack and did it matter? What were the famous quotes, medal citations and casualty figures for the German side? As it stands, all your work has created a very good half of an article - but the other half is necessary to make it into a great Wikipedia article. The Land 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them. I have added some detail about the composition of the units involved to the 'plan of attack' section and introduced there how the companies are represented in the article. Two very good points about the impact and the German side - I basically ran out of time but do intend to address these as time permits (and that will then also take care of the lead). I'll also try and dig out some more sources. Do I need to worry about the length of the article? I read that there is a preference for a limit of 32Kb and this is already at 42Kb. --FactotEm 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about length at this stage. Have a look at WP:LENGTH; if you do end up with a very long article then it's relatively easy to split off sections if appropriate and necessary. The Land 07:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Carom

I would echo most of The Land's comments, particularly with regards to the need to discuss the aftermath of the battle (i.e. consequences and impact) and the German perspective. I would also note that there are a great number of very, very, very short sections, which is not ideal, as it can hinder readability. It is possible that some of them might be combined in order for the article to "flow" better. You might also consider that the "dramatizations" section could be expanded - some of these are fairly significant, and probably warrant some discussion. Carom 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And thanks go to you too. I've merged the shortest sections that appear in the 'Breakthrough section'. The other main offender is the 'Second Assault Wave' section but I'm not sure about eliminating the sections there. Are they as bad for readability? --FactotEm 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Strike that. Found a way to do it and I think it looks a whole lot better. Thank you. --FactotEm 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

37 mm Gun M3

I'd like to get some comments and suggestions concerning further improvement of the article. Thanks in advance. Bukvoed 08:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555

I think it is a good start but it still needs a lot of copyediting. I have copyedited all of the sections except Organization and employment. I will have a go at that when i have more time.

• In particular i could not understand the sentence "Although patterned after PaK 36 and often referred to as a copy of it" Does this mean that the overall design was a copy or just the outer casing. Pattern suggests the paint job or camo.
• Organization and employment, The whole section seems to be slightly confusing "in December 1941 these battalions were reorganized as independent tank destroyer battalions and eventually opted for self-propelled anti-tank guns" If they were reorganised would they not get a decree form headquarters on which weapon to use or would they be given an option. The whole system of "organization" is not explained. Is this in terms of battalion and regimental structure? I am not knowledgable enough on the subject to fully understand it. It maybe needs a link to organisational structure of the Army so that the casual reader would be able to follow the article.
• Generally it does not flow and it is very choppy in places which reinforces the need for a thorough copyedit.
• The references do not use the appropriate template, see [book template] for more information. Most people use only the information in "Example 2".

It is a very good start though. Woodym555 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks and for copyediting the article.

1) About "pattern". M3 was obviously influenced by PaK 36 but differences, externally or internally, were quite significant. Don't think somebody ever confused M3 for PaK 36. "Patterned after" was supposed to mean "modelled on" / "followed the concept lines of" / etc.

2) About TD battalions. I rephrased the section, but in case it's still bad, here's some additional info. On 3 Dec 1941 divisional AT battalions were officially removed from the divisional structure and became tank destroyer battalions under the Tank Destroyer Center. Of course tank destroyer battalions themselves couldn't choose their weapons. The organization chart of these battalions was developed by the TD Center and obviously had to be approved by someone (AGF ?). The TD Center wanted TD battalions to use self-propeled guns, so the battalions gradually received 37mm GMC M6 and 75mm GMC M3. After it happened, TD battalions never used the towed 37mm M3. Later the AGF insisted on arming some TD battalions with towed guns, but these were 3-inch guns.

3) About the whole organization. I just tried to show where in the organization chart were 37mm AT guns. I think explanantions of organization structure are out of place in an article of a specific weapon. It would be nice to have an article with detailed explanation of the WWII-era US organization charts, but we probably don't have one. Well... I'll think about a way to make things more clear.

4) About references. Thanks for the link, I'll try to improve the references fromat when I have more time.

Thanks again. Bukvoed 08:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your rephrasing is much better for the uninformed reader to understand. I have copyedited the organisation section taking your info on board. A couple more pointers though

• In the Japanese section it says "the guns were only somewhat effective". What were they not so effective at. I think that needs to be included in this section, as are the drawbacks in the other sections, if it is to be a balanced encyclopedia article.
• Could the self propelled mounts be tabulated. Headers could be along the lines of "name | gun | mount | comments|. I think it would look better than a list.

You could ask for other comments form other users, but other than the points listed above, and also the references, you could try and put it up for A-Class Review. Woodym555 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

1) The gun was not so effective against fortifications. The 37 mm HE shell simply didn't contain enough explosives. I changed the article to reflect it.

2) I'll experiment with turning the self-propelled mounts list into table.

Again, thanks a lot for your help. Bukvoed 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Land

Looks really good now. I've done a bit of editing the prose for clarity; I'm sure a lot more of this can be done. However I think you should put the article up for A-class review forthwith. The Land 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Yes, I think I'll put the article up for A-class review. Bukvoed 06:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles N. DeGlopper

Need help to determine the completeness of the article, some direction on refining it. Trevorbrooks 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oberiko

• This article needs to cite its sources
• Can you be more specific as to when he received the medal in the introduction? "Battle of Normandy" has different meanings to different people (see its talk page for details), be it the "Normandy Campaign", "Invasion of Normandy" or "Operation Overlord".
• I'd remove the Google Map links within the article
• Instead of a time line, I think a full section for "posthumous awards and honors" would be better able to contain the information beyond his death Oberiko 13:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

jwillbur

• There is a lot of information in the Timeline section, it should be converted from a list to prose and worked into the rest of the article. That would give you enough text to create sections for his early life and legacy, for example.
• In the "Medal of Honor action" section, the first 7 sentences or so don't deal directly with DeGlopper's regiment. It's good to have some background on the battle, but that level of detail is not necessary. It would be better to summarize that information in a few sentences and then focus on what DeGlopper himself experienced during the battle.
• Use inline citations throughout the article.

jwillbur 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

These are exactly the types of suggestions I was looking for, thank you! I'll work on it as time allows.Trevorbrooks 21:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)

A common effort of a group of editors. We'd like to get some comments and suggestions concerning further improvement of the article. Bukvoed 08:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not bad, overall, but some points that still need work:

• The lead could stand to be longer; two or three paragraphs is pretty much the norm now.
• The "Production" section is really too short to stand on its own; it may be better off to absorb it into the previous one (as "Development and production").
• The "Summary" section is out of place; parts of it should be in the lead, while some of the more technical details would be better off in the description of the gun itself.
• An explicit "Trivia" section is unacceptable. While some of these points are interesting, they should be worked into the text itself (as footnotes, if needed).
• The "Surviving pieces" section should be converted into prose (a sentence or two, at most) and ideally absorbed into one of the larger sections ("Organization and employment", perhaps).

Kirill Lokshin 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We reworked the article, taking these remarks into account. Bukvoed 07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Duquesne Spy Ring

This quality article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 May, 2007. The topic has many interesting elements (e.g., Nazi Spies, a double-agent, major FBI sting operation, a colorful ring-leader in Fritz Duquesne, etc...) and many supporting documents in the public domain. Because of the heavy use of public domain material, a Wikipedia newbie worked hard to get the article deleted, even going so far as to submit an AfD on 17 May, 2007; however, his arguments were flawed and the article received a speed keep. Now that the unnecessary AfD debate has ended, it is time to look at ways to improve the article. Your comments and edits would be much appreciated.

-- Ctatkinson 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jackyd101

• Sounds like you've had a tough time, well done for getting through it in a sensible manner. Its a nice article about an obscure by very interesting subject, however I do have a couple of comments. Firstly, the piece needs to be better cited. There are several links to the FBI source information at the bottom and several books listed, but it isn't clear exactly what information come from which source. Used citweb or citebook templates to create a proper notes section.

I'm also not wholly convinced by the article's structure. It might be better to take the information in the lead, William Sebold and Fritz Duquesne sections and create sections on the narrative history of the event (i.e. formation of the group, Sebold's double agent status, links with Germany, aims of the group, FBI monitoring of the ring, ring's collapse and arrest, aftermath). Then the small boilerplate mugshot sections could be placed below (Im not sure if it's just me, but some of the photos don't seem to match up with the personal information.) If anyone besides Duquesne and Sebold is notable enough for their own article then give it to them to save on size constraints. As it is, the article talks about the collapse of the group before the connection between Duquesne and Sebold. The information is all there it just seems to be in a slightly confusing order.

It should also be made clearer in the opening sections how the ring was recruited and organised, I didn't see anything really about that. Those are the major issues I have with the article right now, but it is an interesting read and can be relatively easily improved, good job.--Jackyd101 11:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

CJSC

I would second the above comments re: the article structure. In its current format I feel a better title for this article would be "List of Duquesne Spy Ring members", as it primarily consists of profiles of the various participants, rather than offering a summary overview of the ring's organization, activities, capture, and eventual conviction (as a minor aside, "brought to justice" in the lead has potential POV issues that might be better avoided through a more neutral rephrasing.) As Jackyd suggested, it's not clear that all 31 members need to be profiled, even in brief; rather I would focus on the ring as a whole, with specific attention being paid only to key members. Although the material is definitely public domain, Wikipedia's needs require a different narrative format from what's been provided by the FBI, so I would urge you not to lock yourself in to the existing article structure; the use of other sources, complementing the public domain FBI material, should help to bring out the history, which is likely to be of far greater interest to the average reader (and it does sound like a pretty fascinating case) than a detailed biography on each conspirator. Also, I understand your attachment to the article, but please do try to assume good faith on the part of the editor who nominated this article for deletion, as I saw no evidence that he meant it otherwise. Thanks, -- CJSC // Contact 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Now the articles are stable, I think that they would benefit from a review by some extra pairs of eyes. The Battle of Berlin is closer to a campaign than a simple battle. To the Soviets it was the Berlin Offensive Operation but in English the "Offensive Operation" is known as the "Battle of Berlin" rather than the "Berlin Offensive". The article is now a detailed campaign overview with only one major section of the battle (encirclement) that has not spawned a more detailed page. A review of the Battle article will probably involve reviewing the more detailed pages as well. They are:

• Battle of the Oder-Neisse
  • Battle of the Seelow Heights
• Battle in Berlin
• Battle of Halbe

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

This review is for the main article. I'll try to review the sub-battle articles later:

• As much as possible, inline citations should be in the infobox to support the information contained there.
• The intro should be expanded to two or three paragraphs because of the overall length of the article.
• The background section begins in August, 1944 and therefore appears to assume that every reader will know how and why the USSR and Nazi Germany ended up in the conflict with each other in the first place. A short synopsis of the entire war between the two countries, perhaps a paragraph in length, would resolve that.
• I think the prose is choppy, but I'm known for being partial to run-on sentences, so, take my opinion on this with a grain of salt.
• Needs another copyedit to correct minor grammar mistakes ("detiorated from their heights in 1944").
• Several abbreviations (RAF, USAAF) are used without being completely spelled out the first time they appear.
• Wikify all dates.
• Every paragraph should have at least one inline citation at the end.
• Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
• The images seem to be bunched-up towards the middle-to-end part of the article. Are there any that can be moved up or placed in earlier parts of the article? The profusion of images in the latter part are creating some white space. Some of them could also probably be moved to the left side.
• I think most FA reviewers prefer the footnotes section to be above the references and further reading sections.

There's a lot of really good, detailed information in this article and it's enjoyable to read. Cla68 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Flubeca

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20 miles, use 20 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20 miles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 15 km.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • correctly
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armor (A) (British: armour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), realise (B) (American: realize), counter-attack (B) (American: counterattack), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, -Flubeca^Talk 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Walter Model

This started out as some minor corrections to a decent if short article, and turned into a full-blown research project. After ~2 weeks, I figure it's definitely B-class, hopefully GA-class, with luck maybe even A-class. Comments welcome. -- Hongooi 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Woodym555

Just a little comment after a quick run through.

• The references do not use the appropriate template, see [book template] for more information. Most people use only the information in "Example 2". You will need to supply ISBNs (where available) for all the books used. Woodym555 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, fixed up now. -- Hongooi 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Some more comments
• Even with 88 citations some paragraphs do not have citations. According to WP:CITE there should at least be a citation for every paragraph

• Hm, are you sure? I just had a look at WP:CITE and all it says is that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be cited. There doesn't seem to be any hard-and-fast rule that every paragraph needs a citation. That said, I just had a look at the article again, and there's some areas where I left out the cites. Thanks for the heads-up.

• • No i don't believe there is any set down rule. I was judging it against current FA criteria and my experience of FA nominations. In FAC comments it is regularly commented that paragraphs should have citations. Also if a whole paragraph does not have anything that could be considered contentious, even by a sceptical viewer, then it is probably not concise enough and contains no real information. Anyway, the references that you have added have fixed my problem with it in the first place. Woodym555 19:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• The statement "He has been called the Wehrmacht's best defensive tactician." in the lead is a POV statement in its nature and as such should be cited.

• Done.

• Images, some of the images are correctly tagged but are unsure of sources and could use some more detailed fair use as you have with the infobox photo. Many of these are copyrighted and this can be a stumbling block for FA and GA. (This is being a bit fastidious and nit-picky though)

• Yeah, it's a toughie finding pictures for these WW2 articles. I'll see if I can add more detail on the description pages.

• Rank data, could this be put into a table. This is personal preference (and entirely optional) but i think it might look better in table format.
• Other than that i recommend submitting it for GA or A-Class review. It certainly seems able to pass the criteria. Woodym555 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! I've given it another round of tidying-up. I might submit it for A-class review in the next few days. Thanks again for your comments. -- Hongooi 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Sydney Harbour

This peer review request is following a major rewrite and expansion of the article. I am looking to eventually push this article up to Featured Article status, and as such request that others point out any errors or omissions from the article, as well as provide advice for what needs improving to reach FAC status. I have identified several "things to do" at Talk:Attack on Sydney Harbour#Further expansion, but an external view is requested. -- saberwyn 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question Have you done an automated peer review? See AndyZ's javascript program. I have done one, result is here - it might be a good idea to move it though. The APR seemed to have some sensible opinions.Garrie 07:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I hadn't. Thank you. I'll chew through what it says. -- saberwyn 07:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rename. Since the article describes the attacks on Sydney AND Newcastle, the article should be renamed to reflect this. - 52 Pickup 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The main attack, as well as one of the two secondary bombardments, was on Sydney Harbour. That aside, do you have any suggestions as to what the article should be renamed to? -- saberwyn 23:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If you could somehow put the Newcastle bombardment in the Aftermath section, then I don't think a renaming would be called for. Even if you leave the article outline as is, I still don't think the article necessarily needs to be renamed. CLA 07:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Overall, quite nice. A few points to consider, though:

• The "partof" field in the infobox ought to be readable as a single phrase; see any of Cla68's WWII articles for a good way of doing this.
  • Now reads "Part of the Battle for Australia during World War II". Appropriate? -- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Kirill 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• The single explanatory note would be better off worked in with the rest of them; see below.
  • See below. -- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• "References" should be "Notes" and "Bibliography" should be "References". (There are other options, of course; but "bibliography" is essentially deprecated as a section name, as it's difficult to distinguish whether it's intended as a listing of references or merely as further reading.)

I have chosen to lay it out in this way as it is the way I have been taught at university. I split the Footnotes (notes on the content of the text) from the References (the specific citations for the texts used in compiling the article) to avoid losing the former amongst the latter. Also, I use the term bibliography in the definition that it is a list of all texts cited within the article as opposed to a "Reading list" or "Further reading" article, as this implies to me the inclusion of material above and/or beyond that used for the article.

I am also slightly confused because this layout was acceptable when I submitted the AHS Centaur article to Peer Review, A-class Review, and FAC (at least, I assume it was, because nobody commented). Further advice and guidance to the relevant sections of the policies is requested, if I am in the wrong. -- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A strict reading of WP:LAYOUT#Standard appendices and descriptions would suggest that "Bibliography" is intended for listing further reading, rather than references. As far as Centaur goes: it may have been missed during the FAC, or perhaps the guideline is outdated. It's not that big of a deal, in any case; I prefer a simpler two-section structure (c.f. this), but if you're more comfortable with keeping the existing headings, you're basically free to do so until someone at FAC bothers to object over it. ;-) Kirill 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• The scrollable footnote box is, frankly, a horrible idea, as it makes the article unprintable. Even a collapsing NavFrame would be better than this.
  • Done.-- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Some thorough copyediting would be helpful. One particular issue to check for is the use of a semicolon when a colon is needed (e.g. "Six submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy were involved in the attack on Sydney harbour; I-21, I-22, I-24, I-27, I-28, and I-29.", "21 sleeping Navy sailors were killed; 19 Royal Australian Navy, 2 Royal Navy.", etc.).

Kirill 02:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Will work on it, but due to my "proximity" to the text, more eyes would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

Respectfully request a peer review for this article on a maritime accident between a U.S. Navy submarine and a Japanese high school fishing training ship. Cla68 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hongooi

Looks really good. Just a couple of things:

• I don't think you need the parenthetical (U.S.) in the lead paragraph.

• What is an "admiral's mast"? I gather it's some sort of reprimand, but it should be made clear for a non-naval audience.

Other than that, I'm really impressed. Good stuff. -- Hongooi 13:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree woth Hongooi, it does look good. I also agree that "admirals mast" should be explained, I would aslo like to see "captains reprisal" explained as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your helpful comments. Cla68 02:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice article, as usual. A few comments:

• The infobox is rather crudely designed: no padding, single-color bordering, etc. This isn't really something you're responsible for, of course; but it does detract from the overall impact of the article. I'll try and play around with it a bit if I get a chance.
• Is there potential for an article on the DVE? It seems like it could warrant one, but I'm not exactly an expert on the topic.
• Having "Immediate aftermath" and "Aftermath" as section titles seems a bit too convoluted. Perhaps the latter could be changed to something like "Later events"? Alternately, you could create a "Long-term consequences" section to collect that and the relations discussion together.
• A slightly confusing point: Seacrest was "given immunity", but faced the same punishment as Waddle, who wasn't. Presumably "immunity" is being used to mean only immunity from a court-martial? Or is there something obvious I'm missing here?

Keep up the great work! Kirill 03:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't a "maritime disaster" infobox so I had to use that generic one that doesn't look that great. I appreciate any help you could give to that infobox. I'm not sure that I could find enough sources for a DVE article but I'll look at starting a stub on it based on some of the sources used for this article. I'll change the section titles as you suggest. Actually, I don't fully understand what happened to Seacrest either. If he was given immunity from court martial, then they shouldn't have been able to take him to a captain's mast, because with nonjudicial punishment, the servicemember is supposed to have the option of refusing it and taking it to court martial if they want to. I think immunity meant that his testimony in the inquiry couldn't be used as evidence against him in any disciplinary action but, the sources aren't clear on this point.

Thanks again, as always, for your helpful suggestions and assistance. Cla68 04:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I put in some padding on the template; hopefully that change sticks. It may be worthwhile to create a MILHIST generic infobox for use in cases like this; we can allow arbitrary fields while still retaining the normal styling. Kirill 04:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks much better now. Thanks a lot. Cla68 06:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth

Looks great. A minor comment on the spelling of many of the Japanese names: Should not Hisao Ohnishi, Yoshiro Mori, and Yohei Kono be written as Hisao Ōnishi, Yoshirō Mori, and Yōhei Kōnō? Otherwise, I'm afraid I don't really have any suggestions for you. Good work! LordAmeth 12:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That probably is the case so I'll change the names as suggested. Thank you. Cla68 02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

Hi, i have added quite a lot of information to the article and i have formatted it and now i am just asking whether it needs any more information or whether any of it is inaccurate in any way. What can be done to impove it? Thanks Woodym555 21:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC) updated Woodym555 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Carom

A good start; here are a few things you should address:

1. Very, very few citations or notes of any kind. You may find it instructive to read the relevant MILHIST guideline, found here. This may help you determine what should be cited.
2. Some very, very short sections. I believe most of them can be expanded, but if they cannot, they could perhaps be folded in to other, larger sections.
3. Very, very little information about the rest of his life, both pre- and post-RN. I imagine this information is available, and it should be added to the article.
4. I would remove the "gallery" section and incorporate the images into the body of the article.
5. There are a great number of redlinks in the middle part of the article. You may wish to search around to see if articles exist for these topics under a different name. If not, you are obviously not expected to create stubs for all of them.

Hopefully these comments help a little; let me know if I can expand them in any way or provide any other assistance. A nice start, though. Carom 21:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Carom, thanks for your advice. I have acted on all of them and am now wondering if it should be forwarded for A class review? Woodym555 10:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Updated Woodym555 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I would suggest doing before submitting it to A-Class review would be to expand the lead section. You may find it instructive to read this guideline to get an idea of how long this section should be and what it should contain. For example, for an article the length of this one, I would imagine a lead section of two to three paragraphs would be appropriate. Carom 22:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Carom, thanks again for your advice. I have now added a new lead section which i think adds enough detail and i will put it up for A-class review. Woodym555 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article just passed A-Class Review, thanks for all your help, should this review be closed and archived now? Woodym555 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

Hello. This article was previously a Good Article but was delisted for a number of reasons. Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 17 I, along with many other editors, have tried to fix the problems raised and I am now asking for it to be peer reviewed to see if there are any outstanding problems with it. Thanks in advance. Woodym555 20:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

cla68

Good article, but I recommend the following for improvement:

• The intro should completely summarize the article's body in two to three paragraphs.
• Link the currencies used as per the WP:Manual of style.

I'm not sure what else the article might need and invite others to also add their review. CLA 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, i have lengthtened the lead as per guidelines and i have fixed the currency issues. I will now put it up for A-Class review to get any further comments. Thanks again Woodym555 08:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This has made FA so i will now archive it. Thanks for all your comments.Woodym555 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

DFS 346

Need some help directing further development. Mothmolevna 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

cla68

Interesting article, here's a few suggestions:

• Needs inline citations. I suggest having a citation at the end of each paragraph citing all the sources used for the information contained in that paragraph.
• Add a sentence or two more to the intro so that it more completely summarizes the entire article.
• The "Concept" section needs more background detail such as which country was involved and why. What's the historical context for the development of this machine?
• Do you have more specific dates for its development during World War II?
• The grammar needs to be worked on throughout the article. I suggest you ask a couple of editor's that you've worked with if they might could spare a few minutes to go over it for you.
• I think you should list all your sources in the references section. You can look at the references section in B-17 Flying Fortress for an example.

I think the article is off to a good start. Cla68 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack the grammar before citations - its got several areas of non-English idiom which need work to clarify meaning. GraemeLeggett 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can help you with German texts if there is need for translation or fact checking. Wandalstouring 16:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces

This article has passed over two unsuccessfull A-Class reviews and I would like to know what else does it need to be finally promoted to A-class status. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Prior peer review here

Carom

A few comments and observations:

• Many of the sections are very short, which detracts from the overall visual appeal of the article.

• The article is, I think, a little undercited. There are places where factual claims are uncited (for example, the second paragraph under "manpower"), and this needs to be remedied.

• The "current structure" section might be better as a table.

• The "see also" section is probably best removed, and the links incorporated into the main body of the article.

• In places, the images seem to clutter the article a little - you might be able to find a better layout for them.

• You might consider Russian Ground Forces as a potential model, although I don't know what its' condition is relative to its' condition at the time it was featured.

Hopefully these comments are helpful. Carom (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06

I still have to say that this is not ready for A-class. The 'Beginnings' section needs much more content and context, and so does the Second World War section on the Eastern Front. There's masses of information about the Cold War orientation and tasking of the Army, particularly after the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, from the US Country Study that is not included (apart from the small section that was). There is masses of order of battle information, provided by W.B. Wilson and I, plus links and other data, that has not been inserted. There has been no attempt to insert Cold War International History Project data into the article either. One cannot trace histories of formations through the Soviet period to today from this article. Also, of course, echo Carom's comments on lack of references and removal of a See Also section. (On the RGF, the lead has changed slightly and the equipment section also, but otherwise it's still a reasonably good FA model as it was when it was promoted.) Buckshot06 (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Snowball marches

I am seeking ideas for further areas of improvement. I believe the article easily meets the B class criteria (as reviewed by an anon). However, that review gave no indication for areas of improvement. --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

It looks like a good start for the article, but I would suggest a few changes:

• Include Background (at the beginning) and Aftermath/significance sections (as the ending section) and place each march as sub-sections under an overall "Marches" section. Once all the details are included in each march's subsection, you can eliminate the "marches summary" section.
• You don't need to have in-line citations in the intro once that same information is cited in the main body of the article.
• Wiki-link all dates.
• Include a bibliography section in addition to the footnotes.

Cla68 00:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for yor suggestions. I will work on them. --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eric Fraker

Just an idea, but to individuals not from snow-bearing areas, will "snowball march" be an immediately accessible concept? Where I'm from it snows from Thanksgiving to Easter, but I'm not sure someone in Saudi Arabia is going to have the same euphemistic understanding of the word "snowball".

Eric Fraker 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate the point you are making. Most of Australia is of course not snow-bearing either but of course our literary heritage allows us access to the idea. In looking for a name for the article I wanted to refer to the name they were collectively referred to at the time - and they were called "snowball marches" in 1915. They were also called "Recruitment marches" - which is a redirect to this article at present. Do you think I need to spell out the allusion?--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)  Done
  • A sentance explaining the name, for those of us not immediately familiar with the snowball effect, would be of great use in the lead section, methinks. -- saberwyn 09:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This is a very good start to an article on what's a very interesting topic. I'd aggree with Cla68's comment that the article would benefit from more analysis. In particular, it would be interesting if the article discussed the factors which lead to the marches (patriotism and a lack of recruitment offices in the bush?) and placed the marches in context by discussing their overall contribution to recruitment into the AIF. It might also be interesting to seperate the discussions of how the marches are remembered and have been re-enacted into a seperate section rather than including it with the text on each individual march. --Nick Dowling 11:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree that there needs to be some background on recruitment and the notion of a volunteer force. The marches by and large pre date the recruitment crisis of early 1916 which of course later gave rise to the first of two referenda on conscription. It suddenly becomes a big background topic which is currently not effectively covered I believe on wikipedia. I am giving it some thought.

I don't think lack of recruitment officers was an issue (I will try to check) but certainly it was a brilliant marketing ploy for declining enthusiasm for recruitment.

I do not get the impression that the re-enactments are a collective thing, rather they are very much community based and relate to the individual marches. If anything they relate to the collective sentiment about WWI triggered by Keating's sponsorship of the return of the unknown soldier to John Howard's quite numerous speeches on WWI and of course the increasing interest in actually revisiting Gallipoli and the resurgence of interest in Anzac day dawn ceremonies and marches. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Operation Lam Son 719

Have been working on this stub and am looking for some constructive criticism. Am also looking for some images depicting ARVN forces operating in Laos (since U.S. military photographers were forbidden to accompany the incursion) any help would be appreciated. RM Gillespie 18:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Kyriakos

Overall I think it a good article but I have some comments:

• Firstly I think the article can use some more citations seeing as some paragraphs have none.

• Second, I know from recent experience the first-level headings are not permitted in articles. So I suggest that you down grade them.

Apart from that I think the article is good and good luck with your future work on the article. Kyriakos 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Canpark

I've read the article thoroughly and I think the author covered the events very well. Like Kyriakos said, more citation is needed but apart from that everything is in good order. Once again I' very impressed and deeply appreciate itCanpark 05:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A very nice article, as usual. A few points to look at:

• The use of acronyms may be too dense. Is it actually necessary to refer to the forces involved as "ARVN" and "PAVN" all the time, or can we get away with talking about "North Vietnamese" and "South Vietnamese" troops instead? Ditto for "AAA".
• There are a few empty footnotes that need to be fixed.

Kirill Lokshin 16:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Chemical weapons in the Rif War

I believe that this article still needs to be expanded but i wanted to get some comments and opinions about it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

As you say, some expansion would be helpful. Aside from that:

• In most cases, there's no need to have multiple footnotes in a single sentence; you can just combine them all into a single note at the end to reduce the clutter.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated.
• I'd suggest combining "Alleged toxic effects" and "Alleged toxic effects" into a single "Legacy" section.
• If the works in "Bibliography" were actually used in preparing the article, the section should be labeled "References" (but, as you're providing full bibliographic information with each footnote, you could probably eliminate that section entirely); if not, it should be "Further reading".

Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. Do you mean "Alleged toxic effects" and "Bill of aknowledgment"? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I do; that'll teach me to copy-and-paste! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehehehe. I'll deal w/ the footnotes. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Robin Olds

This article covers the subject fairly thoroughly, and is well cited. I believe it's ready for GA nomination, but I would like to have input from the WPMILHIST community before proceeding with a nomination.--Nobunaga24 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Balloonman

• The lead section needs to be expanded significantly to comply with WP:Lead. Until the lead is increased, it will fail a GA.
• I don't know if the military history project has one, but I think there is a better format for presenting the awards/decorations---some sort of box?
• One of my pet peeves are sentences that run on forever. For example, the second paragraph is the early life chapter is one sentence. Likewise, the second sentence on the third paragraph. Break it down.
• If you do insist on long sentences, make sure they are connected smoothly and convey a consistent message. The last sentence in the WW II Fighter Pilot section is very disjointed. The fact that "at the age of 22 commanded the 434th FS" is not a logical outflow of the first 3/4ths of the sentence.
• The iconoclastic career section deals with numerous events that aren't notable and detract from the otherwise interesting read.Balloonman 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this last criticism, one has to ask which events aren't "notable" and detract? They were notable enough to be a featured part of a major history of US jet fighter pilots by a noted Naval Aviation historian. They cover his major career assignments, which is what an encyclopedia is about. They give background to the professional relationships he forged that coalesced in the 8th TFW. They give substance to his reputation as an iconclast in the Air Force. The other criticsms are valid and are being addressed, except that I originated the use of ribbons in illustrating awards because so many official photographs show them and the images help decipher them. I would love to see a "ribbon bar format", with the definitions below.--Buckboard 08:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx to MrDolomite for providing the ribbon bar.--Buckboard 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Emt

The entire WW2 section is unreferenced, description of operation Bolo is unreferenced, much of the Vietnam section is unreferenced, "iconoclastic" is a load word that may be considered POV and the section includes unsupported value judgements like "unhappily". - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved "iconoclastic" to the narrative. The use of "unhappily" is the way that period of his career was reported by the source, not a conclusion drawn by me or anyone else for the article. The referencing asked for is a wearisome task that I will get to when I can--I "inherited" this article and I add notes as I add material, but going back over somebody else's ground is an onerous task. Frankly whether it becomes GA or anything else is immaterial to me. IMO a biographical article should be a repository for interesting information that might otherwise be lost if not stored here.--Buckboard 08:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The May 11, 2007 episode of Dogfights was concerned with Robin Olds and Operation Bolo. You should find a way of viewing; it would probably help alot. --MKnight9989 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jackyd101

Not a complete review, but a few notes on a skim read of the article. A couple of items which should be included as citations or external links in the references section are present in the text, such as the photostatic record under World War Two fighter pilot or the Great Aviation Quotes at the bottom. Whilst on the point about quotes, that whole section really shouldn't be in the article loose like that. Either put the quotes into the section they apply to (i.e. if he said something during or about his Vietnam service (such as the comment about SAMs), then find a way to include it there). If you don't know when they were said or can't fit them in, then it would be better to transwiki them to Wikiquote as they are unencyclopedic where they are.

The medals section is a little unorthodox. It would be better to include the merit awards he won in the main text as he won them and include only the ribbon bar (which is nice) as an image. Otherwise it is a large and distracting section on what is quite a minor part of his overall life. Another suggestion would be to only have the medal bar in the centre of the section and underneath put "The medals awarded to Robin Olds (from left to right): Air Force Cross, Distinguished Service Medal etc."

The personal section strikes me as being far too small for such a varied and interesting career, especially as he was married to a notable film star. I would also normally expect to see that at the start of the article, under the lead. The football hall of fame should maybe be moved to the football section of the article and the notes on his retirement, which should also be expanded if possible, should be incorporated into the Post-Vietnam career. What did he do between 1973 and 2001? His marriage collapsed but we don't know why, is there anything else which could go there?

These are just a few suggestions and I haven't done a full textual review due to personal time constraints. If you don't agree with anything then by all means say so. As it stands, I personally wouldn't pass it for GA due to my concerns above. However it is a well written and organised article with a lot of good sourcing and covering in depth his aviation career (which was fascinating). Good work, just some tidying to go really.--Jackyd101 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First Command, Inc.

I just wrote an article on an organization that serves primarily U.S. military personel that was found "willfully" violating the section of the Securities Act of 1933 that deals with fraudulent advertising/marketting. Since this organizations primary claim to fame is negative publicity, I want to make sure that it has a NPOV. I am also interested in nominating it for A-Class status, assuming that it looks good here. Right now I know that it needs to be wikified (Eg internal links) but what other issues exists?Balloonman 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not bad at all, but there are several areas where this could be improved, in my opinion:

• The lead isn't really a summary of the article so much as an extremely dense background section. The basic information about the company should be in the body of the article.
• On a related note, said basic information is quite terse. While the company's most notable aspect is indeed the SEC ruling and related issues, the article needs to devote a bit more attention to the basic descriptions typical of company articles—history, leadership personnel, financial information, etc.—before diving into it.
• Quotes need to be introduced, rather than simply being stuck into the prose inline; the reader should be able to figure out, at a minimum, what the general source of the quote is without needing to dig through the footnotes.
• Has the company had any media coverage (related to the SEC ruling or otherwise)? Some more variety in the sources used might be helpful, if good ones are available.
• "Notes" should be "Notes and references", if the two sections are combined.

Kirill Lokshin 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks Kirill, I'll take a look at the article and do what I can to incorporate your recommendations.Balloonman 18:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Stoltzenberg

This important article about one of the main protagonists of chemical warfare in WWI and the interwar period is completed. Please comment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

The main flaw of the article, I think, is the extraordinarily choppy narrative. It's not really a biography in the normal sense of the term, but rather a collection of individual episodes. The article needs to start with the basics (where was he born? where did he grow up? etc.) and move on smoothly from there. I suspect this will require additional sources.

Beyond that, much of the narrative is not about Stoltzenberg in particular. Consider for example, the first paragraph of the "World War I" section; aside from a mention of his name, there's no information about what he actually did in relation to Ypres.

Aside from that, the usual issues:

• Longer lead?
• Images? Perhaps some early enough to be out of copyright exist?
• Infobox?

This really does need quite a bit of further work before it's completed, I think. Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

I recently assessed the article and was thinking of nominating it for GA-status. Thoughts? Cheif Captain 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

It's not a bad start, but it still needs a substantial amount of work:

• The lead should be significantly expanded, to at least two/three full paragraphs; it needs to briefly summarize the entire article.
• All quotes need to be introduced, in the text, with some indication of their source; e.g. "According to X, '...'" or "Y wrote that '...'" rather than simply "'...'". Footnotes are the correct place for the full citation, but they're not sufficient from a prose standpoint.
• There's a pile of empty sub-sections under the "Political objectives of the protagonists" section that need to have something done with them.
• The extremely choppy sub-sectioning by country/operation/etc. should be avoided. The prose will be much more cohesive if the material is collected into naturally-sized blocks, even if they cover multiple topics.
• There are still many [citation needed] tags that need to be dealt with; beyond that, a number of other points need citations, per WP:MILHIST#CITE. Topics such as this one tend to be quite controversial, so thorough citation from the beginning will typically save a great deal of effort later on.

Aside from that, a number of more technical points:

• I'm not terribly enthused by the title of the article, as it's not really in the form that most military history articles follow. I'd suggest Arab-Israeli War of 1948 (or Arab-Israeli War of 1947-1949, if you want to get really precise) or Arab-Israeli War (1948) as a better placement of the date in the page name.
• The infobox should be placed at the very beginning of the article, such that it winds up to the right of the lead section rather than below it.
• Dates in section names typically parse better in parentheses; thus, "First phase (29 November 1947–1 April 1948)" instead of "First phase: 29 November 1947–1 April 1948".
• Footnotes should generally be placed after punctuation, not before it.
• The image sizes should be standardized as much as possible; as it is, they're all over the place.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated. Anything important can be linked in the text; conversely, if it's not worth linking in the text, it's generally not worth linking at all.
• The "External links" section needs to be trimmed of things that don't provide an additional resource about this war beyond what is (or should be) available on Wikipedia.
• I would suggest looking into turning the huge navigation template at the bottom into a Portal:Arab-Israeli conflict; that's what was done for the similar WWI (and, soon, WWII) templates.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth

A rather controversial subject, and one which we can hopefully convince to be not only of high quality, and relatively neutral, but also stable. We're off to a good start, at least.

Major issues:

• The opening section names "The Catastrophe" in bold, but nowhere in this section is the term "Israeli War of Independence" to be found. This, too, should be included and bolded as an alternate name for the conflict (and, incidentally, a far more common one than the pseudo-neologism "1948 Arab-Israeli War" which is obviously the forced product of some attempt at political correctness). Also, I think it might be better to put Al Naqba / Al Nakba in bold, with "the Catastrophe" as the translation, rather than the other way around. Is it commonly called "The Catastrophe" in English, like that?
• Numerous Citation Needed templates need to be handled.
• The Political Objectives of the Protagonists section lists only the mufti. What happened to everyone else?

Minor ones:

• "The United Nations recommended to partition Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state, which the Arabs rejected." Might sound better grammatically to insert ..."a suggestion..." or "a recommendation... which the Arabs rejected."
• Is "Jewish Leadership" a proper noun?
• In the Background section, it is mentioned that the British Mandate was called Palestina (E.I.) in Hebrew. It might be good to elucidate on this a bit, either in the text or in a footnote. Which one of those two terms was applied? Were they interchangable? Why is Eretz Yisrael abbreviated (and why with an I instead of a Y)?
• The subject of calls for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine seems to be a bit rushed over, with no mention of the Balfour Declaration or other related events & circumstances. I think that considering the prevalent misconceptions and antagonistic attitudes towards Zionism today, a bit more explanation of the attitudes and reasoning behind its origins might be helpful.
• If you're going to cite comments about the "excessive and indiscriminate force" used by Jews against Arabs, it might be good to balance it with equivalent value judgments about the Arab attacks.
• There's a struck-out bit under "Military assessments". Should that be just deleted, or...?
• The very next section says that the Haganah had existed since 1921, 1929, and 1936-39. Which is it? If it originated in 1921, and developed, grew, since then, explain it out a little bit.
• Later, in the details of the war: "The 9 April Deir Yassin massacre, by Irgun and Lehi forces, of at least 107 Arabs was denounced by Ben-Gurion. Some claim the denouncement was part of an attempt to distance himself and the Haganah from the attackers, possibly to gain political advantage in the struggle to lead the as yet unformed Israeli state." - this personal attack on Ben-Gurion, accusing him of crafty politics, isn't really necessary or NPOV.
• The Aftermath section mentions that Israel ended up with 50% more land than the UN Partition plan would have given it, but fails to reiterate that the Arabs rejected that plan, and that had Israel chosen to fall back to those borders, they would have been completely indefensible in the absence of peaceful Arab cooperation.

Some of the sections on the actual fighting seem to leave out details, talking about plans but not the extent of the success of their execution. Overall, however, a well-written, extensive, and largely POV treatment. The Aftermath section is particularly surprisingly balanced, for which I thank those who've worked on this. Keep up the good work, try to stay level-headed, and this could come out being a very good article. LordAmeth 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Kumanovo

I have rewritten and expanded the article. I believe it now has the B-class quality, and I would like to hear some opinions. Thanks. Jova 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF

Nice job. The article looks pretty and evenly distributed. However, more references are needed for such a detailed and developed article. Creating the red-linked articles (even as stubs) would be great. I've just created a couple. Still, B-Class seems appropriate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Yep, quite nice overall, but still some areas that need work:

• More citations, and ideally a greater variety of references, would be helpful. As it is, the article is basically built from only one source.
• A longer, more detailed lead would be appropriate.
• I'd try to be more thorough with linking unit names. Pretty much anything at the division level and above ought to have an article eventually; so it's helpful to set up the links now. Many of the unit names should probably be (partially) translated as well, although you'll likely need to find an English-language source on the period to see what the conventions are here; the use of native-language names exclusively makes the article more difficult to read, I think.

Kirill Lokshin 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can you suggest some convention in unit name translation? Do you think that it would be appropriate to write both native and English name when a unit is mentioned for the first time, eg. "17. piyade tümeni (17. infantry division)" and to use only native name later, or vice versa? Or perhaps some third way? Jova 12:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what the conventions followed for these countries are, but the general practice in English-language historiography for various others (e.g. Germany, France, etc.) is to use the translated name in text after the first ocurrence. So we'd wind up with something like "... the 17th Infantry Division (17. piyade tümeni)... the 17th... the 17th Infantry Division... the 17th Infantry...". This makes it a bit easier to read for someone who's unfamiliar with the non-English terms. Kirill Lokshin 12:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles

I think this article is very important and the article itself is well written in my opinion. I helped a little bit in some sections and thought it could use a peer review. Cheif Captain 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not a bad start, but still lots of work needed:

• Citations are needed throughout.
• The bulleted lists should generally be converted to prose. As it stands, the article's overall flow is quite choppy.
• The mammoth "See also" section should be eliminated. Ideally, creating a navigation template for the treaties which ended WWI would remove the need for most of these links.
• "Alternative viewpoints" needs to be integrated into "Historical assessments", and both sections ought to be expanded. The question of whether the treaty was a good one has been the topic of extensive historiography, which can be discussed in rather more detail than is present here.

Kirill Lokshin 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Marston Moor

Recently underwent an overhaul. Strong potential for GA status in the future, maybe further. Looking for further suggestions on how to further improve the article. Thanks in advance. Qjuad 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, but a number of things to work on:

• Maps! Ideally, both a strategic map and one or more tactical maps of the disposition and battle itself.
• I'd suggest using normal blockquote formatting instead of {{cquote}}.
• Is there a particular reason why the dragoons are listed separately from the rest of the cavalry in the infobox?
  • At this time dragoons were mounted infantry rather than true cavalry See dragoon Yendor1958 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• The OOB should just be linked with {{details}} from the deployment section; it doesn't need a rump section of its own.
• The footnotes missing page numbers really ought to get them; they're not particularly useful, otherwise.

Beyond that, a thorough copyedit would be helpful, at this point. Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

SGGH

• A cite in the lead might be helpful, I suggest "losing the north of England for King Charles I."
• The first three paras of "The Allied army" are uncited, even if they come from the source cited to at the end of the 4th para, I think citing a little closer together might be a better option, or finding another source to compliment [4] and using both to cite the paras closer together. Possibly the same needed for middle two paras of "The Royalist army".
• Interesting y^e's and such just under "Aftermath", what are they?
  • See Thorn (letter)#Thorn in Middle and Early Modern English for an explanation of this. Yendor1958 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Newman & Roberts, "Marston Moor 1644", 13." isn't necessary, you can just put "Newman & Roberts p. 13", likewise "Woolrych, "Battles of the English Civil War", 66." can just be "Woolrych p. 66". This applies to all books for which you have the authors last name, as long as they are mentioned in full in your References section.
• You might want to divide your references section into "printed sources" and "websites" (see Mozambican War of Independence or Siege of Malakand to see what I mean) and ensure that the "Battle of Marston Moor. English Heritage. Retrieved on May 8, 2007." in there, but against just a suggestion.

Those are all the ones I can think of. Remember they are just suggestions :) good work! SGGH ^speak! 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation Wilno

This article seems to have grown beyond 'start' level, I and other editors would appreciate any suggestions you may have. I think it may be approaching GA-level of quality, unfortunatly there is a controversy surrounding its name (see also mine and Kirill's discussion here). If you could help us reach a consensus on a better name, this would be much appreciated. PS. I added extra info to talk, will be adding it to article soon.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

I've already commented on the name, so I'll move directly on to the actual content:

• The map shows "German and Lithuanian detachements" near the action, but these don't appear to be mentioned in the text. What were they? The prelude section should open with a description of the strategic situation before getting into the action, I think; otherwise, it's a bit difficult to understand where things are starting from.
• Month+day dates need to be linked.
• In general, footnotes are neater when placed at the ends of sentences, not at random points in them. If there's confusion over what exactly is being cited, it's probably better to just indicate it explicitly in the footnote.
• The lead ought to be extended to two/three paragraphs.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated.
• {{en icon}} really isn't necessary; this is the English Wikipedia, so sources are assumed to be in English unless explicitly indicated otherwise.

Kirill Lokshin 00:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• The text mentions German Ober-Ost forces retreting from the area in the aftermath of WWI. Footnotes are never random, sometimes they need to be in midst-sentence to back up a controversial point. I am expanding the article - and will try to deal with the minor copyediting issues in the future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

HMS Kelly (F01)

I have reworked the old information, added an infobox, added external links, and included some service history not previously included. I think this takes the article to at least Start class, possibly B (although that might require a little more on Crete and the sinking), and I would therefore greatly appreciate a peer review. --Davidbober 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's looking better already. Thanks for the help, gentlemen. Bloody marvellous! --Davidbober 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Lots of things that can be improved, I think:

• I'm fairly certain that WP:SHIPS has a newer version of the infobox now; you might want to check what exactly they're recommending.
• The lead needs to be longer—a paragraph or two, at least—and should briefly summarize the entire article.
• The dates would be neater in parentheses than after commas, I think.
• Citations! As it stands, the article doesn't actually have any explicit references.
• The "HMS Kelly in fiction" section is quite stubby. I would suggest, if possible, rolling it into a combined "Legacy" section of some sort that would cover the aftermath of the sinking (what happened to the survivors, etc.) together with any other related material.

More generally, the article is quite terse; any further expansion would be quite welcome at this point. Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

jackyd101

I like the article, but what you need most of all is more detail and citations. There is a book (I have it rattling around somewhere, but I just moved house and have no idea where it is) [9] which is pretty good on shipboard tales of service on HMS Kelly and as you might expect has a lot on the sinking. It would be a good resource if you could find it. The infobox is very impressive, the technical information there is well laid out and finely detailed, good job. If you have the books mentioned in the references, then put down where all that information comes from using footnotes and then as the sections on the ship's career grows do the same there. All the best.--Jackyd101 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident

This article recently failed featured article candidate (FAC) review, and I honestly can't find anything more wrong with it. If someone could help me identify what might be wrong with it, I'll make the corrections and resubmit for FAC. Thank you. CLA 23:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

I think the bulk of the FAC complaints were of the copyediting variety; it may be helpful, at this point, to simply drop by WP:LOCE and ask for someone to go through the article looking for any stylistic quirks.

Aside from that, a few minor points:

• The first sentence refers to a "physical assault", while the latter portion of the lead calls it "attempted indecent assault"; given that we're dealing with a BLP situation here, it may be better to use the official wording of the verdict throughout.
• I'm a bit concerned that the sparse citation style may not be entirely appropriate in places where direct quotes are provided; I think we do need to specify the source of those more explicitly than through a listing of four or five different articles. It's up to you, though.

Kirill 21:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful suggestions as always. CLA 03:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Esperance

I hope this article is near completion and would really appreciate a review to point out areas of improvement or issues that I've missed in building the article. Thank you in advance for any comments and suggestions. CLA 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Overall, an excellent article, as usual. A few minor things to fix:

• The second paragraph of the lead is too long, I think; splitting it into two separate blocks would improve the flow.
• The first map might be better off being moved a bit further down, to avoid too much of a stacking effect along the right margin.
• The final quote may look neater with normal blockquote formatting.

Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 06:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your feedback on the article. CLA 15:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

List of African American Medal of Honor recipients

Have worked on this quite a bit and would like for it to be a Featured List eventually. Any comments are appreciated. jwillbur^talk 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Some thoughts:

• The lead needs to be more self-explanatory for the average reader. For example, "the nation's highest military decoration": what nation? And so forth. The basic facts need to be stated explicitly; don't assume that the reader is American.
• The lists themselves would work better in table form, I think, than they do in the current mode of having bulleted sections with repeated labels.
• The choice of data presented seems a bit strange. Why is the place where the recipient entered service of interest? Why are birth dates given, but not death dates? The final rank achieved may be of interest here, as well.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated; these aren't that difficult to link in the text itself.
• Is homeofheroes.com a reputable source?

Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Kirill.

• Some context has been added. I plan on adding a brief summary of African American military history to the lead, as soon as I can figure out how to word it.
• I made my best attempt at a table that fits all the data but is still readable. Hopefully it is not too confusing.
• I initially incorporated only the data given in their Medal of Honor citations. I've changed it now, adding death dates and final rank, and getting rid of enlistment place.
• Only two links left there now, when I expand the lead I will incoporate them into it and delete the whole "See also" section.
• No, homeofheroes.com is probably not a reputable source. I removed it and am working on getting more book sources.

jwillbur^talk 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Balloonman

• get rid of "complete" in the first sentence.
• isn't the proper name "The Congresional Medal of Honor?"
• I agree with Kirill I would like to see a different format, perhaps a table.
• I'd also be interested in knowing when the award was awarded vs when the actions were performed.
• give a short explanation on what a buffalo soldier is... the article should at least introduce people to the concept.
• Sweeny is one of 19 men to receive the honor twice, is he the only african american to do so?
• Stowers had to wait 73 years before being awarded the award... is this the longest anybody had to wait? Is it the longest any african american had to wait?
• have you considered making a new category for these individuals as well?Balloonman 02:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Balloonman. Hopefully I have addressed them all:

• get rid of "complete": Done.
• isn't the proper name...: The official name is just "Medal of Honor", I have added a note about the common name to the lead paragraph.
• would like to see a different format: I have made my best attempt. I couldn't get everything to fit onto one line and look nice, so I made a more complicated table. Hopefully it is still readable.
• interested in knowing when the award was awarded: Done, included in the table. A few dates are missing, I will work on that.
• a short explanation on what a buffalo soldier is: Added a (very) short explanation.
• Sweeny is one of 19 men...: Yes, it is stated in the second paragraph. I added a re-statement of it into the "Peacetime" section.
• Stowers had to wait 73 years...: No, Andrew Jackson Smith waited the longest of any Medal of Honor recipient (137 years), African American or otherwise. I added a note about that in the "Civil War" section.
• considered making a new category: Well, I'm not sure what benefit a category would add since we already have the list.

jwillbur^talk 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of a category is that it will alert people to the other african americans who won the medal of honor. Eg if I pull up Sweeny, I might see the category and then look up the other winners. If it is just a list I might fumble around looking for the others. Personally, I prefer categories to list for that reason. The advantage of the list is that you have more control over it and it is easier to watch/read. Also, and I don't know if you want to include this or not, but there was an episode of JAG that dealt with African American's and the MoH... it was well done without being preachyBalloonman 14:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, category has been created at Category:African American Medal of Honor recipients and added to all relevant pages. jwillbur^talk 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Malakand

I've been putting the finishing touches to this article for the last couple of days, and filling in the red links. It may be a tad dependant on one or two sources, and the "aftermath/consequences of the battle" I'm not 100% happy with, but some suggestions and opinions would be most welcome. SGGH ^speak! 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cam

Just a few picky points..

• In the infobox, you list tribal strength as "10,000-100,000". You might want to narrow that number down a bit, since that's an extremely wide perameter, and it determines the extent of the British Victory (If it was 10,000 tribal troops, it's a close battle, with the British simply being better armed, if it's closer to 100,000, that changes the degree of how staggering the British Victory was.)

  fixed

• In the opening paragraph, the word "Poorly" is used three times, you might want to change this.

  fixed

• tons of notes, makes the bottom area somewhat cluttered. You might want to condense them, like Carom and I've done for Battle of Messines (note the A,B,C,D format). begun, but its a long process! I think I've got near enough all of them

Other than that, very good. I'd nominate it for GA. I'll look over it some more when I've got more time. Well Written. Cam 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Has made GA. SGGH ^speak! 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone offer some comments on this peer review relating to FAC before I try it? I'd rather have some feedback first than just plunge into it. SGGH ^speak! 10:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC SGGH ^speak! 13:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

USS New Jersey (BB-62)

previous peer review here

Its been 18 months since the last Peer Review for Big J, so she being re-reviewed so as to stay current with the times. I welcome all suggestions, comments, questions, and observations about the article and how it may be improved, note though that due to school I likely will not have a chance to adequately address the suggestions left until Spring Break at the earliest. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cam

I can remember when this was on the main page (I swear to all that is holy if I have to rollback "HAGGER?!" one more time....;) From start to finish, as thorough as I can go:

Infobox

• 9 x 16 in (406 mm) 50 cal. Mark 7 guns is linked twice (once in 1943, once in 1982). Could the second one be delinked?
  • Yeah, I meant to do that earlier so as to make the infoboxes as uniform as possible, but this errand keeps getting put off for various reasons.
• Is there a figure for the approximate range of New Jersey? during its service? If so, could this be added to the infobox?
  • Can you be more specific? Range of the ship at cruising speed, range of the guns, range of the missiles, or none of the above?
    • Essentially how far New Jersey could go without refueling. Cam ^(Chat) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• could the armour parts be delinked?

Lead & Construction

• New Jersey was one of the Iowa-class "fast battleship" should be New Jersey was one of the four Iowa-class "fast battleships"
• There's a lot of jargon words throughout that could simply be delinked, such as "commissioning", "air superiority", "launched", just to name those within these two sections.
  • That sort of presents a problem since those outside milhist aren't particularly familar with the terms, so they are linked for the benefit of the un-initiated. I'll see what I can do, but since I have to balance the needs of the project with the demands of the community the delinking may be more narrow in scope.
• and is the only one to serve off Vietnam during the Vietnam War..., shouldn't "is" be "was"?

World War II

• again, more words that can be delinked ("flagship", "fuel tanks", "airfield", "headquarters" etc)
• After rehearsing in the Marshalls for the invasion of the Marianas, New Jersey put to sea.... Could "rehearsing" be replaced with "training", since that's technically more correct?
• I'm slightly suspicious of the claim that only 17 aircraft were lost, since a lot of aircraft had to crash-land next to the fleet after the night raid on June 20. Most of my sources put that figure closer to 120 (of which the crews of 80 survived).
• In the section on the Battle of Leyte Gulf (during which the Iowas and the Yamatos almost fought one another), it mentions on that on 23 October American carrier aircraft sank a battleship. Could it be added which battleship it was? (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's referring to Musashi)
• As with the other battleships of TF 38, skillful seamanship brought New Jersey through the storm largely unscathed.., except the Iowa article states that that particular ship was damaged enough that it had to return to the US for repairs, could this sentence be fixed to reflect that?

The Korean War

• The frequent references to "Communist" targets are somewhat vague. Could they be replaced with "North-Korean" or "Sino-Korean" or something along those lines? They were fighting a country, not an ideology.
  • Problem there is that the Soviet and later Chinese forces did participate, and the record books aren't always clear about whose units were doing what when the Iowas unloaded on them. I will do some cross checking to see if I can nail down more precisely whose units were being engaged, that should help clear up the vagueness. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright. It's a shame there isn't a more event-specific term like "Axis" or "Central Powers" or "Insurgent" or something like that that could be used. Cam ^(Chat) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Not much to report in this section. Excellent work on this particular bit!

Post Korean War

• Again, no issues here.

The Vietnam War

• a study aimed at determining what would be required to get New Jersey reactivated in her present condition..., what was her "present condition", the wording is slightly confusing.
  • WWII configuration, probably. I'll try nailing this down more when I get the chance.
    • I would think Korean configuration since the majority of the AA battery was removed for Korea because of ineffectiveness (wasn't a 40mm tub used as a swimming pool? -MBK₀₀₄ 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• New Jersey, now the world's only active battleship.., shouldn't it be "then the world's only active battleship"?
• Again, "communist" doesn't fit the situation. "North Vietnamese" would definitely be more in-place here.
• The continual use of "16 in" and "5 in" does make it a bit confusing. Shouldn't this be "16 inch" and "5 inch"?
• what is the DMZ?
  • Demilitarized zone; roughly, the area where the north and the South were divided.

Post Vietnam War

• What is the relevance of the unarmed recon plane being shot down in regards to New Jersey?
  • I believe you are referring to the EC-121 the North Koreans shot down; if so, then the significance was that the Navy ordered New Jersey to the area of the incident for what I believe was a show of force. I'll dig into this more when I get a chance.

Reactivation

• No issues in this section.

Lebanese Civil War

• Bob Hope and his troupe of entertainers give a show on board the New Jersey on 24 December 1983..., shouldn't "give" be "gave"?
• New Jersey fired 11 projectiles from her 16 inch (406 mm) guns at hostile positions inland of Beirut..., does your source mention what these targets were and what effect New Jersey's shells had on said targets?
• The section on the controversy of New Jersey's actions, are there any particular critics outside of the armed forces who take this view? (I know a few of my Chomsky books make reference to American actions in Lebanon, so I'll check there) Any specific within the armed forces?

Post-Lebanese deployment

• What's the third B for in BBBG? Shouldn't it just be BBG?
  • BBG would translate into "Guided missile battleship", as noted over at USS Kentucky (BB-66). BBBG is therefore used to denote "Battleship Battlegroup".
• No other issues with this section.

Reserve fleet and museum ship

• The cost to fix New Jersey was considered less than the cost to fix Iowa..., do you have any approximate numbers for the costs?
• selected the Home Port Alliance of Camden, New Jersey, as the battleship's final resting place... could the wording be changed? It makes it sound as though they sank New Jersey there.
  • Lol, good point :) will see about rewording.
• Other than that, no issues.

Superb work on this article and the other Iowas. I hope my comments help. Cam ^(Chat) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Every little bit helps. I replied to some suggestions in the above text, but likely will not have time to address them in an all out fashion until the weekend. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs

• Have been working (along with others, notably User:Deadkid_dk) to improve this article, and could use some extra eyes. Hope to get it to FA quality within the next 6 or 8 weeks.
• Would like the entire article to reflect WP:MILHIST structure for "battle of" articles. Am not a member; this article intersects with my interest in Taiwan and China.
• Later sections not as well referenced as earlier ones; can get to that..
• Question: Three advisors described the military situation before the battle; their assessments were flawless. At least one of these assessment stories may be apocryphal. Should the details of the assessment be scattered throughout the article & not specifically attributed to the advisors (that is the present format), or a separate paragraph or two be dedicated simply to their assessments & then the assessments revisited later (e.g., "all of the assessments turned out to be correct...")? If we move the assessment to its own chunk, the current "analysis" section will look a bit gutted...
• All comments sincerely appreciated! Ling.Nut 12:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• PS - I may be away from Internet access for a week; not sure. I may be slow to respond... thanks! Ling.Nut 13:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyriakos

Good article but there are still some matters that need fixing:

• First, the article does not even have on citation. This needs to be fixed as you are looking to get the article FA it is essential.
• My other point is that you should get rid of the see also section.

OK, I hope this helps. Kyriakos 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted, but this article uses the Harvard citation style, so citations are present. _dk 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arras (1917)

An article worked up from a stub, any and all comments welcome. Note that a copyedit has already been requested from the League of Copyeditors. Carom 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. Some suggestions:

• A longer lead would be warranted at this stage.
  • Done, although I'm sure it could still be longer. Carom 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• The "Forces" section is too stubby. If the section can't be expanded, it should probably be absorbed into one of the surrounding ones.
  • Section absorbed for now. Carom 00:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• The online references need more detail (at a minimum, dates of access).
  • Done, I think. Carom 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Maps would be very helpful. WWI is fairly well-illustrated by the West Point cartography department; there ought to be something useful there.
  • I've added some images (and a map), although I'll see if I can't photoshop out a closeup of the Arras sector from the West Point map. Carom 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

More generally, the article is still quite brief; if there's additional material that can be easily worked in, that may be appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 11:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies

You've made a good job of a fiendishly complicated subject. A few observations ... Arras was rather more than a diversion. It had political and strategic advantages. Perhaps the article needs more context.

• Arras (town) was in the same position as Ypres; an Allied bulge extending into German-held territory and high ground around. It, too, had become iconic. Arras, like Ypres, came in for a terrible battering. Thus, success relieved the pressure.
• There were huge advantages in straightening the line (a straight front line requires fewer men than a bendy one).
• The high ground at Notre-Dame de Lorette and Vimy really does utterly dominate the entire landscape. It was crucial to take this for any push in the area ever to work.
• This was one of many attempts to sort out the high ground. I think this was the Third Battle of Arras (British) and there had been two or three Battles of Artois (almost as costly for the French as Verdun) (squabbling over the same ground). It was extremely important for France.
• The Canadians fought at Vimy for the first time as a Corps. It is hugely significant to Canada. The Vimy battle plan (rolling barrage, bite and hold) was developed by the Canadian commander, Currie. This became the standard British/Dominion tactic. No mention of him among the commanders.
• Large numbers of troops were brought up to the Front underground by narrow-gauge train in specially constructed tunnels: this was a first.
• The formidable nature of the defences at Vimy are underplayed. Rupprecht of Bavaria (field marshal, crown prince, and thoroughly good chap) was in personal charge.
• A detailed map would be helpful for this.
• Nomenclature: To my mind, British and Dominion troops sits better perhaps than British Empire troops.

Roger 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your first three points are good ones - I will edit the "background" section to reflect this information.

Your fourth and sixth points, about Vimy, is also good, but there is an entire article on Vimy where those issues can be given the proper treatment. I will make a minor expansion of the Vimy section in this article, but I don't think there's much point in rehashing the entire Vimy Ridge article.

Your fifth point, about the trains, is interesting; do you have a reference for this? I have not seen it mentioned (the tunnels, yes, but not the trains), so I am hesitant to add it without a citation.

Your seventh point, the map - a better, custom map has been requested.

Your eight point, nomenclature - it's a matter of indifference to me, although I would prefer to use whatever language is most commonly used by reputable historians (most of whom seem to avoid the issue entirely and use country names, which is rather impractical for the purpose of, say, the "outcome" line of the infobox).

Many thanks for your comments. Carom 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fourth and sixth: I concur. A mention ...
• Fifth point: They ran from the Arras boves. Here's a very partial map: Grange Tunnel map, shows railway tunnel. Otherwise
  • Alexander Barrie, The War Underground: Tunnellers of the Great War (2000) ISBN 978-1862270817
  • Peter Barton, Beneath Flanders Fields: The Tunnellers War 1914-1918 (2006) ISBN 978-1862273573
• Eighth Point: Canadian and Australians were Empire troops, of course, but Dominion is more precise. It jumped out at me from the infobox and got me in pedant mode. :)
• Finally, a really good read about Arras which isn't on your source list is: Jon Nichols, Cheerful Sacrifice (2006) ISBN 978-1844153268

Roger 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also not that you are more than welcome to contribute to the article directly (indeed, I would encourage it, as you seem to know a great deal about the topic). The article is by no means my own personal fiefdom. Carom 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks :) I have my hands very full at the moment but may well do so when things are quieter. You've done a good article: it's a fiendishly complicated subject.

Roger 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Tunnelling. I've found references: subways for walking and tramways for hand-pulled or light mechanised rolling stock. I'll work it in somewhere.
2. Checked nomenclature. British troops are Imperial troops. Dominion troops came from: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. Empire or Colonial troops came from elsewhere. Can be cumbersome. Why not use BEF instead of British Empire?
3. I've been working on somnething to help post something soon put the battle into its overall context. I'll post it soon.
4. References and Notes: I prefer these in one section (WP:GTL) because they are so intimately interlinked. I personally prefer the references first so that they are obvious. When including many notes, again to make cross-reference easy I prefer them in two or three columns. In the light of this, does anyone object if they are so presented?
5. Overlapping footnotes: (^ a b Strachan, 243; ^ Strachan, 243-244; ^ a b Strachan, 244) Might be consolidated?
6. Does anyone object to Harvard referencing? (Author + year of Pub)

Roger 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Harvard referencing: I think it'd be something of a mess here, since you're going to have (discursive) footnotes anyways; but the citation is not so complicated that it couldn't be done if desired. Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as the references, yes, I object to consolidating "notes" and "references" into one section. I think the appearance is much cleaner as two distinct sections; additionally, practice is that "notes" appear before "references." I don't, however, object to a two-column presentation of the notes.

I'm indifferent on the overlapping footnotes.

I also object to Harvard referencing (I prefer CMS, I just haven't got around to correctly formatting everything). Carom 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Climie.ca

Just one suggestion.

It might be good to have a bit more expansion on each of the individual sections of the battle (First Battle of the Scarpe, just as an example) Climie.ca 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Land

Looks very nice. A few questions/comments:

• What sort of gas was used?
• The image of the front lines is a very good one but isn't uploaded at high enough resolution to be able to see it properly.

A further thought: I always think lists of medals awarded by one side is a bit, well, one-sided. Can the list of VC winners go anywhere else? Regards, The Land 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

I've already got a regular Peer Review going, but I need some specialized input. The main section that needs to get expanded is the Vietnam section, but the article also needs some copyediting and just an overall review. I want to nominate this for a Featured Article no later than mid-May, so anyone who can help is welcome. Palm_Dogg 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall. A few minor issues to work on, though:

• If you have both a notes section and a separate references one, all the sources used in the former must also be present in the latter.
• The see also section should be eliminated; it should be quite easy to work these links into the text.
• I'm not convinced that starting off with a section on the origin of the name is the best arrangement; I would suggest starting off with the history section instead.
• Extended quotes should use blockquote tags.
• Month/day combinations need to be linked to allow date preferences to work.
• Rank abbreviations (e.g. "LtCol") should really be avoided; the general reader will likely have no idea what they refer to.

Kirill Lokshin 11:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Took your suggestions, but haven't had time to do the references/notes transfer. Palm_Dogg 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base

Respectfully request a peer review of the article about a military aircraft accident. I'm taking somewhat of a break from WWII articles I guess. Thank you in advance. Cla68 08:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Myers

Wow, that's a well-written and interesting article. Great photos too. My only input is minor: are you aware that some grammarians hate the phrase "due to"? See, for example, here. I mention this because you use it 5 or 6 times in a short article. Surely a phrase like:

"the aircraft was instructed to go-around due to a KC-135 aircraft that had just landed and was on the runway"

would be better phrased as:

"the aircraft was instructed to go-around because a KC-135 aircraft had just landed and was on the runway"

I'm no grammarian, but I only use "due to" when it is preceded by "was" or "is". I think. —Kevin Myers 15:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I try to take the rules of English grammar seriously so I appreciate you pointing out that I was incorrect in how I was using that phrase. I'll change that in the article. Cla68 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, but a few minor issues that need to be looked at:

• Too many parentheses in the first few sentences; multiple consecutive parenthetical remarks (like this) (and this) should be completely avoided, and even multiple parentheticals in a single sentence are probably too convoluted for the lead.
• Why the constant scare quotes? These don't appear to be actual quotations—if they are, I for one can't figure out why those particular words are being quoted—so what's the reasoning behind things like these:
  • extremely "tight," steeply-banked turn
  • crash was "caught" on videotape
  • convened a "safety" investigation
  • An "accident" investigation board
  • Capotosti would "ground" him
• The images might be better staggered than stacked along one margin, I think.

Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I removed most of the parentheses from the first sections. I usually put quotations around words that are clearly subjective or that are idioms, like "caught" on videotape or "ground" him. If we don't need to identify idiomatic words in our texts, I'll stop doing it. Some of the ones you mention above, though, I can see now don't need quotation marks so I'll remove them. And I'll try to move the images around. Is it ok for an image on the left side to overlap the section title? Cla68 01:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, images that run through a section break on the left are fine. As far as idiomatic words are concerned, I haven't seen such a style used much (or at all, really) in other articles; personally, I don't see the point unless the idiom is really quite unusual. We can assume a certain level of linguistic competence from the reader, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Got it. Thank you. Cla68 04:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry

This is my first attempt at a full article on Wikipedia and I would appreciate feedback.Kim dent brown 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

SoLando

Excellent work! Some cosmetic/superficial suggestions, i.e., unconnected to the actual prose:

• Bold the name of the article in the lead.
• Lead should be expanded to two/three paragraphs to adequately summarise the article.
• While not essential, an infobox would be ideal.
• For an article of this size, there needs to be a substantial increase in the number of footnotes. Googlebooks, et al, should facilitate expansion.
• Add categories.

Kirill will probably provide more substantive suggestions. ;-) SoLando (Talk) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback, and to the Wikiedians who have already made amendments to the article. Most of SoLando's comments above are now addressed. I have not substantially added to the footnotes yet: most of the specific information on the RWY comes from Platt's regimental history. This is hardly surprising as a single, small unit like this is not going to be mentioned in great detail elsewhere. This means that most of the footnotes (if I were to add to them) would be further page references to Platt. Is this sufficient or do I need other, independent sources? Kim dent brown 10:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall. A few general suggestions:

• Platt's book is sufficiently long that a denser mode of citation would be reasonable, I think. At a minimum, a page (chapter?) range for each paragraph would help the reader follow along in the source, were they inclined to do so.
• The heavy reliance on one source isn't unacceptable, per se, given that the source appears to be the canonical one; but if you can add some others—I'm sure the regiment's actions are mentioned, if only briefly, in other works—it may be helpful.
• The images are a bit too large.
• I would suggest using {{details}} in place of {{main}}.
• Headings should generally omit a leading "The", per the Manual of Style.
• Is there any more information available on the regiment's early service? The first century of its existence is basically glossed over; is this because it didn't do anything worth discussing, a paucity of sources, or some other reason?

Other than that, this is quite good. Kirill Lokshin 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. Have reduced image sizes and altered the templates as suggested, removed 'The' from headings. I've added a little to the pre-WWI section, but because the Yeomanry could not serve overseas they have little activity to report from their first 120 years of existence! What's left is to expand the citations, both from Platt and other sources. This will take longer but I'll get on it. Many thanks for the helpful feedback! Kim dent brown 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, have added further citations from Platt and some other sources, expanded the infobox a little. Also added a separate section at the end on uniforms and insignia, to bring together information that was previously scattered through the article. I haven't gone mad with citations - now up to 25, but have ensured that every substantial paragraph has at least one. Thanks again for the suggestions. Kim dent brown 10:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your changes look very good! The external sites used in the citations need a more detailed citation form, though; at a minimum, they should be accompanied by dates of access, and any normal bibliographic information would be helpful as well. Kirill Lokshin 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, have amended the citations to www sites, hope they are more in line with Wikipedia style now. Do you think the article is nearly ready for rating now, or do you have any more suggestions? Kim dent brown 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, forgot about that. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and the assessment Kirill! Looking forward to my next... Kim dent brown 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cambodian Incursion

Have been working on this start-class article and am looking for some constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. I've fixed up some of the more obvious formatting and categorization points. A few issues to consider, though:

• Units, events, etc., should generally be linked the first time they're mentioned. For example, the Studies and Observations Group isn't linked, nor is the Tet offensive of 1969; the casual reader should be given an easy way of navigating to the background material on these.
• I'd suggest using {{details}} in place of {{main}}, as it produces a less cryptic rendering.
• A few points that need to be cited:
  • The quotes from Nixon at the end of the "Planning" section.
  • "Surprisingly, North Vietnamese forces did not oppose the evacuation, though they could easily have done so."
  • The paragraph starting with "John Shaw and other historians..." in the "Conclusion" section.
  • "Millions of Cambodians would pay the ultimate price as a result of those decisions."
  • (More generally, a few more citations in the "Supporting operations" and "Repercussions" sections might not be amiss.)
• The self-references to the article should be reworded; e.g. "whose fate was basically ignored by all but a few historians listed below" → "whose fate was ignored by most historians".

Kirill Lokshin 05:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Batu Lintang camp

I would like to get this article up to FA status and would be grateful for any input on any aspect of this article. Many thanks, Jasper33 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. A number of points for further improvement, though:

• {{Infobox Military Structure}} should be usable here, I think.
  • Done
• The lead should be considerably longer—probably three full paragraphs—and should be a brief summary of the entire article.
  • Done
• Section titles should generally omit a leading "The", per the MoS.
  • Done
• The "Compounds" section would probably be neater if it used definition-list formatting (i.e. ; Name : Description).
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this - MOS isn't any use (that I can see, anyway).
    • I've cleaned it up for you. Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks Kirill - it looks much better now, and I shall know how to next time. Jasper33 07:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• There are a great many quotes worked into the text without the necessary context; each quote should be introduced, at a minimum, with its source (e.g. "According to prisoner diaries, ..." or something similar).
  • Done. For two quotes, it was difficult to easily add the information without breaking the flow, so the information has been added to the footnote
• Month/day combinations should be linked to allow date preferences to work.
  • Done - I haven't linked months and years where no day is given (eg March 1942) or grouped dates (eg 15-18 August 1945). Is that right?
    • The latter type really should be linked in theory—as date preferences can be applied to it—but I don't know of any clean way of doing it, so it's probably okay to leave it unlinked. Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• The last three sections ("Post-war", "Batu Lintang camp in popular culture", and "Archives") are quite stubby; it may be better to combine them all into a single section (e.g. "Legacy" or something similar).
  • Done - now all under Post-war
• The "See also" section should be eliminated; all of those terms are (or should be) linked in the text itself.
  • Done
• The article is quite massively dependent on Ooi; it's almost certain that someone will ask about this during a FAC, so you should be prepared to justify the heavy reliance on him.
  • I agree that the article is Ooi-heavy. It is a two volume collection, introduced and edited by Ooi, of various memoirs and records from the POWs and internees, and so is an amazing resource. Jasper33 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments, Kirill. I've sorted a couple of the quicker edits and hope to get the rest done tomorrow. Jasper33 19:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no suggestions or constructive criticism at the moment, but it's a very interesting subject, particularly the bit about the hidden radio. Fascinating, the kinds of tiny historical narratives that get totally hidden in surveys of the big picture. LordAmeth 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo

Three editors have been working on this pretty hard for sometime and I think we can sure use a review on our progress. It has gone from 0 inline citations to 75+ and the sources from 0 to 7. Whole sections have been added to provide a more neutral pov. Tirronan 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Raymond

Initial personal thoughts:

• Needs checking for spelling, grammar and typos (there are quite a few errors) and the article contains a mixture of US and UK spelling – it doesn’t matter which is used as long as its consistent – usually the –re –er / words

  Yes it does see WP:MOS#National varieties of English No Americans at the battle. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• There are many great paintings of the battle and the only one in the article itself is rather poor.

• Similarly the picture of Napoleon is very poor (a statue in silhouette. At least give some info as to where the statue is situated). Wellington is ignored altogether.

• There a two pictures of the ‘Lions’ hillock’. Could be misleading having the first of these pictures where it is, certainly when considering it was not part of the battlefield’s topography.

• The picture in the section called ‘Prussian Advance’ is of little help or interest.

• Not sure having a quotation in the lead is a good idea.

• Most of the above are personal observations/suggestions. The English however, is less moot and will need a little bit of attention in places (although it’s not too bad overall)

Other observations:

• There are two references from D Chandler (same book). Only one edition is used in the notes (and then only once).

• The Notes refer to Siborne, HT who is not listed in the References.

• The notes section needs tidying up - I’m sure you don’t need to link to the References section.

  I like the links to the reference section it helps with navigation. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Glover, Chesney, Howarth are all quoted as sources but are noticeable by their absence in the notes. In fact most of the article is taken from just two sources, one of whom is: Hofschröer, Peter; 1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory. An unbiased source??

• I just got my copies of the Glover, Chesney, and Howarth, works from Amazon so I will be reading and citing them where appropriate.
• Peter is a personal friend of mine and I am quick to take offense at somethings folks have said about him, I will pass on this one except to say that I have yet to find an error with a source of his.
• Philip has run his New Zeland spell checker to make sure we are using the Queen's English
• Removed the picture from the Prussian advance section.

Tirronan 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not bad, but a number of areas that need improvement:

• The citation format needs to be cleaned up—what are the "References" link doing there? Footnotes should always be placed after punctuation; and, in most cases, a single footnote at the end of a sentence is better than a footnote after every phrase. Most of this material isn't that controversial.

  Footnotes should not always be placed after punctuation. That is a SV thingy and there is no consensus on that issue. --PBS

  The Referenecs is a link to that section, it makes navigation around the page easier. It saves space rather than having all of the book details on every citiation. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  The proper way of doing that is to give a short-form citation, not an unrelated link, no? (The short-form can be linked, of course; but the citation needs to remain relevant if the article is printed.) Kirill Lokshin 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• The quote in the lead isn't really needed, and is lacking in proper context besides.

  I like it and it is an expert opinion on the battle. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Somewhat of a biased expert opinion, though. ;-)

  (In any case, it needs to be properly introduced; we can't place epigraphs inside a block of text. So "According to Wellington, ..." rather than "... - Wellington" is the better form.) Kirill Lokshin 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• There are still {{fact}} tags that must be dealt with.
• The external links section should be greatly trimmed.
• {{main}} should probably be changed to {{details}}.

Beyond that, I'll echo Raymond's comments about the imbalance of sources being cited. Kirill Lokshin 13:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

thoughts and questions and actions.

Actions to date

• Removed quote
• Removed 2nd ref to Chandler
• I'll trim the links section
• If I get a chance I will see about ordering in a copy of Naufzinger to expand sourcing and reference (I am certain I misspelled his name)and get a copy of Chandler in my house and we can add to the citing. Right now 2 of us do most the footnoting I am hoping that will change.

questions

• I confess I don't understand the {{main}} vs. {{detail}}

Thoughts

• I am an American and I think another of us is a subject of the UK. I think that explains the switching of spelling conventions. We are going to have to work on that one I believe. I'll ask Philip if he doesn't mind editing to a British style since I believe it started out that way. Entirely my fault that we mixed them up.
• When we started upgrading the article there wasn't much on the Prussian contribution and after looking at various sources if you want to know where and which Prussian units were located and what they were doing you are probably going to end up referring to Peter Hofschröer. He has a level of detail on actions on that side of the battlefield that simply is not available anywhere else. I have David Hamilton-Williams book but there seems to be a great deal of anger towards that author and I am not that interested in causing controversy. I will say that I've known PH for a decade and never caught him going much beyond his sources. Exception here is that I don't agree with his take on Wellington I think he went too far on iffy evidence. You may notice I stayed away from the subject in the article. I do believe the article takes a fair and neutral stance resolving for the most part on what happened where without further comment.

Thank you so much for the help! Tirronan 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• A good thing about peer reviews is minor mistakes like US/UK spelling inconsistencies can get ironed out before the review process, and annoying pedants like myself will be kept happy ;)

Book recommendation: See if you can get hold of Chandler’s ‘Waterloo: The Hundred Days’. A book that A. L. Rowse describes his account as “. . quite simply, the best I have ever read” Clear, unbiased and perfect for your article (as all Chandler’ books are).

Doesn’t matter though if you can’t get hold of it – it’s just a suggestion. Good luck. Raymond Palmer 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've ordered Howath, Chesney, and Barbero, and I will have them in hand by the 29th so i should be able to fix the last of the in the article and add more citations with the other two authors. When I tried to order Chandler they wanted $350.00 for it... I'll pass. I looked at Elting but I wasn't very impressed. Tirronan 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've added more from Chesney and 2 from Howarth, Chesney is amazing and its 100 years old! If you get a chance I'd get it. It turns out He and Peter H agree on most points.
• David Howarth isn't nearly as good unless you want to know more about the British army, and I did, but there you are.
• Barbero is refreshing to say the least.

Tirronan 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Arnoutf

Not bad, some copyedit maybe needed but that has already been mentioned above. One additional sugestion. The article reads relatiely smoothly which is very good. However, sometimes for this same reasons, it reads a bit like an adventure novel. For example the use 'pulverise' in the last line of the French cavalry attack section. The choice of words maybe reconsidered and changed to a bit less exciting and more neutral for encyclopedia purposes. But that is just a consideration.

I noticed a number of images and paintings have been recently added (after above suggestions). Some careful deliberation which parts of the battle, battlefield you want to show may furhter improve the article.

For the rest no additions to the guys above, looks good this article; good luck with furhter improvements Arnoutf 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll confess that I am a publishing author (poetry actually) but I didn't do that one. Point taken however and will look into that.
• I added the artwork I really like the Blucher picture (although I doubt that at that age he really looked that good). Tirronan 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian-Circassian War

A lot of online publications about this provides a lot of info, the main prose probably needs both to be slimmed down and enriched with more facts and less waffle IMO. Having recently had an article FA'd im very keen to get another rated as higher than a B, and am eager to hear your views, one request though could you please list your points with bullet points, it makes it easier for me to address them. Also I hope you don't mind that I write 'fixed' or something in bold next to these points, I won't edit the points themselves.

It needs a lot of work, so don't pull any punches! Fire away. SGGH 14:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

I have a few concerns about this article. Normally I restrict myself to grammatical and structural issues, but I have issues of content here;

• I'm not convinced that the topic deserves the title "war", given that it is spread over 100 years, with lack of an agreed start date. A series of conflicts, invasions and resistance, certainly.

  what would you suggest as an alternative title? Historical documents refer to it as a war, but then these are circassian historians, so perhaps they would do so, that can't be ruled out. I am open to interpretation

• Was Circassia an internationally recognized state? If not, it would be hard to classify this as an inter-national war. Its existence as an internationally-recognized political state is also cast into doubt by the statement in the article that "The Circassia of the time was divided into two regions". It also seems clear that for much of this history this seems to be viewed as a matter of internal rebellion than foreign invasion.

  the article on circassia states it to be a region, yet it had a flag. Perhaps territory would be more suitable? the division is mostly geographic and ethnic, rather than political as is my understanding

• There is a serious lack of citations and none of the citations seems to be from Russian sources.

  A huge majority of the citations are from historians from the CBA, which is a circassian historial society based in New Jersey, US.

• The word "genocide" is contentious and doesn't seem to match the facts, which talk about forcible removal from land. This is similar to the Highland clearances in Scotland for example, but it is not genocide - "deliberate and systematic extermination". This section needs renaming to "Clearances" or similar.

  it was originally titled "genocide?" but the question mark has been removed. It is debated as to whether it was or not by historians, but yes the majority of deaths were on the move during the forced migration, so I'm not sure whether that counts? Also note the Circassian ethnic cleansing article

I want to make it cleat that these are all questions I want to put to you rather than statements of fact - I personally know absolutely nothing about this part of the world or this period of history. I simply have to question a few of the fundamental premises of this article. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand :) I'm not taking these things personally. I have made some comments in bold to your points and will leave a note on your talk page inviting you to make more comments. SGGH 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi SGGH, I'm glad that you are able to take these comments in good faith! Based on your comments about where you got your information for this article, I would be extremely careful about ensuring that this article was NPOV and wasn't biased towards a Circassian point of view. I'm not convinced that this qualifies as a genocide, since the *intent* was land clearances, not deaths. I don't feel terms like this ought to be used lightly, since it reduces the impact when they are used.

I will lower the emphasis on the term and refer more to the migration, however I feel it is important to include that many believe it to be genocide, but i will make it clear that it is hotly debated

Also, if it wasn't a political state as I thought it might not be, then I'm really not sure that it can be classified as a war, especially not in the "Russian-Circassian" format that is used to differentiate national combatants. I don't want to to suggest a title really since as I say I am really unfamiliar with the topic, but perhaps "Circassian struggle for independence" or "Circassian rebellions" or something. I would like ideally for a title to be chosen that accurately reflects the struggle but also is as neutral as possible between the two competing viewpoints, I think this is important.

Russian occupation of Circassia?

I really don't want to provide much more input since I am almost uniquely unqualified to do so on this topic! I mainly just wanted to raise the issues and make you aware that perhaps some care should be taken with the article title and terms used such as genocide, these things can be awfully inflammatory if improperly or contentiously implied. I think some clarification is needed of circassia's political status, which would colour whether the article ought to b written from the point of view of an inter-national conflict or as an internal conflict between the state's military and an ethnically-defined region that sought to establish independence. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You make some very valid points, i will work first of all to tone down the use of genocide, and I will consult others on what topic title should be used. Hope you don't mind that i seperated your comments so i could put my bold points in between them. Cheers again! SGGH 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you have been working hard on the article to address various editors' comments and it is looking much better, keep up the good work! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you make more comments as the work continues! :) SGGH 10:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

Hadji Murat by Leo N. Tolstoy might help you to get a more Russian POV on the subject, although it is not exactly a scientific source. Wandalstouring 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

First, on the topic of titles and such: it's a mistake to view this conflict as one between two defined states. Circassia was not a defined, centralized state in the conventional sense of the term; it's more accurate to consider it as a collection of related tribes and clans. Neither, however, was this a conflict internal to Russia; while some parts of the region were indeed already under Russian control when it began, others were entirely outside of it, and were invaded and annexed later on. In a sense, this was really an expansion of a centralized state at the expense of its non-centralized-state neighbors; a decent analogy would be the Samnite Wars.

In any case, the question of what the conflict is called is distinct from the question of what the conflict was. It's not immediately clear whether there's any really common name for the conflict in English-language historiography—I would have picked "Russian-Circassian Wars" or "Russian conquest of Circassia", personally—but, in any case, looking at the sources suggests that "Russian-Circassian War" is indeed a historically acceptable term, at least in the absence of a more common one. We shouldn't shy away from accepted terminology merely because it isn't quite "correct".

Beyond that, some more variety in sources would be nice to have; but I'm not sure what may be available, particularly in English. Possibly there are some general historical works on the Caucasus by Western historians that could be used, at least for the major details? Kirill Lokshin 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think combing the two concepts would be a good plan, keep the name of the article, but state that its wasn't a war in the conventional sense somewhere in the article. Will give it a go. SGGH 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have run through with one round of cleanups that hopefully makes things more understandable, and represents the conflict correctly, opinions are welcome! SGGH 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Have run through the whole thign cleaning it up. Thoughts? SGGH 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? SGGH 09:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A few more citations in the "Invasion of western Circassia" section might not be amiss, I think. Kirill Lokshin 11:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Have done so, the dependence on that one resource is unfortunate but it is the only step by step account of the conflict that I can find. SGGH 12:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Would this make GA with one more copy edit? SGGH 08:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

GA tends to be unpredictable; but I don't see why not. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

that's true, but will also open up the article to further constructive criticism to complement this review :D will do it later. SGGH 12:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It finally made it through the GA backlog, I want to add some references from non-circassian sources before attempting to get it further. SGGH 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

I'm listing this for Peer Review because its been two years since any formal review was conducted on the page, and while there are no longer any CN tags that I can see I suspect that there are still some thing that the community would like to see fixed, altered, replaced, reworded, recited, etc. The previous peer reviews are located here and here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Operation Menu

Just rounding this one off. See what you think. RM Gillespie 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Nice article. A few points to work on, though:

• The lead should be lengthened considerably, to around three full paragraphs; as it is, it doesn't really provide a good summary of the article as a whole.
• Are there any other good images available? At the least, a map of the region would be useful; and some portraits of the major figures involved (which should be conveniently public domain) might be nice as well.
• The ending (particularly the "Cambodia was on the slippery slope to genocide" bit) seems a little too melodramatic. I would try for something a bit drier in tone, and avoid getting drawn off on the Khmer Rouge tangent too much here.

Kirill Lokshin 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, thanks Kirill. Followed your suggestions and made some changes. RM Gillespie 15:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

King's Regiment (Liverpool)

Previous review.

I've been intermittently developing this article for over a year. But compelling distractions have prevented me from completing this project (I'm on an occasionally enforced wikibreak;-). This article will undoubtedly surpass 60kb and I've therefore decided to omit the regiment's peripheral activities (this prominently includes its service in India and Macedonia during WWI). While I hope this decision won't be at the expense of the article's comprehensives, no online history, even published book, could possibly hope to equal Everard Wyrall's staggering three volume, The History of the King's Regiment (Liverpool) 1914-19;-). Three sub-sections still require substantial expansion: the "Colonial wars" (i.e. the Second Boer War), "1918", and "Burma". I suspect the prose is deficient in areas and certain sections are sparse. So suggestions and constructive criticism would be appreciated. SoLando (Talk) 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice, overall. Some suggestions, in no particular order:

• I would try to avoid omitting any significant topic, particularly as the article is already over the recommended size. What I would suggest doing instead would be creating daughter articles (King's Regiment (Liverpool) in World War I and perhaps King's Regiment (Liverpool) in World War II) for the more detailed narrative, and trimming back the material in the main article to a more condensed summary. This would allow you to achieve comprehensive coverage without running into article length concerns.
• The "History" header seems extraneous; I would suggest removing it and having those sub-sections directly off the main body of the article.
• The battle honours can be placed in an infobox field now.
• The table of VC recipients may be better off floated on the side rather than in an otherwise empty section of its own.
• The rump "Batallions" section needs to either become a legitimate summary of the linked article or be eliminated; it shouldn't be difficult to work that link into the text somehow, in any case.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As ever, I appreciate your input.

• Yes, that might be the most viable solution; however, the WWI and WWII sections are essentially, in their present form, already condensed summaries. I'll attempt to compress the 1918 sub-section into two paragraphs detailing the Spring Offensive and Hundred Days. Perhaps two paragraphs for India and Macedonia. I'll investigate the possibility of branching the history, but it could be problematic ;-)
• Done.
• Incorporating so many battle honours into the infobox makes the latter extremely cumbersome and disrupts the layout of the page. Any alternative?
• I'm tempted, very tempted, to convert the VC section into prose. What would you suggest?
• I've placed the link to the list of battalions in the infobox.

Again, I thank you. SoLando (Talk) 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:

• The current content could likely be condensed further, but that's not the main point; my idea was more to create a place for more detailed coverage, thus eliminating the question of whether the article was comprehensive by allowing the material not fully discussed in this article to still be adequately covered in the child articles. (In any case, branching the history means simply putting the source article in your original edit summary; so this shouldn't be a practical concern. ;-)
• You could, I suppose, have a separate table listing the battle honours by war and so forth; the main thing is to avoid the simple long list that we currently have.
• The VC section might be workable as prose, but it's going to be somewhat repetetive. Perhaps the easiest approach would be to split it apart and add the recipients into the text in the relevant narrative sections?

Kirill Lokshin 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll attempt to formulate a subsidiary History of the King's Regiment (Liverpool) (preferable for the purposes of context). I can be an obsessive perfectionist (even if that is rarely evident;-), so it's conceivable that such an article would exceed 90kb alone (if it is initiated). My hands are trembling at such a prospect...
• A table could have application here; I've seen a similar approach but can't remember the name of the article.
• Integrating the recipients into the relevant sections seems preferable, although I'll miss that table. ;-)

SoLando (Talk) 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of the regiment's Colonels-in-Chief, Colonels of the regiment and a modest number of "famous" members. This could be the ideal location for the VC recipients; however, it's of questionable encyclopaedic merit. Then again, the existence of numerous lists of even greater question which have survived AFD mitigate that somewhat;-)SoLando (Talk) 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

Another rewrite in the vein of Edwin Taylor Pollock (recently promoted to FA!) and I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve this for GA and, possibly, FA. Tilley at least died while in the Navy so I don't expect any "after the Navy" comments. ;) Specifically, I have a very large section on what he did in Samoa because that is the major thing his career is remembered for. (And because it's very well documented. Serving on such and such ship which didn't do much in particular is difficult to track down in the history books.) I look forward to your comments.JRP 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This is an excellent article; it should be ready for FAC shortly. A few minor formatting points to fix, though:

• The templates at the bottom would look better after the references section rather than before it, I think; they interrupt the flow too much, otherwise.
• Are author names available for the various newspaper articles being cited?
• The mix of citation formats caused by the templates is somewhat messy; I would suggest moving to a common format by hand-formatting the citations. (But this may be a point of personal preference, so you shouldn't feel obligated to do this if you prefer the template-generated ones.)

Other than that, this looks very good; keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the great comments. I'll move the templates. As for the author names, I include them when I have them... but mostly I don't have any bylines. I'm sorry. (I have PDF scans of the articles so if there were there, I would see them. Ah well.) For the different citation styles, I agree with you that the mixture of newspaper/journal/book citations templates looks poor. BUT, I'm hoping that someday the template maintainers will fix that rather than hard-coding the citations now. Again, thanks for your comments. JRP 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force

This article has been at FA status since July 2007 and is due for an update and general tidy-up. To help me with this I'd appreciate any comments on the article as it currently stands. Please note that the article was previously peer reviewed in March 2007 before it was nominated for A-class and then FA status. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• The lead is quite short
• Odd usage of First-Last name, I'll get to work on that, and also some refs are repeated in long form in the footnotes when not needed as the full form is already in the multi-use refs. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Date formats are mixed. I prefer yyyy-mm-dd if that's ok YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Structural history of the Roman military

This is the second of four articles I am working on in Rome's military history, all of which I aim eventually to bring to FA standard. I would like to get some peer reviews of the article, particularly with regard to how it can be improved overall - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice. A few things that you may want to look at:

• The sectioning structure is rather choppy, with some very short sections interspersed with longer ones. I would suggest coalescing those together to form broader swaths of prose (particularly when the sections overlap in time) rather than trying to necessarily enforce such a rigid structure. Conversely, introducing sub-sections into some of the longer sections may also be something to consider.
• Two-column citations may be helpful here; and "Bibliography" should be "References" (or, alternately, both "Citations" and "Bibliography" should be sub-sections of an overall "References" section).
• The images may look better interspersed along both margins rather than all on the same side.
• The wikification should be a lot heavier; there are lots of terms of interest (particularly when equipment is discussed) that aren't linked to the corresponding articles.
• The article switches from AD to CE partway through, for no apparent reason; it really ought to stick with a consistent notation.

Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill

• Sectioning structure - I'm aware this is a problem, still thinking about how to solve this!
• I've merged citations and bibliography into a single refs section
• 2-column citations set now
• I have further wikified the article now
• The AD/CE confusion was due to another editor making edits last night and using CE whereas the rest of the article uses AD, I have standardised this again now

Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rmky87

• Refs need to go after punctuation (I know this is a problem here).--Rmky87 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, corrected now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There's still a comma after 85, which comes after a period and...I'm not sure what happened.--Rmky87 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted, I've fixed this and a few others now, think they're all sorted now! Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome.--Rmky87 04:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Land

My main concern is that the section on the Etruscan-style army is unclear. I think it assumes too much prior knowledge of the census reforms: could this be rewritten and better wikilinked? Also, are there any indications on the relative manpower provided by the different 'classes': reading it, it strikes me that the numbers of 'first-class' hoplites must have been miniscule. After all those were the days when 100,000 sesterces was a lot of money ;) A couple of stylistic things:

• There is inconsistent use of italics for Latin terms
• Much reference is made to the 'traditional' views of things wihtout spelling out what those views are.

Regards, The Land 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Opération Manta

Always as part of my work on the Chadian-Libyan conflict, I've written down an article on this French military intervention in Chad, hoping to make it a GA article, like I've done with Toyota War. The most obvious defect is the lack of images, but, alas, there isn't much I can do to solve this now. Another problem may be the grammar, not being a native speaker. As for the lead, I hope it's not too long; also should I add inline citations to the lead? I haven't till now because it just presented and summarized content well referenced in the following sections.--Aldux 21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

bcasterline

A few comments:

• "Background" leaves some context out. What do you mean "the fall of the Chadian capital"? What happened?
• The first paragraph of "Stalemate" doesn't make any sense.
• Some of the information in "French withdrawal" might belong in "Aftermath" instead.

The article looks pretty comprehensive. Could use some more copyediting for grammar/wording though. -- bcasterline • talk 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit the background, and rewritten the "Stalemate" paragraph. As for the grammar/wording, you and Picaroon have hopefully bettered it; I'm unfortunately unable to do much better.--Aldux 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. A few points to consider, though:

• The "Background" section is pretty stubby; it may be worthwhile to consider some sort of rearrangement of the first sections.
• Marking up the map a bit to show troop movements, etc., would probably be helpful.

The lead doesn't need to be directly cited if it's just a summary of the article.

Beyond that, as bcasterline said, stylistic copyediting would be appropriate, at this point. Kirill Lokshin 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfotunately, I have simply no idea how to mark an image. Picaroon and Bcasterline have worked on the grammar and wording. I've added something to the background, but I'll try to add more. As for the "rearrangement of the first sections", could you give me some hint? In what sense do you feel the present disposition should be rearranged? Thanks, --Aldux 18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "by a joint force Libyan soldiers " -> "by a joint force of Libyan soldiers "
• "on July 31 brought to the assembling in Chad " -> "on July 31 led to the assembling in Chad "
• "drew "a line in the sand." " - if this is a quote it needs a cite, if it isn't, I would remove the quote marks
• "with the Libyans and the GUNT controlling the north and Habré central and southern Chad" - this doesn't read write - they controlled the north and the south? What did the French control then?
• "French President Mitterrand" - any reason he doesn't get a first name?
• "a mutual withdrawal of their countries troops " -> "a mutual withdrawal of their countries' troops "
• Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, should this whole article not be byu the English name Operation Stingray?? This seems to be the practice taken in all other battle and war articles I have seen.
• "recognizing Goukouni as the legitimate ruler of Chad, and provided arming and training for his forces" - mix of tenses
• "gave way in June 1983 to a massive joint GUNT-Libyan attack against Faya-Largeau" - don't think you mean gave way, I think rather agreed or acceeded to demands for. I think you also need to state who was calling for this.
• "annoverating 3,000 men" - I don't understand. comprising of? consisting of? numbering?
• "Thus assisted by weapons from France, US and Zaire" This contradicts the earlier statement that France and US contributed arms, and Zaire men.
• "and taking advantage of the GUNT's Habré took personal command " - thisnk there is a word nmissing after GUNT's - doesn't make any sense
• "bringing to his shattering defeat " -> "bringing him to a shattering defeat"
• "Even if France threatened on August 25 that it would not tolerate Gaddafi's occupation of Faya-Largeau[11], even if at the end the French proved themself unwilling to openly confront Libya and retake northern Chad for Habré, thus giving the impression to concede Gaddafi the overlordship over the Borkou-Ennedi-Tibesti Prefecture" - these "even ifs" make no sense
• "not only in the short period" -> "not only in the short term"
• "due to Libya's incapacity to balance " -> "due to Libya's inability to balance "
• "by stiking the GUNT at Faya-Largeau" -> striking
• "risking to cause an escalation of the conflict." -> "risking an escalation of the conflict."
• "two Juaguar fighter-bombers to invest the attackers " - invest means to siege, this is not a word normally applied to aircraft. perhaps harrass?
• "rise the Red Line from the 15th to the 16th parallel" rise-> extend/retract
• mutaual -> mutual
• "were getting tired up with an intervention " -> "were becoming bogged down in an intervention "
• Other than these grammatical problems I think the article is good - it gives a good overview of a conflict I knew nothing about. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fantastic and scrupolous work controlling my gramar, Dan! You've really done a precious help thanks. I've integrated your corrections now. Grazie again!--Aldux 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will do another run through it now and see if I can see anything else - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is in great shape but still looks like it needs the attentions of an English-speaking copyeditor I think, just to polish the language a little. I don't have time to devote to this I'm afraid, but best of luck - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Catalan

Good article - I certainly learned something from it. A few points, however:

• POV:
  • The United States announced that 25 million US dollars in critically needed equipment would be provided. - It's not really inferring a point of view, but it might be a point of contention to nit-pickers at some later point. I would take out the word critically, as the point still gets across without it.
• Images: Have you tried contacting websites on the topic for the use of their images? You can be surprised how nice they can be - Morozov sure was for the Ch'onma-ho article.
• Grammar: Quite a few problems here - the article will need a thorough copyedit. If I have time I may go through it at a later time.

JonCatalan 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "critically needed". As for the websites, I'd first have to try webite on the topics, which is quite hard - Chad isn't the best known country in the world, to use an euphemism, and it's no surprise I had to use alost exclusively books and not the web for writing this article. As for the grammar, Bcasterline, Dan and Picaroon were of considerable help, but I would IMMENSELY appreciate any help with copyediting you would give :-)))))--Aldux 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet partisans

This is a rather extensive B-class article, generating quite a lot of controversy (which boils down to the fact that Soviet partisans, as Soviet themselves, were not viewed by liberators by all, and clashed with forces that others did view as liberators). Besides a need for neutral editors to keep an eye on the page and comment from time to time, I believe this is a relativly good article that with some work can go up to a GA. Your comments on how to do so would be appreciated (and a nice change from the common 'good/bad guys bickering on this article talk).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Ah, lots of things that should be looked at here:

• The lead needs to be significantly longer; two sentences don't really work for an article this long.
• The referencing situation is quite a mess; there are two different citation styles (inline external links and footnotes), and a lot of things that should be cited aren't.
• There's some weasel-wording present, particularly in the "Controversies" section; statements like "some historians believe", "some former Soviet partisans", etc. really need to be more specific.
• The "Major operations" section may be better off as a table, if you can't convert it to real prose paragraphs.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated.
• The "List of famous Soviet partisans" may be better off turned into a floating sidebar of some sort, to avoid breaking up the flow.
• "Bibliography": is that part of "References" or "Further reading"?
• The "Controversies" section has a lot of very short, choppy sub-sections; it may be better to combine them into longer blocks of prose.

More generally, the article seems to focus primarily on the grand strategic concerns without really going into more concrete details on the day-to-day affairs. There's little or no coverage of how partisan groups were organized, what equipment they had, how they operated, and so forth; if there are sources available (and I'd be surprised if there aren't some), I think this would be a suitable area for expanding the article. Kirill Lokshin 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• The lead is practically non-existent, it should give a general summary of the scopr of the entire article that is to come
• There is a woeful lack of cites
• Needs a copyedit by a native speaker of English
• "the local population which was antagonized by German brutality." - cite needed
• "the Communist Party ordered Party members to organize an underground resistance....pre-war plans and candidates for such operations existed.....No formal recruitment procedures existed" - this seems to be self-contradictory.
• "transferred the working age population to Reich" - I've not heard Reich used as a location, and certainly not Reich as opposed to The Reich.
• " (e.g. see Khatyn)." -> "such as at Khatyn"
• "the majority became passive supporters to partisans." - cite needed
• "began training special groups of future partisans (effectively, special forces units) in the rear and dropping them in the occupied territories" - I'm not really sure such troops would be considered partisans by the normal definition
• "According to the Himmler's plan" The Himmler?
• " 3/4 of " -> "three quarters of"
• "3/4 of the Belarusian population was to be eradicated and the remainder was to be used as a slave labour force" - cite?
• "By Summer 1942 all the illusions some Belarusians might have had about the Nazi rule, even compared to the brutal Stalinist regime, were lost and the anti-fascist resistance rose dramatically" - cite?
• "To the end of 1941 only in Minsk area there were at least 50 partisan groups " - > "In the Minsk area alone there were at least 50 partisan groups before 1941"
• "in the spring of 1943, Soviet government did not support " -> "in the spring of 1943, the Soviet government did not support "
• " Soviet partisans and AK usually supported each other" -> " Soviet partisans and the AK usually supported each other"
• I could go on but the whole article is in need of the same things - copyediting by a native English speaker and citations for the many stated facts and opinions that lack cites.

Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Panzer I

Just got done with a major renovation of the article, and I wanted to refine it before putting up for good article review. Ultimately, at some point which is not likely to be in the near future, I would like to feature this article. A closer goal is passing A-class review. JonCatalan 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks pretty good, at this point. A few suggestions:

• The lead could be lengthened to two/three full paragraphs.
• The footnotes for the tables should probably go right after the table header, not at the bottom of the table. Personally, I'd suggest using normal floated class="wikitable" formatting; the current layout is a bit difficult to read, and wastes space on higher resolutions.

Other than that, this mainly needs a thorough copyedit to fix up the occasional clunky wording. Kirill Lokshin 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Response: I extended the lead by another paragraph - hopefully, that looks better. I put the footnotes after the title - I'm no good with tables; these were taken straight from the T-34 article and changed to fit the information I wanted to put in them. So, I would change them as you suggest, but I don't know how to even start. JonCatalan 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the table styling; let me know what you think of the result. Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the purpose, even though I don't find them aesthetically appealing ( :P ), but space isn't wasted. What do you think about moving them to the left? The first time I took a look at them I didn't realize they were there! I thought someone had vandalized the page - I had to look at the history to see where they were inserted. I think that if they were moved to the left they would be easier to see - on the other hand, the text would wrap strangely (along the right). If left is not an option, then your change is fine. Thanks for your time and patience. JonCatalan 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I suppose the tables can be flipped to the left margin; the wrapping will be sort of funny, though. Alternately, perhaps we could center them with no wrapping? Kirill Lokshin 19:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right concerning how it would look if we moved them to the left. Either keep them the way you left them, or center them. I think I'll play around with them now that you've done the hard part. JonCatalan 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought - I'll keep them the way you left them. Putting them in the middle makes the text look choppy. JonCatalan 20:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that others haven't peer reviewed the article! To keep this active for a little while longer, are there any specific sentences that need to be re-written to make them sound better? Any sentences that really stuck out? JonCatalan 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "were being reused for production of tank surrogates " I have no idea what a tank surrogate is - can this be explained or the term wikilinked?
• "performance in combat was effected by its relatively poor armor protection " - I think effected -> affected
• "Although at-first " -> "Although at first "
• "the concept of the tank as a mobile weapon of war was met by apathy German industry " -> "the concept of the tank as a mobile weapon of war was met by apathy, German industry "
• "produced a single prototype denominated under Grosstraktor" - obtuse wording, why not just "produced a single prototype named the Grosstraktor"
• "the Leichtertraktor remained experimental vehicles " - is Leichertraktor the plural form here of the german??
• "several faults were found in the design, including suspension problems - which forced the vehicle to pitch at high velocities - and engine problems - overheating." -> "several faults were found in the design, including suspension problems - which forced the vehicle to pitch at high velocities - and overheating."
• "using steering levels to control the tank" steering levers?
• armored/armoured - you use both forms, you should standardise on British English or US English
• "Ausf. F" - why A,B,C and F. There is no explanation of the jump from C to F. Was there no D and E? Why not?
• "two sides began to consolidate themselves and form - the Popular front and the Spanish Nationalist" - spanish nationalist what? this needs to be a noun.
• "Spanish Civil War" - this whole section has too much info and history unrelated to the tank
• "During the beginning of Guderian's attack in northern Poland his crops was held back" corps?
• " to cooperate with infantry " -> " to coordinate with infantry "
• "In other words" -> yeuch, sloppy, remove
• "including 955 Panzer Iis" -> "including 955 Panzer Is"
• "The one advantage German armor enjoyed of was the use f one-way radios " -> "The one advantage German armor enjoyed of was the use of one-way radios "
• "relatively more modern " - more is a comparative term anyway, the use of "relatively" is redundant

Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Response: Most of the changes have been done. Leichtertraktor is used in the article like it's used in my sources - I, unfortunately, don't know German. In regards to the use of 'armour', I did catch one mistake in the table, but the use of armour in the quote from Guderian's book is because that's how it's used in his book. About the naming of the tanks - no source really explains why there weren't Ds and Es; some online sources incorrectly call the Ausf. F either D or E - they're wrong. Like is explained in the article there is nothing similar between the Panzer Ausf. B and either the C or F, which could explain the jump in letters. Finally, I would have thought that some information provided under Poland would have been irrelevant, but I feel that most of the information given under Spanish Civil War is important. The only thing which could be considered irrelevant is information on the battle of Madrid, but that was to provide some background information on the Panzer I's first combat operation. Thank you for your thorough comments - the majority of those mistakes were important! JonCatalan 16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

'leichter Traktor' (correct German spelling - I'm a native speaker of German) it can be translated as light tractor (more in the agricultural sense) or light traction engine (if it was used to pull)Wandalstouring 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The name was used to hide the true purpose of the vehicle. JonCatalan 03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rindis

Mostly nitpicking - bigger stuff towards the bottom...

• should link to Sonderkraftfahrzeug. It's not much but most people will be wondering what it means.
• "it was first began to be designed in 1932, and began massproduction in 1934." -> "the initial design was done in 1932, and it began mass production in 1934."
• "Despite the original purpose of the vehicle the Panzer I saw combat in Spain, during the Spanish Civil War," -> "Despite the original purpose of the vehicle, the Panzer I saw combat in Spain during the Spanish Civil War,"
• "The Grosstraktor was later put into service with the 1st Panzer Division, although not for a considerable amount of time," - do you mean 'not until a considerable amount of time had passed', or 'not for very long once it happened'?
• "The first fifteen versions were produced between February and March 1934" -> "The first fifteen vehicles were produced between February and March 1934" (unless each and every one was different, they aren't 'versions')
• "using steering levels to control the tank," - really? levels? - maybe levers?
• "Despite initial success poor communication" -> "Despite initial success, poor communication"
• "in order to adapt a 45 mmm tank-gun" -> "in order to adapt a 45 mm tank-gun"
• "for quite a while, disallowing it a faster advance." -> "for quite a while, preventing a faster advance."

• "tank surrogates": I'm wondering if perhaps there's a pre-existing term for you, I don't know this one. You're obviously talking about the variants, but do you mean all of them, or just the tank destroyers and self-propelled guns?
• "Sister tanks": Another bit of odd terminology. Maybe "Later versions"?
• I've heard of a couple later versions, but this is the first I've seen anything past a few prototypes being produced. (Of course, my sources are all pretty old.)
• You're still including a lot of general history in the article. The comparisons on tank strengths are understandable, but a recounting of the general course of the campaign should be covered by the article specifically on it. You might want to see if you can look up the units that had PzIs and what battles they took an active part in. Basically, summarize the PzIs involvement, and let the history articles take care of most of the rest.

-Still, looking good! --Rindis 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Response: Thanks for your time! First done. As per your second comment, I did change that sentence, but not exactly how you suggested. How does this sound?

• • it was first began to be designed in 1932, and began massproduction in 1934.

Third suggested completed. In regards to the fourt suggestion - I mean it was not in service for a considerable amount of time. I changed the sentence a bit to make it clearer. Changed verions to tanks - my mistake. I haven't seen the controls of the Panzer I myself, unfortunately, but all my sources say they used 'steering levers' (English sources; so it's not a bad translation of my Spanish sources). The rest of that first part is changed. Although:

"in order to adapt a 45 mmm tank-gun" -> "in order to adapt a 45 mm tank-gun"

Is there a difference? Sorry, I find that my eyes miss little things most of the time (I'm not being sarcastic).

As per your more important points:

• I'm referring to tank destroyers, self-propelled guns, command tankks et cetera. Other variants are called 'logistics vehicles' in this article. I will stub that red link when I can. Sister versions is how the Spanish Panzer I book refers to the two tanks - since they are technically not even close to the Ausf. A and Ausf. B (completely different tanks), and related only by name, I guess that is the genesis of the term 'sister version'. In regards to their production numbers, they should be sourced. In terms of the Spanish Civil War, I think the small paragraph that introduced the battle of Madrid - their first combat experience - is justified. By I understand the problem when concerning the Polish campaign and the French campaign, especially when compared to the Russian campaign. I think I'm going to delete the general history and just leave information on Panzer I strengths in each division and what not. What do you think? JonCatalan 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• "first began to be designed" is really clunky English. I'm not entirely happy with my version either, but it at least reads better. "Mass production" is two words.
• Levers, good, thought so. That was just the image that popped in my head when you said 'levels'. ^_^
• "45 mm" your version has three 'm's in a row. Easy to miss.
• Okay, pretty much what I thought. I don't think there's any official English term for the group of them, but "combat variants" should do. I would really avoid "tank surrogate" unless you've seen it in an English source somewhere (I've never seen it before).
• Things like the battle of Madrid should be fine. The blow-by-blow account of Poland and France is overboard. Now, saying why they were important there is fine. Like pointing out that the Panzer Divisions had a lot of PzIs, and they were important to the campaign for the following reasons, should be fine. (i.e., talking about the crossing of the Muse and the race to the coast would make some sense).

--Rindis 21:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I left out the word first, and just said: it began design in 1932 and mass production in 1934
• Oh! Sorry, I didn't catch the l in levels. I told you my eyes miss things!
• Well, yet another example of the above! Sorry. 45 mmmmmm. Tasty?
• The word tank surrogate is used in a manuscript written for the U.S. Army called Towards Combined Arms Warfare, now published in a re-written version by Kansas University Press (I don't own this copy). I will stub the red link immediately - allowing people to get a brief definition if the name confuses them in the article.
• I took a large chunk out of the Poland section.

JonCatalan 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

I believe the article has quality good enough for GA at least. Your comments would be greatly appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has now reached a GA status. I'd like to thank the reviewers, whose comments were very useful in improving the article. Are there any other issues to be addressed, or would you recommend moving the article to A-class?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks quite good. A number of minor things to fix, though:

• Month/day dates need to be properly linked.
• The infobox is a mess, and needs to be cleaned up. I would format the top section as |conflict=Soviet invasion of Poland and |partof=the [[Invasion of Poland (1939)|invasion of Poland]] in [[World War II]]. Some indication of the actual number of troops involved would also be helpful; the numbers of divisions alone don't really say much.
• There are too many images. The ones in the body should be staggered along both margins, to avoid having text squeezed between two images in the same spot; the gallery should really be broken up, with some images worked into the text and others sent to a gallery on Commons (which should then be linked here).
• The "See also" section should be eliminated; if there's no other option, {{seealso}} within particular sections is more useful, but at least some of the links can be given in the text or the infobox.
• The "External links" section might be better off being merged into "Further reading".

Kirill Lokshin 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to some points:

• Could you deal with the infobox? It's not my specialty, I am afraid...
• Elinks are for html resources, further reading for print, per MoS/GtL, IIRC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup of the infobox; you should probably still look at putting overall troop numbers into it, though. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice, and I will look for estimates, but they are difficult to find. The subject was not well researched (due to Soviet censorship), and by mid-September it was quite chaotic. Even if I can get the number for the 'undestrenght KOP battalions', how can we count the more or less random units of Polish army who fought the Soviets? And some units, KOP included, likely followed Rydz-Śmigły's orders and didn't engage in combat, while others obviously did. It's a pretty good definition of chaos, I believe.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

True, that. I think that even vague ranges would be helpful in giving some sense of how large the forces involved were, though; this applies to the Soviet numbers as well, since the actual size of divisions and brigades in the Red Army tended to vary quite a bit. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to address that, but I cannot find any good estimates about Polish strengh in the east. Polish wiki in article about KOP has unreferenced estimate of combined KOP units on 21 September numbering 8700, and that's the best I can dig up :( Soviet numbers are referened at 800,000; and we have their order of battle (albeit unreferenced). Polish army order of battle in 1939 has no information about the Eastern front.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to nominate this article for A-Class. :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "The Soviet invasion of Poland took place sixteen days after the onset of the Second World War, that started on September 1, 1939 by the German attack on Poland" - Messy, rephrase, break into two sentences if necessary
• "minor Polish resistance....230,000 or more became prisoners of war" One quarter of a million men seems like a large force, why was resistance only minor? 6,000 deaths and 230,000 captures is an odd ratio.
• "The Polonization" - you shouldn't use obscure terms without explaining them inline IMO
• intwar -> interwar?
• "and Battle of the Bzura, Polish major counteoffensive, was" -> "and the Battle of the Bzura, a major Polish counteoffensive, was"
• "Polish last fall-back plan" -> "The Polish plan for a final fall-back action"
• "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists rose against the Poles" -> "The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists rose against the Poles"
• "half a day after the Soviet Union declared that the Polish state no longer existed; and days after such a pretext was conceived" - I don't understand this sentence
• "Soviets murdered 42 members and patients of a Polish military hospital" - these would have been foreign national combat troops in wartime, I would say murdered was a bit strong in such a case even if they were unarmed and in hospital at the time, perhaps "killed in violation of internetional treaties" or similar.
• "Despite their country attacked by both of its powerful neighbours" -> "Despite their country being attacked by both of its powerful neighbours"
• "Soviets conquered about 250,000 square kilometers " - > "The Soviets conquered about 250,000 square kilometers "
• " Poles comprised the largest group" -> " Poles comprised the largest ethnic group"
• Gallery - this section is not necessary IMO, I would put images inline in the article where relevant or not include them at all
• Formatting of Prelude section needs looking at, a lot of whitespace.
• I suspect the main editor might not speak English as a first language, the article needs a good copyedit from someone really fluent in English I would say.
• The picture at the top right is grainy and unclear, can a better image be found?
• You have a bout five maps all in different forms and colours and sizes. Could this data all be put in one map or one cohesive series of maps?

Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to some points:

• '6,000 deaths and 230,000 is an odd ration' - indeed. Unless the army is ordered not to fight the second opponent (who doesn't always have such qualms), is concentrated on the other side of the country and mostly beaten by the first one (so that most soldiers encountered by the second one are 1) few in number 2) already beaten/fleeing/regrouping...
• please don't hestitate do do minor copyedits (indeed I am not a native English speaker and I miss quite a few akward phrases)
• Maps - it would be great, but map makers are few and far in between on Wiki. We are lucky to have that many maps, you know :)

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just contact: Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps and wait what happens. On the captured troops, the Russians did capture their supplies in an area with difficlut conditions for any transports. Perhaps the whole retreat and resupply strategy of the Poles - hiding in the swamps where the German tanks couldn't hunt them down and their Romanian allies could supply them should be explained. Wandalstouring 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I am not that familiar with that strategy. That said, the Invasion of Poland (1939) needs bringing up to modern FA standards...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Llywrch

Hi Piotr -- I did a little copy editting on this article (typos, punctuation, a little grammar), but one passage left me confused:

While accusations and claims of betrayal remained part of Western literature regarding the Soviet occupation of Poland, within the People's Republic of Poland, as in the entire Eastern Bloc at large, the events of the Soviet invasion of Poland and their aftermath were forbidden to be taught or researched; or at best portrayed as "liberation" of the Polish people from "oligarchic capitalism," in order not to damage the image of 'Polish-Soviet friendship' spread by the respective communist governments.

At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction here: the subject wasn't allowed to be taught or discussed at all -- & yet there was an "official version" of what happened. I tried to rewrite this passage to remove the contradiction, but because I did not go to school in Poland, I don't know the situation you are trying to describe. Is it that for the most part, the subject was off-limits & any mention strongly discouraged, but if it could not be avoided the "official version" was brought out; or that the "official version" was widely available (e.g., it appeared in textbooks & the encyclopedia) & further research or discussion forbidden?

Otherwise the primary problem with this article is that someone will need to carefully comb thru it to make the style consistent (e.g., I noticed three different ways the date is given) -- which is admittedly minor. -- llywrch 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I will correct this para as best as I could. The government stance towards the subject varied with time, which makes it somewhat confusing (and still vastly underresearched). I hope somebody will comb through with a style-copyedit.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have come up with the best way to explain this issue, Piotr -- that the official stance varied; I don't think anything more needs to be said -- until the research is done. I made a few edits to your rewrite, & hope they made your explanation clearer. -- llywrch 22:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942)

Respectfully request a peer review to highlight any problems or issues that this article may have before considering nominating it for FA. Cla68 00:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Overall, an excellent article (as usual!); just a few minor formatting and layout issues:

• There are a few month/day dates (particularly near the end of the "Background" section) that aren't wikified.
• The rump "See also" ought to be eliminated; it shouldn't be that difficult to link his name somewhere in the article (even if only in a footnote).
• The Japanese units are generally left unlinked; is this for neatness, or because they don't warrant articles in principle? It'd be nice to have stubs on the ones that do; otherwise, they're likely never to get written.
• "Action" should be "action" in the headings, I think.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrections made thank-you...except for stub articles on the Japanese units involved. I may get to that eventually. The problem is that the composition of Imperial Japanese Army units is very complicated due to their "triangular" organizations that enabled frequent transfer, reorganization, and renaming of units depending on the mission or circumstances. Anyway, thanks again. Cla68 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Operation Barrel Roll

Am rounding out work on this stub. Am looking for some constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice work, as usual. A few general suggestions, in no particular order:

• Wording such as "After a series of political and military machinations conducted by the U.S., the Pathet Lao, and the DRV in Laos that are best described elsewhere..." may be appropriate in a book, but is out of place in an encyclopedia article; it's not at all clear what "elsewhere" refers to, and the overall structure is too self-referential, resembling the oft-decried "This article will...".
• Extended quotes (e.g. "Since the fate of Laos...") should ideally be introduced rather than merely included, with the source given directly in the text.
• Month/day combinations need to be linked to allow date preferences to work correctly.
• Is there any particular reason why PAVN unit names are given in italics? I was under the impression that only the untranslated portions of foreign unit names are typically typeset in that form.

Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Kirill. The italics follow the U.S. Army's format, which distinguishes enemy from friendly units. Since I do not believe that any RLG forces are directly mentioned by name, only U.S. Air Force ones, should the italics be removed? Just did it out of habit. RM Gillespie 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, I'd remove them; given that the article is not meant to be explicitly tied to the perspective of one of the combatants, the friendly/enemy distinction wouldn't really make sense here, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Took care of everything except linking the dates. Could you give me an example? RM Gillespie 01:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• "3 April" should be linked as "3 April", and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War

Been working on a number of the American Revolutionary War articles recently, but this is the first that I've 'finished' for the moment. While I've expanded it considerably considering its previous state, for such a major campaign there is always going to be more to say, and better ways of saying it! First proper major re-haul I've done on Wikipedia, so feedback would be good. Rockfall 17:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks quite nice now. I'm not an expert on the actual topic, so I'll leave commenting on the accuracy and completeness of the coverage to someone who is (perhaps you could invite Kevin Myers to comment?), and limit myself to the more general issues that need to be worked on:

• There are a number of points in the text that are missing citations; see WP:MILHIST#CITE. In addition, the existing citations need to include page numbers; citing an entire book is fairly useless to anyone who actually wants to follow the citation trail.
• The infobox could be expanded to include the combatants and commanders, at least, and perhaps even the overall strength.
• Month/day dates need to be linked to allow date preferences to work.
• The notes section should really use class="references-small". I'm not convinced that the two-column layout is a good idea, on the other hand, given how much text is present.
• The "Further reading" is at least partially "References"; you need to separate the works actually used as sources for the article from the ones listed merely as additional reading suggestions.
• A few maps would be quite helpful, I think.
• Extended quotes should use <blockquote> formatting.
• Multiple footnotes in the same place (e.g. #11 and #12) should ideally be combined into a single note.
• The rump "See also" section should be eliminated; it's not difficult to work that link into the text.
• The lead section needs to be a brief summary of the article; as it is, most of it talks about something else entirely.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Righto - wasn't really sure about the references. The essays I write for my degree of course need page numbers, but I'd seen many wikipedia pages without. Will sort that out when I get a moment. I'll tidy up the end section too. Thanks for the comments! Rockfall 10:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

In general, this needs a really good copyedit to turn it from a collection of facts into a well-written article. You need to build in explanations of individual actions and their motivations and how they relate to the overall narrative.

• The lead is too short and, for someome unfamiliar with the topic, confusing.
• "The Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War became the central area of operations on land after France entered the war on the side of the United States" why would France entering war mean a switchto the south??
• "Patriot militia " - patiot seems as POV as rebelw ould in the other direction. Can this be changed to "revolutionary" or similar? It is also an innaccurate term since technically they were rebelling against their country, not fighting for it.
• "an attack under Sir Henry Clintonwas made on Fort Sullivan at Charleston, South Carolina" Why? I think you need to build this into the overall narrative of the war, at the moment it reads like an isolated incident.
• "Also present at the battle was Charles Cornwallis and Horatio Nelson.[2]" was ->were. I'm not sure how this is relevant unless these people played some important role. Otherwise this reads almost like a "trivia" sentence.
• "1959 The British operated under the expectation" What's with the 1959?
• "While in South Carolina, Cornwallis wrote in a letter to Clinton that "Our assurances of attachment from our poor distressed friends in North Carolina are as strong as ever."" - This isn't a sentence, if you start with while, there should be a second half to the sentence.
• "For the most part, it was an incorrect one" An incorrect what?
• "Consequently, organized American military activity in the South collapsed" - but the previous statement was "When the Loyalist militia surrendered at the end of the Battle of King's Mountain" - so a loyalist defeat could hardly have a collapse of organised revolutionary activity as a consequence. THis is muddled.
• Too many generals are mentioned and the overal narrative is lost in a heapload of listed names.
• "The sole remaining British army of any size remaining in American " American -> America
• Cites - I would add lots more cites
• Pictures - I don't think pictures of the generals are too important, especially since they only seem to be british generals. I would far rather see a map showing battles in the campaign, territory held, routes of march etc, what the generals (2 out of the dozens mentioned) look like isn't so important

The basics are all there but it just needs an extensive copyedit to make it a smoother read and to remove the grammatical errors, logical inconsistencies etc as listed above. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - I think you're right on the fact that there are so many names. Can you think of any way to get around this without losing content? I'll admit my copyediting skills aren't that fantastic - I'm still getting used to the wiki editing box, but I'll work on it. Rockfall 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too worried about losing content, I would just restructure it slightly so there were wikilinks to as many sub-topics as possible, which will inevitably have details like commanders names etc, and then remove these extra details from the article, leaving only the names of main commanders. The topic is fairly large in scope (entire military theatre over near a decade) so you want to give a good overview of the sweep of events, and how they intertwine together. I would worry more about making the article a cohesive whole that flows well and make sure everything is in context, fully explained, and flows into the sections before and after it. Its not necessary to mention every detail at this level, you would leave that to specific sub articles on specific battles, sieges etc etc. You're not alone in feeling that the wiki editing box's small size causes problems with writing good copy, many others find it similarly restrictive, myself included! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lochry's defeat

Welcome to my Obscure Battles of the Western American Revolution^TM, part two. ;-) The obscurity of the battle is in some ways a blesssing—it's possible to read every major secondary account, if one can track it down. A higher resolution map is forthcoming. Let me know if you see any areas needing improvement. —Kevin 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "Lochry's defeat" - would probably be capitalised surely since it is effectively becoming a proper noun.
• "near present-day Aurora, Indiana" to "near present-day Aurora, Indiana, in the United States". Your audience is not America but the world
• " part of the western theater of the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)." to " part of the western theater of the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) between Britain and the American colonies" or similar
• "and American Indians with their British allies" - why were the native americans supporting the British? It says "Indians of the Ohio Country hoped to drive American settlers out of Kentucky and reclaim their hunting grounds" - were they made promises of being returned these lands on a british victory?
• "taking the British commander at Detroit, lieutenant governor Henry Hamilton, prisoner in the process" messy, to "taking prisoner in the process the British commander at Detroit, lieutenant governor Henry Hamilton."
• "Joining the Detroit conference was an Iroquois delegation headed by Mohawk leader Joseph Brant" - Several questions about Brant:

• Why did he have an anglic name?
• Is it just me or is he more white than Indian looking? Was he mixed heritage?
• Why on earth were Iroquois willing to fight under a mohawk leader?
• Why were the Iroquois unable to provide a leader of their own?

• "Brant had won a lopsided victory" - horrible wording. He won a clear victory, the outcome was lopsided in his favour. But "lopsided" is horrible here.
• I notice you mix "cite" footnotes and "literary aside" footnotes together. See Roman-Spartan War for a better system that I prefer

All in all a great article on a (very) obscure battle, just some minor nitpicking as above. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! It's clear from your questions that I need to do some more exposition on American Indians in general and Brant in particular. A Mohawk is an Iroquois, by the way—the Iroquois are a confederation of 6 tribes, including the Mohawk. Although there were rumors otherwise, Brant had no known white ancestors, although it's possible he did have some European ancestry. He did, however, have white portraitists. ;-) He looks more "Native" in some later portraits.

Your footnotes for Roman-Spartan War are an interesting innovation, but being stylistically conservative I'll stick with the present system, which is standard in published academic history. —Kevin 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the lead per your helpful suggestions. More background on Brant to be added soon.

I've kept "lopsided victory", by the way. It's actually a common phrase in military writing. A Google book search of the phrase gives hits like "The second battle of the Liman was a lopsided victory for Russia..." or "Hannibal had won his lopsided victory by deliberately weakening his center...." One online dictionary even gives a definition of "lopsided victory" as when "one side has many more casualties than the other." Perhaps it's an Americanism you're unfamiliar with. —Kevin 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Overall, a thoroughly excellent article. A few minor points I'll comment on:

• As PocklingtonDan mentions, shouldn't it be Lochry's Defeat? Or is the general usage lowercase?
• The exact structure of the footnotes is, of course, a matter of various preferences on the part of different editors; I'll merely note that I happen to prefer the combined format here to the two-section one on Roman-Spartan War, particularly given that a number of the discursive notes contain commentary regarding the citations themselves.
• A larger map—ideally, with Lochry's route marked—would be a very useful addition.

Broadly speaking, though, this should be ready for FAC shortly. Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. "Lochry's Defeat" vs. "Lochry's defeat" is a good question. I orginally began the article under "Lochry's Defeat", which was the title of the article when it appeared on the Main Page in DYK. But given Wikipedia's idiosyncratic approach to article titles—idiosyncratic because identifying when a common description has emerged as a proper noun can be quite ambiguous—I had second thoughts. I probably shouldn't have, since military history on Wikipedia seems to give wide latitude to assigning proper noun status to military operations. (Especially American Civil War buffs—if Grant fell off of his horse we'd probably call it "Grant's Fall".) ;-) For this particular battle, I've seen both "Lochry's Defeat" (which I prefer) and "Lochry's defeat" (more a description rather than a proper noun). Hard to say which is standard, since the obscurity of the battle means that there are not many references to the battle with which to identify a standard. For the sake of Wikiconsistency, at least in the realm of military history, "Lochry's Defeat" is indeed probably better, and so I've moved it back to that title. —Kevin 23:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

• I think you could add the "parent" campaignbox (American Revolution) under the "Western theater" campaignbox to make it easier for readers to reference the "parent" conflict.
• If you ensure that there is an inline citation at the end of every paragraph, it makes it difficult for anyone to claim that you have unsourced material in the article.

Excellent work. Cla68 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Kevin 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Seminara

I would ask that the article be peer-reviewed by the MH wikiProject to improve it and in preparation for further review. Thanks. Larry Dunn 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice article, overall. A few suggestions, though, in no particular order:

• The infobox could probably be expanded to include the strength (and perhaps casualty?) figures, if only as ranges; are there any estimates available in any of the sources? (There aren't any figures given in the body of the article, either; so it may very well be that we simply have no idea.)
• A tactical map would be helpful, if there's enough information to draw a semi-coherent one.
• I would suggest a denser level of citation (although that's largely an issue of personal preference); but, at the least, there are several numbers that need to be cited, per WP:MILHIST#CITE.
• The lead might be expanded a bit to two full paragraphs, to provide a slightly more detailed summary.
• Some more detail on the historiography would be nice. "The battle is notable primarily because it is often cited as the prime reason for the reorganization of the Spanish army" - cited by whom, and where? A few more details on de Córdoba's reforms might also be useful; the article is quite short, so there's no reason why a few sentences can't be devoted to slightly tangential points.
• The provenance of the images should be indicated, particularly for the anachronistic ones.
• I would try to put footnote numbers at the end of sentences, if at all possible; placing them after individual names probably isn't needed in an article as uncontroversial as this one.

Aside from that, this needs some copyediting; but seems largely ready for a featured article candidacy otherwise. Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, I will read your suggestions carefully and act on them. I'm kind of stupid on this stuff -- does it need to go up for a GA first, before featured? Larry Dunn 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's not required; and frankly, I wouldn't bother; the GA review isn't particularly rigorous, and GA status isn't all that highly-regarded either. Kirill Lokshin 19:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

Not actually much to comment on here, the article is in very good shape and there's none of the stuff I usually find to criticise in a peer review. I would agree with kirill that the infobox should be fleshed out, and the article could do with denser citation. My only real complaint is that I didn't find it very easy to follow what was going on. If anything the prose is too tight, neat and short, with several facts often being covered in a single sentence - it actually makes for slightly more difficult reading. What I mean is you that have to concentrate to keep on top of the narrative. I know this is very subjective etc, but given the article isn't in danger of spilling over any length constraints, I wouldn't be afraid of relaxing and expanding it a little and not worry too much if you repeat yourself slightly occasionally, it all helps reinforce the narrative in the reader's mind. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I will look at the prose and see if I can loosen it up a bit. I do tend to write in dense sentences. Larry Dunn 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

HMS Royal Oak (1914)

I've worked on this article for a little while. While I'm generally satisfied with its contents, I feel that a peer review would serve it well. There's still a little more to add—on the ship's construction and modernisation during the 1920's and 30's, for example—and any perspective you can add on this would be welcome. More images would improve the article, but so far I have not been successful in obtaining any more under a free licence. Suggestions welcome. Thanks for any comments you can make. — BillC ^talk 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a great set of comments below and very helpful. I'll respond in a general manner here at the top, and then will address individuals' points below later tonight. I fully agree the lead needs lengthening; I'll leave this change for a little while to see if the main body of the article gets built upon.

To answer the question about 'straddling fire', warships of the era would need to find the range of target ships. They were equipped with range-finding systems, but these could be supplemented by individually varying the elevation of the main guns. The aim was to get the shells falling in a 'bracket' around the target—i.e. straddling it. Once this was achieved, the range was found, and all guns could be set to this same elevation. Royal Oak thus had a lucky escape during Jutland in that enemy shells landed in the sea to her near and far sides, but missed her.

On a point that is nothing to do with this peer review, if anyone here did not look at the ADUS sonograms linked in the last few references, I would urge you to do so: they're surprisingly detailed and quite haunting. Here, for example. — BillC ^talk 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

cla68

The only issue I see is that the introduction should be a closer summary of the article, i.e. following the basic outline of the main article, so that is acts as a condensed version of the article itself. A great article. Cla68 03:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

As Cla68 said, a great article; it should be ready for FAC shortly. The lead should indeed be lengthened, I think; it needs to be a brief summary of the entire article, not just the sinking.

Aside from that, a few minor things to fix:

• Month/day dates should be linked to allow date preference settings to work.
• The see-also link to Unterseeboot 47 seems pointless; why not just link it directly in the text?
• The table in the "Rescue efforts" section needs to have wider left and bottom margins, or the text runs into it. I'd suggest using class="wikitable" as well.

Kirill Lokshin 04:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "despite being straddled by fire on one occasion" I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean she was targeted? Or that shells hit her? Or just landed close?
• "she was anchored at Rosyth" should probably be "she was anchored at Rosyth, Scotland"
• "Campania, was however holed" odd punctuation -> "Campania, however, was holed"
• "Dewar and Daniel accused...Collard accusing " mixed tenses
• "'writing subversive documents'" - since this is a quote sholdn't there be a cite?
• "within 3 cables of the starboard bow" -would it not be more usual to convert to a standard unit of measurement?
• "Scapa Flow presented formidable defences to the attacker" -> "Scapa Flow presented formidable defences to an attacker"
• Should envronmental concerns really be a sub-section of status as war grave??
• "Cartoon by David Low lampooning the "Mutiny", March 20, 1928 " and other external links to images - see the "external images" template used in eg Roman-Spartan War for a possibly better way of linking to these.

Other than those few niggles, a fine effort, easily ready for FAC. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rockfall

• First World War History: there is a gap in your narrative between the end of the Battle of Jutland and the end of the war - do you know what the ship did during this time? If she was anchored in Rosyth for the remainder, this perhaps should be made more clear.
• Between the Wars: Do you deliberately write the date of her attack by Spanish forces as "1937-02-02"? The rest of the article is in the more readable xth of x format.
• Style point: This may be irrelevant, but whenever I'm writing I tend to always place footnote marks after some form of punctuation. In the UK at least, this is the academic convention. It doesn't matter particularly, but I've always though it looks neater than breaking up the text of a sentence with a footnote mark.
• Otherwise a very well written article - with the above grammatical corrections noted by Pocklington. Certainly superior to a number of FAs I've seen floating about the place! Rockfall 10:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to find the history of the Royal Oak outside the episodes described in the article. So far without success, but I've got a couple of trips to the British Library planned over the next weekend or two, and will see what this will produce. On solution would be to examine the ship's logs, available at the Public Record Office, but with 2.5 years just for the duration of the First World War would mean individually requesting 30 documents, so it would be a major task, not to mention coming close to OR. Hopefully something will turn up in the literature. Thanks for your comments, all very welcome. — BillC ^talk 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Harlsbottom

I had some issues which I've already sorted, to wit;

• In the introduction; 5 battleships and battlecruisers were sunk in World War II, not 5 battleships.
• You correctly stated that coal-firing the class wasn't so much reactionary but a reaction to the strategic situation - you failed to mention the tactical reason for coal-firing.
• Renaming and correcting the battle squadrons. While the pages don't yet exist, one day I or someone else will get round to it (see List of squadrons and flotillas of the Royal Navy.
• Pendant numbers. I inserted them (and cited them) but they don't fit in too well. Maybe you'll find a better way to merge them into the text.

I made a few other changes. Not many, as the article is well-researched and informative and certainly makes it one of the better British battleship articles on Wikipedia. --Harlsbottom 11:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

John Moore 309

What a good article! A real pleasure to read; congratulations to all concerned. Just a few comments to add to those above:

• As BillC rightly points out, there should be more information on the ship's refits, reconstructions and changes in armament. The fitting of bulges should be stressed, since in this class it was perceived as a corrective to the low metacentric height of the original design. It might also be worth touching on the reasons why they were passed over for reconstruction in the 1930s in favour of the older Queen Elizabeths. Of course, these issues are common to the whole of the Revenge class.
• It would be good to have a fuller account of her inter-war service.
• The account of the "Royal Oak Mutiny" gives no indication of what the dispute was actually about.
• The article should refere to the Vanguard disaster: the Vanguard was destroyed at Scapa Flow in 1917, with huge loss of life, due the the spontaneous explosion of her magazines. This explains the order to check the magazine temperatures, as well as the uncertainty immediately after the disaster as to whether it was actually due to enemy action.
• My understanding is that "portholes" are scuttles in naval usage.
• The following are useful sources
  • DK Brown The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922. Caxton Editions 2003. ISBN 1-84067-531-4
  • DK Brown (Ed.), The Design and Construction of British Warships, 1939-35. Official Record Vol. 1: Major Surface Ships. Conway Maritime Press, 1995. ISBN 0-85177-673-6 (my source for the above statement re bulges. Unfortunately this book is now very hard to obtain).
  • Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships, 1906-1921 Conway Maritime Press, 1985. ISBN 0-85177-245-5 (this is used, but not acknowledged, in the Revenge class battleship article).
  • Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships, 1922-1946 Conway Maritime Press, 1980. ISBN 0-85177-146-7 (has a useful section on rebuilds & refits).

Regards to all, John Moore 309 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vilnius Castle Complex

Article covers one of most important Lithuania's castle history. Article is already GA and undergone further development - was included new section, adjusted formats etc. I would like to send this article to FAC eventually, but I need third side evaluation. Standard peer review did not yield any results yet, so I decided to try luck here. I am seeking suggestions from contributors to evaluate what should be done/improved that this article met expectations of FA. M.K. 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "One part of the castle complex, which was built on a hilltop, is known as the Upper Castle. The hill, now known as" would change this to "One part of the castle complex, which was built on a hilltop, is known as the Upper Castle. The hill on which it is built is known as"

Solved, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "The Vilnius Castles were attacked by the Teutonic Order in 1365" Why? No war is mentioned? Why was everyone keen on beating up the residents of Vilnius castle?

Inserted brief explanation, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• " the Vilnius Castles were besieged for more than three weeks, and one its " - should be "and one of its"

Solved, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "After a major fire in 1419, Vytautas initiated a reconstruction of the Upper Castle" Hold on, last time this chap was mentioned in the previous para, he was attacking the castle, which it was then stated was not fully taken. How is he now in charge of rebuilding the castle??

Inserted brief explanation, hope it will help, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Reconstruction of the castle" for each phase of construction of reconstruction I'd mention why they reconstructed it - for show? for defence? if so, from whom?

I added few points about this issue M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• "was worth 100,000 ducats" isn't it normal ot parentheses "(X million in today's USD)" or similar

I did not managed to find equivalents of the sum, but I will continue my search. M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure i like the splitting up of the history into the three castle components - ie you read through from 1323 to 1945 for the upper csatle, then suddenly you're back in 1323 again for the lower castle. The sections might inform one another if merged into purely chronological.

I talked about this issue below, bet the main problem could arose, because we can lost consistency of article using chronology, because now we have full part of article about Royal Palace etc., if we divide we will have various parts of it in different places. Second very important point - same structure uses and scholarly works. M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• "had two arsenals – the so-called New and Old " - you then detail the new before the old. This reverse chronolgy in this one section is confusing. Suggest put this in chronoligcal order too.

Solved, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• "it attracts thousands of tourists from around the world" - Find a figure to cite, 2000/year is pitiful (our local grocery store gets more visitors than that a year), but 200,000 is noteworthy.

Did not found numbers, so reworded, M.K. 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is a "history of the upper castle", a "history of the lower castle", but no "history of the crooked castle". I appreciate it was burnt early on but no section for it at all is confusing. Again, don't think splitting up into sections by castle area is a good idea. Would make the entire article chronological.

Cheers PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is no crooked castle separate section due to very simple reason, this part of castle was from wood and it was burnt in 1390 and never reconstructed after this date, so we have very little notable info about it. So my question do we have separate section for crooked castle consisted from 5-10 sentences? M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Had another read through and you seem to have addressed most of my concers, well done. If you do get time I would still like it all made into a single chronological timeline, but I undserstand this would involve a lot of effort. Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try to solve remaining issues in upcoming days, but I am not sure about chronological timeline, because the same division, which is in article, is presented and in published scholarly works. M.K. 10:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

I'll largely second PocklingtonDan's comments about the order of presentation; flipping back-and-forth in time is needlessly confusing, I think. The article would be better ordered as a more-or-less continuous narrative of the entire complex, rather than divided by section and building.

Aside from that, a few more incidental points:

• The article is fairly short, so a little lengthening wouldn't really hurt. Hence, any reason why Gediminas Tower can't simply be merged into it? I doubt that article will ever grow to a reasonable size, given how narrow the topic is; it may be better off absorbed into a more coherent whole.

I believe that if we merge Gediminas Tower to this article a lot of people will be confused because Gediminas Tower info will be melt in Complex article, while Tower itself is notable and as symbol. M.K. 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The "See also" section should be eliminated; if something isn't worth linking from the text, it's generally not worth linking at all.

It wouldn`t be a problem to eliminate it, M.K. 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• We're currently revamping (in conjunction with WP:CASTLES) {{Infobox Military Structure}} to work for castles; the major development should be done in a week or so, at which point you should be able to add an infobox to the article.

Added infobox, not sure if it useful, M.K. 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It should become somewhat more useful in the near future. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We will look forward to development :) 10:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for comments I will try to answer other issues in upcoming days. M.K. 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

P-38 Lightning

I've spent some time rewriting for NPOV, and other cleanup in prep for an FA nom, but find myself running out of ideas for improvement. Need a review to kick start improvements. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This looks quite good. My main suggestion: more citations! There are still [citation needed] tags in the article, and the entire "Service record" and "Postwar operations" sections—and much of the "Variants", "P-38s in Popular Culture", and "Noted or surviving P-38s" sections—are uncited.

Apart from that, this needs some copyediting before moving on to FAC; but I can't see any other substantive problems. Kirill Lokshin 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "with the engines mounted forward" - forward of the wings? Further forward of the wings than other aircraft of the era? forward of the cockpit?
• "The aircraft was used in a number of different roles, when equipped " - should this be a semi-colon rather than comma?
• "dive bombing, level bombing, ground strafing " - can you wiki-link these to relevant articles? I have no idea what level bombing is
• "empennage" - don't think you should use terms like this (even wiki-linked) without briefly explaining them in-line in the article
• "flights revealed tail flutter to be a problem. During high speed " - colon rather than full stop/period?
• "The engine sounds were a unique, rather quiet "whuffle," - Whuffle isn't a word. Might make sense to those who have heard it, but as someone who hasn't, this is meaningless. Would it be possible to get a soundclip maybe?
• " (Interestingly, the bomb could not be removed and for the duration of the war, aircraft had to go over it every time they took off.)" - sounds like an urban legend. cite?
• "The reasons for frequent engine failures were due to failing " - reason is that, not reason is due to or reason is because
• Military operators - perhaps this should be split into main operators/purchasers and other misc uses - a single craft used for testing/evaluation (UK)_ hardly counts as an oiperator, neither does a country with a single captured plane (Italy).
• "P-38s in Popular Culture" - I loathe these sections. Why must everything be related to popular culture. A link from films using the plane to the plane article I can understand - the other direction makes no sense
• General characteristics - given all the variants, perhaps it could be made clearer which these specs are for?

Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rockfall

• I like the way you've bolded each type number as they come up - that's a suprisingly effective means of keeping track and referring the to the table at the side.
• "Nothing came of this conversion, either." - substantiate this? The tone of this sentence is also slightly less academic than the rest of the article.
• "Oddballs" - Could this not be "miscellaneous others"? Oddballs is again quite colloquial.
• The reference list runs from endnotes to a bibliography with no dividers. This is a style point, but it looks messy.
• Overall though, it's a very tight article. Thumbs up. Rockfall 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

This article covers a major and very timely topic, and is long overdue for some recognition. It was nominated once for FA back in 2004 but was not approved, and has had extensive reorganization and rewriting since then. The topic is a large one, so there is a {{Knights Templar}} template which spokes out to many sub-articles such as History of the Knights Templar and Knights Templar legends. However, for now, I'd like to focus on a Peer Review of simply the main "hub" article, to see what is necessary to get it to Good Article status first, and then the rest of the articles can flow from that. Thanks in advance for any help and comments, Elonka 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not a bad start, but a number of areas to work on:

• The article has been excessively trimmed down, I think; it's only around 20K, at present. Given how much material there is to cover, I would suggest expanding it by as much as a factor of two.
• The level of citation isn't really adequate here yet; see WP:MILHIST#CITE.
• Can {{Infobox military unit}} be used more-or-less gracefully here?
  • Good idea! Done. --Elonka 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Too many external links; most do not add additional information beyond that which is available on Wikipedia, or should be used as sources.
  • Merged. --Elonka 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• The "See also" section should be eliminated, if possible.
  • Gone. --Elonka 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin 22:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ALR

I think that there is certainly a good basis there, and without going through the whole portfolio I'll say that it left me with more questions than it answered. Glancing at the other titles I'm not sure that I'd have found the answers elsewhere.

I'd agree with Kirill that you have space to increase this overview content, I think it's a little slim. You could cover the financial arrangements in more depth if you can source it, as an example.

I'd also agree that you need to find a bit more in terms of supporting evidence, particularly with regard to the political impact of the order.

Some of the language isn't very encyclopedic, but I imagine that a good beating with the sourcing hammer will sort that out.

One niggle that struck me straight away was the opening paragraph only talks about the white mantle yet later you talk about different robes for the different bodies within the order. You might want to be more specific in the opening paragraph and then amplify later.

Fixed. --Elonka 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

ALR 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

Good start, but a few points:

• "they were both monks and soldiers" - I know its a small disparity but I'm not sure that they weren technically monks. Monasticism (per wikipedia) is " the religious practice in which one renounces worldly pursuits in order to fully devote one's life to spiritual work". Hardly accurate here, plus they didn't live in a monastery. Ergo, not monks. Religios order, yes. Monks, no.
• "could be considered the foundation of modern banking". Weasel words. Find a cite saying it IS considered as foundation of modern banking, or remove it
• "They were one of the best trained and disciplined fighting units of their day" - Many statements like this needing cites
• "After Jerusalem was lost to Saladin" - can you explain this in-line? Perhaps "taken by force by Muslim general Saladin" or whatever might explain it better to users not familiar with the crusades
• "Grand Masters" - are any more of the ranks known? If so, perhaps they could eb listed here rather than just the head honcho
• There's some odd image placement that needs clearing up. Try to keep images perhaps consistently on the right rather than opposite one another or floating loose in the middle
• You say they were set up to protect pilgrims. OK, did they succeed? How did they get the finances initially to do this? Were they effective? Did they have any rivals doing the same thing? What routes did they protect pilgrims on? Would they travel in groups of 1 or 2? Or in massive troops of 100+ or even 1000+ troops at a time (ie armed convoys)? Did they have a set route like a bus timetable or was it an on-demand service? Would they fight in pitched battles to take over territory? Or just guard convoys through dangerous territory without an effort to take that territory? As someone else mentioned above, I am left feeling a lot of my questions are unanswered.
• You list knights and sergeants (both mounted) but no footsoldiers. Are you certain? Espceially given the photo at the top shows a solider on foot.
• DaVinci Code and other nonsense - would be very tempted to remove all this as unencylopedic nonsense. The focus should be the historical facts, not the modern rubbish. I just finished up an article on Roman military campaigns, without making reference to "as seen in Gladiator", I don't think the modern TV or fiction has a place here either, its amateurish. You should concentrate on the facts - if you have to bring something up only to point out it is innaccurate or fictional, IMO it shouldn't be there in the first place. I don't beleive everything must be related to modern popular culture!
• One of your refs is "Knights Templar Catholic Encyclopedia entry" - is this a wikipedia clone? If so, it is bad policy to cite it.
• All in all, I think more honest straightforward research from reputable texts is needed, and myths of popular culture de-emphasised or removed. Wikipedia is at its best when it gives straightforward facts and good analysis, and at its worst when all it list is modern myths and po-trivia.

Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Qp10qp

It's an interesting article, and much better than many Wikipedia medieval history articles. The article could certainly do with being much longer: the way to do that, I feel, is for the text to explain or note more details as it goes along, so that terms of reference aren't so often left for the reader to provide. The following passage, which I fear is a piece of bad history, is a case in point:

Already deeply in debt to the Templars, on Friday, October 13, 1307 (a date incorrectly linked to the origin of the Friday the 13th legend), Philip had many French Templars simultaneously arrested, charged with numerous heresies, and tortured until they "confessed." This action released Philip from his obligation to repay his loans. King Philip also pressured the church to take action against the Templars. When a pope refused, Philip had him kidnapped or executed, until a pope to his liking was named to the position. This finally resulted in the installment of Pope Clement V, a childhood friend of Philip's.

The article rather simply ties Philip IV's move against the Templars to a need for money, but there were also complex political and ecclesiastical dimensions to that event. Adding that Philip also pressured the Church to act against the Templars is putting the cart after the horse: the order in which facts are presented makes it appear as if Clement V was not appointed until after the arrests, but Clement became pope in 1305 and the arrests took place in 1307. "When a pope refused" is therefore chronologically misplaced, since I presume it refers to Benedict XI, who died in 1304. If Benedict needs to be brought into this (and I don't know the details of interchanges between him and Philip about the Templars), then he should be named and the events surrounding his death described and sourced ("When a pope refused, Philip had him kidnapped or executed" cries out for references). But my impression of the death of Benedict has always been that it resulted from Benedict's attempt to continue the controversial policies of his predecessor, Boniface VIII, rather than anything to do with the Templars. And we can't be sure that those who may have been responsible were operating on direct orders of Philip (all these ifs, buts, and mays are tedious, I know, but they require acknowledging in a history article).

By the way, the whole story of the arrest, persecution, and abolition of the Templars is a vivid and fascinating one. The article could with advantage quadruple the space given to it, in my opinion.

qp10qp 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, good catch on the Clement timeline, thanks. Fixed. Other expansion continues. --Elonka 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Petercorless

I added more explicit mention of the Cross of St. George, and more regarding the historical/literary tie-in to the legends of the Holy Grail.

You might want to mention more regarding their total numbers over time, or their numbers present at some of their battles, where it can be ascertained. Focus more on their military organization. --Petercorless 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the "Popular Culture" section, I would have hoped their appearance in Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe would have been cited over a video game. While we generally do not want to have too many popular culture references, this is definitely an article that could use some more salient cultural references. --Petercorless 01:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

AHS Centaur

The article on AHS Centaur was promoted to Featured Article status just short of two years ago. In that time, there have been changes to the article, plus alterations to and tightening of the FA criteria. I would like to know if the article still meets the FA criteria, and if not, what needs to be done. -- saberwyn 08:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference:

• The previous peer review (from February 2007) is here.
• The A class review (from May 2007) is here.
• The Featured Article Candidate discussion (which resulted in the article's promotion to FA in June 2007) is here.

the ed17

• Comment - I've just read through the entire article, and I am amazed that it is in such good shape for a 2-year old FA. However, I have a major query: at the end of the "Attacker" section, it seems to imply/say that Nakagawa might not have been the attacker (as there was not enough evidence. However, the rest of the article, namely the "Reasons for attack" section, advances the viewpoint that Nakagawa was the commander. If this was intentional, I apologize, but just a thought. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nakagawa was the commander of I-177 at the time of the attack, but that submarine was one of three that were in the area at the time and could have attacked Centaur. In the immediate aftermath (during the war crimes tribunals), there wasn't enough evidence to prove which of these submarines was responsible. The publication of the War History Series in 1979 indicated that I-177, with Nakagawa commanding, was the responsible submarine, and all of the sources on the attack I have seen accept this as fact.

That said, any suggestions on how it could be made clearer? -- saberwyn 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that information (that Nakagawa was almost certainly the commander) could be added at the end of the "Attacker" section? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the "Attacker" section, partly to make the identifying of Nakagawa clearer, and partly because I think that section could be a little better structured. It will take me a little while because I don't have access to some of the sources used at the moment. I'll notify here when its done. -- saberwyn 07:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The "Attacker" section has been rewritten, and tweakes have been made to the "Reasons for Attack" section. Hopefully this clarifies things. -- saberwyn 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

I've formated the citations. I'll look at the prose more carefully soon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Guyinblack25

Quite an informative article, and one that looks to have stood the test of time. I haven't finished reading the article, but here are the issues which stood out to me.

• Terms like keel, stern, and draft (hull) should be wikilinked for readers unfamiliar with the topic, such as myself.
• Per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images, images should not be left aligned directly under level 3 headings to prevent a break between the heading and the prose. I would either right align them or move them a paragraph or two down closer to the most relevant text.
• This is more a preferred style issue, but there are several instances where consecutive sentences both use the same citation. I've always tried consolidating them to cover groups of sentences. That's just me though.
• The "Military reaction" section starts with a single sentence paragraph. I'd integrate it with the following paragraph.
• The first sentence of "Official protests" is a bit confusing with its comma usage. The list of groups involved in the consultation is the culprit. It might benefit from splitting the sentence in two.

I'll finish up tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

In order

1. Examples given linked at first appearance in the text.
2. Images dropped down or moved elsewhere in the article.
3. I'm the opposite... I prefer attaching citations to every sentance so that readers know that that particular sentance can be verified by that particular citation.
4. Problem is, the first sentance describes the general reaction from military personnel, while the subsequent paragraph describes a reaction to the attack by the military as an organisation, and it doesn't seem right to strap that sentance to the front one of one. Thoughts?
5. Done. How does it read now?

Looking forward to the rest of your observations. -- saberwyn 23:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Round two-

• I'm no military expert, but I don't see much difference between the reaction of an organization and the reaction of its members. They're different levels of military, but still military. I'd say the amount of overlap outweighs the differences. That's just me though.
  The only other suggestion I have is to expand on the content of the servicemen's reaction. One or two more sentences would be all that's needed (if there's any available).
• Under the "Reasons for attack" section, second sentence of the second paragraph, I believe a semi-colon should be used instead of a colon. "...until reaching the Great Barrier Reef:; her course keeping..."
• Under the "Nakagawa unaware" section, should 'unfortunate accident' use double quotes instead of single? I assume this might be another difference of styles.
• Under "Memorials", I'd wikilink cairn.
• I would reorder the "Memorials" section chronologically.
• After reading the whole article, the lead feels a bit off. Specifically how it jumps right into its attack, then summarizes the article. I don't really have any suggestions, and assume its more just a difference of style.

Quite a fine article. It was a pleasure to read and very informative. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Round two replies

1. Here's an example of what I mean. You and your colleages walk into work after a good weekend, to find that your workplace has been destroyed, equipment vandalised, etc. You and your colleages are likely to be angered and annoyed. Your company is likely to review security proceedures and contact the police to begin an investigation. That said, I like the idea of adding a few more lines to evolve it into a paragraph, and am hunting for possible sources.
2. Agreed, done.
3. In my understanding of Australian English, single quotes are for emphasis and double quotes are for quotations. Having read the relevant sentace, I don't think there should be any quote marks at all as it could be intended as scare quotes (that may have been my intention when I originally wrote it, but if so, its not appropriate per NPOV), and have removed them.
4. Done
5. No answer at this moment in time, need to have a think about it Done, how does it look now? -- saberwyn 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
6. The reason the attack is mentioned straight off the bat is that it is the key reason why the ship is notable. Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#First_sentence, the subject of the article and why it is notable should be clearly identified as early as possible.

-- saberwyn 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I only saw two other minor issues:

• Should this be semicolon instead of a colon? "...by other Allied personnel:; United States Army Air Force General..."
• I would add a {{-}} tag at the end of the "Memorials" section so the picture doesn't run into the footnotes.

Article looks great, like it could weather a couple more years. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Saberwyn-closing

I'm closing this peer review as I will be unable to react to suggestions after this weekend for about a month. I would like to thank everyone who has expressed a view here, and hope the changes made to the article are satisfatory enough for AHS Centuar to retain FA status. Any further observations or comments are more than welcome at the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Toyota War

I originally thought of creating this article just to alleviate the length of Chadian-Libyan conflict; but then I started working at it, trying to make it a good article. This has made me think of the possibility of attempting to make it the first GA in Chad-related topics. All criticisms will be immensely appreciated; in particular, I'm concerned with the prose, as its not my first language, and if there are any repetitions in the exposition. Also, I'm not certain about the lead.--Aldux 21:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not bad at all. Some things that need work, though:

• {{Infobox Military Conflict}} needs to be added.
  • I added this with basic information I could find in the article. Needs to be filled out. - Francis Tyers · 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Are there any images available here? At a minimum, some maps would be very useful.
• The lead should, indeed, be longer; two or three paragraphs would probably suffice to provide a stand-alone summary of the article.
• The prose isn't bad, per se, but some copyediting by native speakers would probably be helpful.

Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought the images issue up at Talk:Chadian-Libyan conflict. Commons has nothing of use save the garishly colored Aozou Strip image which I added to that article six days ago. Picaroon 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make a lead that presents a summary of the main events.--Aldux 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written down an expanded lead, and given some context.--Aldux 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon

• I was noticing the same things as Kirill, and have begun acting upon them. Seeing as there is a lack of other images, I've added the Chadian and Libyan flags.
• There are also some things which are probably just differences in sentence structure between Italian and English, mainly the placement of phrases - if you check my recent changes, you'll see I've rearranged some sentences.
• Seeing as I was the one who suggested you split it off in the first place, I guess I'm to blame for this: there are places where not enough context is provided, or too much familiarity is assumed. I've wikilinked several things already and mentioned who Gaddafi was to try to rectify this. Picaroon 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Picaroon. I'm not very coonvinced about the flags; there not specific enough, a map, even general, would be probably better. And yes, I keep forgetting that Chad - ahem (euphemism coming) - is not one of the best known countries in the world. I'll try to add some context.--Aldux 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Francis Tyers

• I added the {{Infobox Military Conflict}} — needs to be filled out.
• Images would be a blessing. If not, maps would be great.
• Do we have the name of the war/conflict in the languages/POV of Chad and Libya?
• Stub Hassan Djamous, Jamahiriya Guard,
• Prose needs tightening in places. - Francis Tyers · 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written a pitiful little stub on Djamous, but Google doesn't turn up enough for this Jamahiriya Guard. Picaroon 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps it has another name? - Francis Tyers · 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, I changed its spelling from "Jamahiriyyah Guard" because that's a less widely used variant of Jamahiriya (Arabic for "mass-state," IIRC). I guess we should leave it to Aldux, seeing as he has access to the book which mentioned it. Picaroon 23:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Jamahiriya Guard is mentioned by Metz and Pollack as a sort of pretorian guard, recruited only amongst Gaddafi's tribal clan. I'll try to work on it, maybe it's called often in the west "Repubblican Guard" or "Presidential Guard" (it may have been disbanded; my info regards the 1980s).--Aldux 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the infobox, I can add some other info not contained yet in the article, and will expand Djamous. As for the Libyan or Chadian name of the conflict, I strongly doubt an estabilished name, as Libya has just removed any memory of this war, while Chad is too small to have developed a specific pov on the question.--Aldux 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written a small stub on the Jamahiriyyah Guard. It seems that Fran was correct in suspectng an alternative name was more commonly used, and the name tends to be Revolutionary Guard.--Aldux 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, looks like a good stub. - Francis Tyers · 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures / Photographs

Here are some links to photographs — any chance of having a fair use rationale for any of them? - Francis Tyers · 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Libyan Wars, 1980-1989, Part 3
• Libyan Wars, 1980-1989, Part 6
• Strategy Game
• Another one
• Chadian troops reconquer northern Chad (with watermarks — numbers from '2' to '27' at the end) Thumbs

Should be easy to get at least a couple, using {{historicalphoto}}; they're pretty much all non-reproducible. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye. I guess its just down to which ones to pick. I'll look around for more and post them here then we can make a choice of the most appropriate. You're right they're non-reproducible, it would be great to find some PD-US-gov, but I think it highly unlikely :( - Francis Tyers · 23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd focus on the photographs that actually show combat action; they're likely to be a bit more meaningful that the generic French-plane-flying ones. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Preferably one from each side. - Francis Tyers · 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Something like this one would be good — no watermark and it shows the namesake of the war. - Francis Tyers · 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never been any good with images - but if some can be used, maybe even the planes may be helpful for the connected Opération Epervier and Opération coup de poing. If some image could be found also for the Chadian-Libyan conflict article, it would be great, as it too will probably be passed through a peer review.--Aldux 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)

Ok, I added one to the infobox. As fair as fair use (*cough* *spit*) goes, I think we have a fair claim to this one. It would be nice to remove the black border, but I'm not sure if that counts as a derivative work. If anyone wants to find a photo for the Libyan side that would be good. - Francis Tyers · 09:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

BanyanTree

Specific points

• What is the CDR? Also, please add that article to the disambiguation page CDR.
• "France answered with a second airstrike" - what was the first airstrike? needs context
• "affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - perception of who? international or domestic observers?

General points

• There is a definite need for more background over why this war is happening and what happened in the previous phases. One tightly written paragraph may be enough.
• I've copyedited a bit and added the garish map mentioned by Picaroon above. There are a couple of editors who have created battle maps in the past whom may be willing to create custom maps if you approach them and point out sources.
• Were there any economic or humanitarian effects, e.g. refugees and IDPs?

Otherwise, I think it is quite good. I dislike massive articles greatly and this gives a reasonable amount of detail (though I would like more context and operational-level detail) in a reasonable length. - BanyanTree 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I found what the CDR is via a google search for cdr chad libya - it's something called the Democratic Revolutionary Council. I'll add that to the dab page. Picaroon 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank everybody for the fantastic work done; I would never have expected the reviews to arrive so fast, and with so many edits to the article thanks! :-) It's a bit late here, so I'll only briefly awnser.

Regarding the specific points raised by BT,

• Picaroon is correct regarding the CDR; I'll create an article on the miltia commanded by Ahmat Acyl.
• Oops, the first one is the 1986 Opération coup de poing. As this article was originally just a section of a bigger article, what before was obvious is not anymore so.
• "affected the perception of Libya as a significant regional military power" - shall change to "affected the international perception of Libya as a significant regional military power"

As for the general points

• You're write, I'll try a paragraph lifted from the material in Chadian-Libyan conflict
• As for the maps, this French website has some that would be very interesting If I could obtain them [[10]]. On wikipedia there's this meeting between Habré and Miterrand during the Toyota War [11], and maybe this map of Chad could be useful [12], as many of the towns mentioned on the article are there (Aouzou, Faya-Largeau, Fada, the capital, the Libyan base of Maaten as-Sara)
• Regarding humanitarian effects, I know very little, mainly through a few hints given by Nolutshungu. Remember that the war to retake northern Chad took only 3 months, and that northern Chad is all desert (i.e., very few inhabitants).
  • Fair enough, though a sentence describing the environment and terrain (and lack of inhabitants) would be nice for the intro. - BanyanTree 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• What do you mean by "more operational-level detail"?--Aldux 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

By operational level detail, I think he's referring to details of specific skirmishes/battles, ie formations, human losses, etc... I suspect that there won't be much information on these, because it seems unlikely to have written down in detail. Picaroon 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do have some of this sort of info, especially from Pollack, but I didn't want to go too much in detail because I was projecting to write Battle of Bir Kora, Battle of Ouadi Doum, Battle of Aouzou, Battle of Maaten as-Sarra and reference/expand Battle of Fada.--Aldux 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A brief summary of the course of the war, with links to the battle would be great. - BanyanTree 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say "a brief summary of the war", you mean a summary of the events already present in the article in the lead? As for the links to the battles, sure.--Aldux 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06

No mention, even a short one, of the UN Aouzou Strip Observer Group - should be at least mentioned briefly. Buckshot06 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mozambican War of Independence

I've been working on this article for a long time (Oct 12 I started it), and as I'm still fine tuning my capabilities as a historian and a wikipedian, it's been quite a hard slog. References have been hard to come by, but over the past few months I have built them up as I have managed to find them, or pieces of information from them. Very recently, I uncovered an excellent account of the conflict by the United States Marine Corps for the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, which was invaluable for facts relating to how the conflict unfolded. an account of events is now in place (parallels to Vietnam and 1st Indochina war are impressive) as well as sections on related events. Expansion perhaps needed in the latter sections, and the prose may be a little difficult to follow in places. One main issue is linking in the carnation revolution section with the rest. The revolution was both party caused by the conflict, and it resulted in the independence, and I'm not sure if i have worded that particular part as best I could. Anyway, I've just come off the back of a lot of work on it (though only 187 edits to it, I don't think that’s a fair representation! :D) and am very interested in seeing how I did (will probably be picked up on numerous things that I've missed or messed up on, but that's okay!) SGGH 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews guys, very helpful. I've got a couple of questions about one or two points so will copy them down here and tag my questions next to each one.

• "Notes" - these are actually "Cites" or "Citations" in your article, not footnotes, would rename I have a note in there also, and many other articles have "notes" as the heading, are you sure I should do this?

• Actually, it seems like there is some disagreement over this. Don't forget any comments given in a review are merely personal opinion and you are not obliged to entertain them - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• The FRELIMO forces are given as "Strength 15,000, Casualties 25,000" This is obviously impossible. Split into military and civilian casualties to avoid this contradiction, if that is what accounts for the difference the first note states that 15'000 was the strength at the largest point, with 25'000 the total casualties. Frelimo received a constant flow of recruits, particularly in the later stages as their 'hearts and minds' campaign bore fruit

• I don't like this way of numbering, since you are given figures from two different time periods in that case. Strength and casualty figures should be given from the same time period, preferably at the peak of the conflict, IMO -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you, unfortunaly its all I've been able to find, I will keep a look out though!

• A number of the references used seem questionable (Britannica? Encarta? Amazon? Wikipedia?!); see WP:MILHIST#SOURCE. not sure abotu the amazon one, have removed it, embarasingly I don't remember why it was there it doesnt site to anything. The wikipedia ref was there because it was info from another article on here, but unfortunatly that article didnt cite an external reference for it so I am a bit stumped as to what to do here? and the encyclopaedia britannica was just used to get some background info on Frelimo
• Much of the "Background to the conflict" section is entirely uncited. unfortunatly much of the background information came from wikipedia articles on the history of mozambique, which was uncited, but I can easily supplement with citable material, will do so shortly
• "Frelimo lodged a protest with the United Nations about the project, and much foreign financial support was withdrawn" Was this definitely causative? It would be unlike the UN to influence foreign funding ont he say-so of a guerilla group. those two are not particulatly linked, just a badly worded sentence, have attempted to fix

• Better now, thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please continue with your opinions! I have implemented a number of them, and will work on the others shortly, many thanks. SGGH 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to write a lead paragraph, but I confess I'm not too sure what I should put into it, I would appreciate some help in this area particularly. SGGH 14:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've kept at it but am not very happy with it, I would appreciate some help. SGGH 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I saw that you had implemented many of my suggestions, so thank you. I think the article is looking in great shape - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, they were all excellent, I wish I could have implemented them further. Please give me any other ideas you have. SGGH 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, but a number of points that could still use some work:

• Much of the "Background to the conflict" section is entirely uncited.
• "The" should generally be omitted from section names.
• Footnotes should be placed after punctuation, not before it.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated.
• A number of the references used seem questionable (Britannica? Encarta? Amazon? Wikipedia?!); see WP:MILHIST#SOURCE.
• The notes should probably include page numbers, no?
• "Bibliography" should be renamed to "Further reading".
• The lead should be expanded to two/three paragraphs.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "Frelimo (Frente de Libertação de Moçambique)" - acronyms are conventionally capitalised
• "While from a military standpoint the Portuguese held the upper hand during the conflict with guerrilla forces, due to a coup d'état in Portugal, Mozambique succeeded in achieving independence on June 25, 1975, after 470 years as a Portuguese colony." Too long. Change to "From a military standpoint the Portuguese regular army held the upper hand during the conflict against the Mozambique guerrilla forces. However, due to a coup d'état in Portugal, Mozambique succeeded in achieving independence on June 25, 1975, after 470 years as a Portuguese colony."
• Your lead is too short, expand to 2-3 paras, summarising the rest of the article contents
• The FRELIMO forces are given as "Strength 15,000, Casualties 25,000" This is obviously impossible. Split into military and civilian casualties to avoid this contradiction, if that is what accounts for the difference
• Entire article needs many, many more cites
• "with the superior Royal Navy" - there are or have been lots of Royal Navys, would disambig, rephrasing to "with the superior British Royal Navy"
• "During the 19th century, in an attempt to avoid a naval conflict with the superior Royal Navy, Portugal adjusted the borders of her colony and the modern nation of Mozambique was created" I don't understand how adjusting borders avoids conflict with the navy. Please explain this in the article.
• "resisted encroachment by the European Power" Think you mean "Powers" plural.
• The infobox mentions "Portuguese mistreatments of the colony" as a cassus belli, but the article mentions only "disproportionate number of white Portuguese with well paid careers compared to the poverty of the majority of the African population" which doesn't seem deliberate mistreatment so much as inevitablility of the European workers probably being more highly trained, being concentrated in urban areas, and doing different jobs.
• "Originally, the United States offered support to the nationalist groups in Africa" Why did it do this? This could be explained.
• "The nationalist groups in Mozambique, like those across Africa during the period, received training an equipment from the Soviet Union[4]." Think it is worth linking to ana rticle on this phenomenon if it exists, these were known as proxy wars f the cold war.
• "At the war's outset, Frelimo had little hope for a military victory, with a mere 7000 combatants against a far larger Portuguese force. Its hope instead lay in a war of attrition " This is nonsensical - a war of attrition is specifically a war in which the side with the most troops wins. I don't think you mean of war of attrition.
• It is worth indicating early on the percentage or degree of support for the guerillas, especially since you mention there were more native troops in the pro-Portuguese army than with the guerillas.
• "the attackers took full advantage of the monsoon season in order to evade pursuit" I think this needs explaining. How does this aid the insurgents? because the heavier vehicles of the portuguese regular army get bogged down? Whatever the reason, it shuold be explained
• "the insurgents were free to travel through the indigenous population" How well received were they? Seizure of foods etc fro indigenous populations by guerillas is very common historically. Did the indigenous population harbour them through support or out of fear?
• "High calibre machine guns" - aren't these normally called "large calibre" rather than "high calbire"? High calibre means good, large calibre means big bullets
• "Frelimo lodged a protest with the United Nations about the project, and much foreign financial support was withdrawn" Was this definitely causative? It would be unlike the UN to influence foreign funding ont he say-so of a guerilla group.
• "Mine psychosis " What is mine psychosis? Its not wikilinked or expained.
• "Portuguese sponsered " should be "Portuguese-sponsored "
• " Carnation Revolution" - mentioned several times without being explained
• "An attack which illustrated the role of the Mozambican conflict in this unrest was the attack on the Portuguese ship Niassa" - clumsy, change to "The attack on the Portuguese ship Niassa illustrated the role of the Mozambican conflict in this unrest "
• "Notes" - these are actually "Cites" or "Citations" in your article, not footnotes, would rename

Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the MoS, the section name should be "Notes" or "Footnotes", either way. (They are, of course, footnotes, just not discursive ones; c.f. WP:FOOTNOTE.) Kirill Lokshin 13:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Worth reading tips. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really too interested in stated policy, generally, since it was written by A.N.Other editor at some point and is fallible. In this case, it causes problems do call it notes since it fails to differntiate between plain citations and narrative asides. A person might be interested in reading the one type and not the other. See Roman-Spartan War for an excellent way of distringuishing the two that is far better than simply lumping everything under a "Notes" header, regardless of whether the latter is "official" policy - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, though, the distinction seems moot, since there aren't any content notes; there's no real point in renaming the existing section to "Citations" if you're not intending to introduce a different section containing "Notes".

(It's worth pointing out, of course, that the style used in Roman-Spartan War is by no means the preferred method of structuring the article; it's just as valid—and rather more common—to combine both types of notes in a single section.) Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't agree with the R-S War articles method, but thats just me, such a thick and heavy notes section may as well be a normal section of the article. With only one none-citation note in the Mozambique War article, I am thinking it might be okay the way it is? SGGH 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF

I must congratulate you first for your dedication. I remember your request regarding a book sitting in the New York Public Library a while ago. I must note that the article uses almost exclusively the book in question for citations and notes. Relying the edition of an important and large article on one book is not appropriate. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the details don't come from that book, I only used a couple, and one of those was cited in another work and contained the info I needed. If you're refering to the report by the War College of the USMC by 'Westfall, William C., Jr., Major' I know I am overly reliant, but due to the difficulty I had finding sources unfortunatly I didn't have much choice, and I've tried to only get specific facts from it, rather than impressions and ideas of the author himself. SGGH 13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rmky87

Please fix the naked URLs. They look absolutely gross with a two-column format.--Rmky87 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Naked URL's? SGGH 12:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done what I think you meant, making sure all the citations aren't straight URLs? SGGH 12:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Word to the wise: the FAC commentators don't like it when you don't include retrieval dates.--Rmky87 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The date I found it? I can do that, I think SGGH 12:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the article could make GA? SGGH 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you have a better chance if the retrieval date thing is taken care of. Also, not only is Encarta, which is another encyclopedia, cited, but it is not a named ref. Named refs look like this: <ref name="blurg">blah</ref> or <ref name=blurg>blah</ref> which means that when you want to reuse a reference, you just type <ref name="blurg"/> or <ref name=blurg/>. Your chances of making GA as is are much higher than your chances of making FA as is.

Oh, and did you know that Mozambique-Insurgency Against Portugal, 1963-1975 is available online?

• Takes second look at article*

Oh, I see that's already in External links. If I were you, I would take that link of there and incorporate it into the Notes section. The first time I saw that, I thought I was looking at a book with no ISBN. Or page numbers. I'd work on these things before even considering going through GAN.--Rmky87 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

have name refed the encarta links and moved that book into refs section as advised. SGGH

It has made GA status. thanks for your helps guys! SGGH 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese castle

I have just finished a significant expansion and renovating of this article which I created in May 2005. I would really like to be able to hold this up as an example of my best work, since it is (a) largely my own work, with, for the most part only images and some minor stylistic/grammatical changes made by other editors, (b) a broad, important, and central topic, (c) one that is particularly non-esoteric and of general interest. Any suggestions anyone can make to improving this article would be most appreciated.

I've tried not to go overboard on detail, as it really doesn't need to describe every single important development in architecture, nor every military tactical/strategic/technological advancement - it's meant to be a thorough overview, and further details can be explained in separate articles (e.g. I may be creating at some point in the near future separate articles on different styles of Japanese roofing).

1. Are there sentences that are awkward or hard to understand?
2. Are there points that are superfluous or redundant?
3. Points that are missing?
4. How does the thing flow overall? - this is a problem I always have trouble with in my actual academic papers: paragraphs that don't flow nicely into one another thematically.

Thanks, all. LordAmeth 10:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's

It's certainly very informative, though I think it's to have only two sentences for "Japanese castles in Korea". That should certainly be expanded, if only into a few paragraphs. As it is, it just looks like an after-thought. The pictures are nice, but I think should be spaced out more - there's a bit of a gap in the middle of the article between pictures.

The article also needs more proof-reading. At the start I noticed the following:

"Matsue Castle is probably the only castle in Japan to have never been attacked or suffer any damage, and what remains today is of the original structure, built in 1611."

This implies that Matsue Castle is the only castle to have ever been attacked! Maybe you or another contributor meant the only castle still in Japan that wasn't rebuilt but actually attacked? Obviously this needs to be corrected to make it clearer.

Other somewhat lazy phrases such as "Trees and the like were cleared" are a shame. Why not just say "trees and other foliage"?

I also think the "Architecture and defenses" section should be broken up - it's just one very long piece of text at the moment, which makes it difficult to read.

Grammar & spelling - American English? I'm biased, but I always like to see English-English, unless it's a US article.

One small thing are the references - I think they need to be changed a bit with dates at the end and titles put in italics. Also fuller descriptions of the web-links.

This is a short peer-review, but I hope it's given you a few pointers to start with. I'm sure that more people will provide feedback in due course. John Smith's 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think you're misreading the sentence about Matsue. It does not say that it was the only castle to be attacked - in fact, it says just the opposite, that Matsue was never attacked, and is thus completely intact as it was originally built. (Which, actually, isn't true, and I need to look into which other castles share this characteristic.)

No problem.

• As for references, I know I'm not following a standard as set by Harvard or Oxford or anything, but it contains all the necessary information. I can change it if you'd like, if you think it necessary, but I will point out that it is quite standard to underline, and not italicize, book titles, so as to distinguish them from article titles.

It isn't "necessary" given you're not going for FA status or anything similar. But I think the Author, title (place of publication, date of publication) format looks better personally.

• As for language, I can add a few 'u's here and there, but I'm afraid I wouldn't know how else to make it more "British English", and I'd rather just write naturally than worry about every little detail of which words or phrases are Americanisms or how to change them.LordAmeth 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just something to keep in mind if someone were to come along and make it British English. Also I hope you'll pick up on the structual point I made. John Smith's 14:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, you already have! Thanks, it looks a lot nicer now. :) John Smith's 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This is quite well-written. A few points to work on, though:

• Citations! (But I'm sure you're aware of this issue already. ;-)
• "While European castles stereotypically have only one main wall" - this isn't really true; see concentric castle. Indeed, the bulk of that section applies equally well to more advanced European castles (e.g. Krak des Chevaliers).
• "Palisades lined the top of the castle's walls, and patches of trees, usually pines, symbolic of eternity or immortality" - the end of the sentence seems to be missing.
• The "Famous castles" and "See also" sections ought to be eliminated by incorporating the links into the text. If a separate list of prominent castles is desired, it'd probably be better off in a floated box off to the side somewhere.
• Are there any diagrams of the castle layout available?

Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking into finding layout diagrams that are useful & valuable, and copyright-free. LordAmeth 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember you can use the "fair use" copyright tag if you can't find any "free" images. John Smith's 14:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

Really interesting article, I knew nothing about Japanese castles at all prior to reading this. Some questions though:

• "Japanese castles (城, shiro?) were large fortresses" - they only built large ones? doesn't that make all the ones they built actually average size by definition? I think this needs qualifying or explaining
  • Done.
• "This was especially true during the later Sengoku, or 'Warring States' period, when many of these castles were first built. However, many were rebuilt, either during the Sengoku or Edo periods" - if the Sengoku period was "later", how come they were rebuilt after that in the Edo period?? Doesn't that make warring states and Sengoku periods earlier? ie if you use "later" (a comparative adjective) you should probably state later than what
  • The intention was not to imply that Sengoku was "later" than another period, but to refer to the later portion of (within) the Sengoku period. I've changed the wording a bit. I hope it's clearer now.

• Ah ok, yes, much clearer now.

• Were they used in the same way as European castles to guard strategic points? Article seems to indicate they were only used as daimyo's bases in towns.
  • The very first paragraph states that they were, though I understand that it's not exactly emphasized or repeated throughout much of the article. I've expounded upon that a bit at the beginning of the "History" section - is it good now, or needs more work?

• no, that's fine now

• "remain extant in their original forms, having suffered any damage from siege or other threats". I think you mean not having suffered any damage, or having suffered no damage
  • Right. Thanks.
• " the rise of the samurai class towards the end of the period, and various disputes between noble families jostling for power and influence in the Imperial Court brought about further developments" - why did those things spur on castle development and what developments did they bring about?
  • I have tried to expand on the reasons and ways in which this change was so dramatic - samurai (essentially knights) were previously in the service of the Imperial Court and large battles were all but unheard of within the clans; what little fighting there was was against rebels, and outsiders (the natives, or other countries). How is this section now?

• Again, this is fine now, none of these were big problems, just required a bit of tweaking as is now done.

• "Unlike in Europe, where the advent of cannon spelled the end of the age of castles, Japanese castle-building was spurred, ironically, by the introduction of firearms" I think I would move to immediately after this sentence the reasons given below for why this was so, since it immediately sprang to my mind but I had to sit through another 2 paras to find out why. Even so, if the cannons were rarely used, why was castle building spurred on by them? Needs greater explanation
  • The key point here is the difference between cannon and firearms (muskets). It was the musket, not the cannon, which had a dramatic effect on Japanese tactics in this period. I do, however, need to look again into precisely the danger posed by muskets moreso than flaming arrows that would have spurred castle development.

• Yep, I still think this needs explaining a little better if possible, but I understand this might need looking into further

• "Cannon were rare in Japan due to the expense of obtaining them from foreigners, and the difficulty in casting such weapons themselves" - Why was casting weapons difficult in Japan compared to Europe? Japan would have been closer to China where gunpowder came from, and as is well known from Japanese swords, they didn't lack in metallurgy skills. Why couldn't they make cannons?
  • This is another thing I have to look into to find a reference for and to find a more involved explanation. I do know that the Japanese did not have the proper foundries for it - making swords is not the same scale as making cannon, but I need to look into this deeper.

• There's probably a really good reason for it but I just think it needs explaining.

• "The Sengoku period," is mentioned several times, but not given as a subheaded section as part of the series of periods under the history. why not?
  • Because, in terms of castle development, the first century or so of the Sengoku period was more or less a continuation of the developments of the previous century or so. I can add a sub-heading if you'd like, if you think it'll be clearer and more helpful. The Azuchi-Momoyama period, which is actually a sub-section within Sengoku and not a separate period following it (yes, I know it's confusing, and I'm sorry for that), marks a very significant departure from what came before, and so it gets its own heading.

• I do think since it is mentioned it does need listing even as a subsection or similar, otherwise other readers are going to wonder too.

• "Himeji Castle in Hyōgo Prefecture often substitutes for Edo Castle in film and television jidaigeki." Is this not notable for itself? I would change the image caption to simply "Himeji Castle in Hyōgo Prefecture".
  • Done.
• "Samurai" - these are mentioned several times but I have no idea what they are. Are they like medeival European knights? Are they simple soliders? lords? any men in their own pay? pay for their own equipment or equipped by daimyo? roles?
  • I understand your confusion, and I don't fault you for it, but I do feel that this article is not the place to go into detail about this. Samurai do in fact share many features of the European knight, but while "knight" is akin to a rank (above page and squire, below lord), "samurai" is used to refer both to the warriors in battle, and to the warrior noble class as a whole. Members of this class ranged from the shogun (essentially a military leader who earned his power through military might, not unlike many European kings, e.g. William the Bastard), down to the daimyo (feudal lords), to commanders and mounted warriors, down to footsoldiers, squires and pages. Women of these noble families were "samurai" as well. Samurai warriors for the most part were retainers in service to a given lord (daimyo), and were supplied and equipped by their lord. To not have a lord was highly dishonorable, so the Western conception (if I understand the Western conception right) of being in your own pay, supplying yourself, and fighting for whoever will pay you, was not a common practice in Japan. I hope that clears things up for you - how much of that ought to go into the article, I'm not sure.

• I would treat "samurai" as any other foreign-language word you would use and give it a brief explanation - even if most readers do have an idea of what they are, it will probably be from Hollywood and be very innaccurate. I wouldn't go into great detail, but I would give an inline parenthesised explanation or similar.

• "However, walls were restricted to the castle compound itself; they were never extended around a jōkamachi (castle town)" but the picture below it appears to show a walled town
  • Indeed, castle complexes could get quite large, including within their walls residences for all the lord's retainers, Buddhist temples, various administrative buildings, smithies and workshops - but all of this was meant to serve the lord and the castle, and very few commoners lived or worked within the castle walls. The best example that comes to mind immediately is the White House - it contains offices, residential areas, cafeteria, parking garage, stables, communications center, etc, but anything that does not pertain directly to serving the functions of government or the food & shelter of government officials lies outside the gates, in the rest of Washington.

• OK, I see. Perhaps make it clear the walls surrounded a fortified compound more so than just the castle itself?

• "musha-gaeshi, meaning that they resist infiltration by samurai." Is there a more literal translation? I thought samurai was a Japanese transliteration, but neither "musha" or "gaeshi" is the world "samurai"
  • Musha literally means "martial person", therefore "warrior", while "samurai", like "knight", has more complex origins, and more specific meaning. I'd be happy to add a footnote to the caption explaining the meaning of the term better if you think it appropriate.

• I don't think that it needs explaining in more detail, just that as I suspected, something like "resisting infilitration by armed persons" seems to be a better transliteration than specifically samurai, if I am correct in understanding that not everybody who fought was necessarily a samuarai.

• "All in all" a little unencyclopedic

Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your insights. It's good to hear from someone with little experience in the area, as it reveals the assumptions I've made, and the way it comes across to the average reader. These will be quite helpful towards pruning and finetuning the article. I do wonder, however, how much explanation is too much explanation - after all, this is not the place to go into extensive detail about what samurai are or what the Sengoku period was, right? LordAmeth 09:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made a number of changes, and responded to each of your points in italics, above. Thank you so much for your help in allowing me to see how the article might be viewed by someone who's not experienced in the subject. I look forward to your further suggestions. LordAmeth 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, its always to get help from experts to brush the article up factually and also from users completely unfamiliar with topic so that you can gauge an average reader's comprehension of the article. You've addressed almost all of my concerns, and I think the article looks in great shape. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Edwin Taylor Pollock

I'm really looking for feedback on this article, before finishing it up and submitting it for WP:GA. The subject is an interesting figure, but it's difficult to have a narrative for his life because he did many things which weren't related to each other much. (This is perhaps typical of military biographies.) I am looking for comments on whether I should remove information on his early life or what other areas are missing or need expanded. Of course, any other comments on my grammar or structure (or anything else) are also appreciated.(I am still working on the final section, about his time in the USNO, but that will be done shortly.) JRP 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the issues that it raises, except the questionable use of the word "alledged". Because I am rephrasing a well-cited allegation of the Mau movement against the Naval government, I believe this should be okay. JRP 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice; some general suggestions, in no particular order:

• The lead should eventually be lengthened a bit, to at least two full paragraphs; as it stands, it doesn't provide a very useful summary.
• The prose structure is quite choppy; there are many one-sentence paragraphs that should be pulled into the surrounding blocks of text. I'd also consider merging everything up to the Virgin Islands material into a single section on his early life and career.
• The double footnote numbers are somewhat annoying. Given that you're not really reusing citations very often, I would suggest tolerating a few repeated ones and going for a single combined note at each place in the text (as here, for example) instead.
• The succesion box should be at the very bottom, just above the navigational templates.

Other than that, this looks good. Kirill Lokshin 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've improved the lead a bit, I think. Can you help me to understand better how I should make this?
• I've moved around things as you suggest. I'll try and rework some more of the writing to make it less choppy, also.
• I've eliminated double footnotes, as you suggest.
• Succession box is moved.

How does this look to you now? JRP 02:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better; I think you've dealt with all of the issues now. Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nicely done. Some suggestions for further improvement:

• You start straight away with "Early career". You have almost nothing for his early life, and family background. I would like to know something more about the "man"; not just about the "officer". This is what (or something like that!) Cla68 has called the "human element"!
• "On his return home, the Spanish-American War was heating up and he was transferred back to the USS New York, to see service in Cuba and Puerto Rico, eventually taking part in the Battle of Santiago de Cuba.[6] In January 1900, he was promoted to lieutenant and assigned to the USS Alliance.[7] Over the following year, he was transferred to the USS Dolphin and the USS Buffalo.[8] On board the Buffalo, he returned to the Asiatic Squadron near China and was finally transferred to the USS Brooklyn, the squadron's flagship.[9]" A bit repetitve maybe.
• I see you have the tendency to use a lot in your writing the passive voice. Especially in the first paragraph of "U.S. Virgin Islands" I think you overdo it a bit.
• "This movement, which entailed a nearly three-month work stoppage in the first year, was started over grievances over the quality of the roads in the territory." Maybe you could rephrase.
• "and that the United States Navy prohibited the assembly of Samoan chiefs, who the movement considered the real government of the territory." With which verb is this "that" connected? "Started over"? Can we say "this movement started over ... that ..."? I'm not a native English speaker, so my question is sincere!
• "The movement quickly grew to include several prominent officers of Governor Warren Jay Terhune's staff and culminated in the proclamation by Samuel S. Ripley, an American Samoan born of an American father and a Samoan mother and a large property-holder in the territory, that he was the leader of the legitimate successor government to the pre-1899 Samoa." Maybe "who was" is better than "that he was"? Or maybe split the sentence?--Yannismarou 21:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to work on this, I might not get enough edit-time until Wednesday though. Thanks! JRP 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've made some more changes. I have difficulty with the passive voice and would appreciate any help you can direct me to on the subject. I believe I have reworded things, especially in the American Samoa section, to be more clear. Does it look better to you?
  • As for his personal life, I've had some difficulty finding information. The best info for Pollock comes from the histories of the USVI and AS... and sadly his "personal life" remained behind in Washington. I'll look around for more.
  • I'm considering submitting this to WP:FAC, can you recommend any changes I should look to apply for that? JRP 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The article couls stand in FAC, even as it is now. A more comprehensive approach of his life (e.g. personal life I said) would just be more careful.--Yannismarou 11:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Petercorless

• Caught an "a a" instance and fixed it.
• Put the ships he commanded in the infobox:
  • USS Virginia
  • USS Kearsarge
  • USS Salem
  • USS Alabama
  • USS Hancock
  • USS George Washington
  • USS Oklahoma
• Not sure if we should list "American Samoa" or "United States Naval Observatory" under "commands." --Petercorless 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Did you pull the commands list from the article or do you have a fantastic list someplace? I don't know how to list American Samoa or the USNO either in this infobox. JRP 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just pulled the list from the article. I wasn't sure from your phrasing whether he was given command of the USS Massachusetts when he was promoted to commander, or whether he served under a captain (which seems likely for a BB) so I did not cite that ship in the list of his commands. Consider adding a reciprocal link to this article to the related ship articles that exist. Many of the ships are lacking lists of commanding officers, so you might need to add it as an inline reference. As for listing the Governor and USNO posts, ask on the main Military History project "talk" page to get feedback as to how or whether to list them beside his shipboard commands. --Petercorless 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they're actual military commands (rather than essentially civilian posts that happen to be filled by an officer), then there's no reason why they can't go in the "Commands" field; otherwise, I'd say the "Other jobs" field is probably the most suitable place. Kirill Lokshin 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the news report I cited about the Massachusetts was ambiguous, if I recall correctly. I had the same scratching of the head that you did and then I wrote it the way I did. Not perfect. I was hoping that if you did have a list, it might help me be sure about that one and completeness in general. I don't claim that the list is complete because the civilian press, especially at the entrance to WWI, didn't have as good of reporting. For example, I couldn't find the date he was promoted to captain because I couldn't find the announcement, but at some point he just starts getting referred to as captain. Imperfect, but I believe I have done the best job I can with the resources I have. :/ JRP 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, he was still only a Commander when he took the USS Hancock to the Virgin Islands. Hope that helps a bit. --Petercorless 05:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, in post military service, apparently he went on to become "an instructor at Cranbrook Institute in Bloomfield Hills, Mich". Thought that might be a nice end note, if you can find something other than an ABE books search reference. --Petercorless 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The stuff around his three main accomplishments are fairly unambiguous: USVI, USS George Washington, and American Samoa. He's in the history books, as it were, and there's plenty of data about those things. The rest is primarily from newspapers. I don't believe there are gaps, but it means that I don't have things like promotion dates and the like and "early years" history is somewhat difficult to come by. My comment was that the military provided less data about ship assignments and stuff to the press during the war, so the data I have for that comes from the reports after the war of what he did. And BTW, I've purchased that book about the USNO to flesh out that section. I'll keep researching. JRP 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! --Petercorless 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As requested by two reviewers, I've researched a bit of material for after his retirement. I wasn't able to find anything on what he did before he went into the Navy, unfortunately. Perhaps nothing was notable. How does this look now? JRP 02:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he went into the Navy straight out of the Academy, so there wouldn't really be anything to note unless he did something significant while in school (which is very rare). I think it's fine now. Kirill Lokshin 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Operation Igloo White

I thought I had removed this article from the A-Class review list (since it was not completed), but was mistaken. Am seeking constructive criricism. RM Gillespie 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A few thoughts, in no particular order:

• The objection made during the last A-Class review regarding the lack of technical data is still applicable, I think; the article says very little about how the actual sensor systems worked. If this information is still classified, then that fact should be explicitly mentioned in the article.
• The lead needs to be quite a bit longer in order to serve as a basically stand-alone summary of the article.
• The "Conclusion" section is rather weasel-worded (e.g. "Even today scholars are divided on the merits of the electronic barrier system..."); I would expect a more explicit discussion of various historians and how they regard the operation.

Kirill Lokshin 21:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Shanghai

Hello all, I've been working on this article for a long time since last summer and I'm looking for feedback, particularly on prose, and ways to make it less "dense" as it's 60KB now. I am in the process of compiling the sources and making some maps, which might take a while. But otherwise I think all the pertinent informations are there and I'm looking for ways to improve the article. Thank you. BlueShirts 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Well, as you mention, the big issue is sources; at the moment, the article is well below the expected level of citation, so that would be the main thing to focus on.

Aside from that, general suggestions:

• The stub "Order of battle" section needs to be disposed of, somehow. I'm not sure what the best way of linking to it is; perhaps something could be added to the infobox?
• The size isn't that bad; this is obviously a very major battle, and deserves the coverage.
• The one-paragraph sections should really be merged, where possible, to make the structure less choppy.
• Images should be staggered along both margins, to prevent stacking problems.

Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyriakos

Nice job so far and I just want say that you have done a good job on such a important article. Here are my suggestions:

• Per Kirill, the article needs to have more references.
• The article only has 1 citations. More citations need to be added as they are a must if you want to get the article to GA or FA.
• You also say in the info box: Japanese victory; Chinese heroic failure. I would remove heroic as people think that it is not a NPOV.

Anyway great job so far and the best for this article in the future. Kyriakos 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth

Wow. This is some beautiful work, thorough, detailed, and largely NPOV balanced. Definitely something to be proud of.

• Citations.
• As for the POV/balance issue, I thank you profusely for your hard work and careful attention to avoiding the kind of nationalist or even racist tone which can all too often pervade discussions of these sorts of touchy subjects. This reads almost completely objectively, with no overt agenda to portray the Japanese as villains and the Chinese as heroes, or for that matter vice versa. Thank you thank you thank you. However, much of it deals with Chiang Kai-Shek's decisions, the position he and his forces were in and the kind of decisions they had to make; at one point you write "American entry into the international response brought new hope to the Chinese", and it's obvious from the sources you have listed that they are solely written from the point of view of a Chinese historian, not a scholar of Japanese studies.

Overall, this is an excellent, top-notch article. I have no problem with those types of phrases, and discussions of Chiang's views, his hopes, his decisions and strategic considerations, and I am not asking you to remove them. But, if it is possible to work in a bit more on Japanese goals in the battle, their strategic decisions, etc, it would be great. In reading through the article, I'm not sure if I even really got a sense of who the Japanese commanders present were.

LordAmeth 11:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Flypast

The page is somewhat UK-centric, but is well-sourced and well-written - and the author seems extremely motivated to make improvements to the page, but is yet not that familiar with the assessment and improvement process and is looking for feedback. I upgraded it from 'Start' to 'B' and nominated for GA, despite the concerns about scope.

(Kind of interesting to see a military page without enough US focus, usually we have the opposite issue. Should be easy to fix.)

It could definitely use a "United States" section and would probably be better off without some of the less significant examples. Once it's improved, this article would probably be a good merge destination for Missing man formation. - RJASE1 04:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

It's a good start, but there's still a massive amount of work to be done. The article is, essentially, a list of flypasts and flypast performers; there's no real background provided here. More attention needs to be devoted to the basics of the flypast itself. What is the history of the practice? How are flypasts organized? How are planes arranged, and how to they perform the flypast? How do civilian flypasts differ from military ones? And so forth.

Beyond that, the prose needs to be greatly condensed. As it is, much of the article consists of single-sentence paragraphs; there needs to be a move towards larger blocks of prose. The same applies to very short sections, which should be combined with the surrounding ones to create more reasonably-sized breaks in the article. Similarly, the gallery should be broken up in favor of sprinkling images all through the article. Kirill Lokshin 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

This is an interesting and worthwhile topic, but the current article is a bit disjointed. As noted by Kirill, the article is dominated by a somewhat random collection of flypasts over the last 50 years. My suggestion for improving the article would be to focus on the various occasions on which flypasts often occur (the current content has a number of excellent examples which could be used to illustrate these occassions) and how flypasts are organised. --Nick Dowling 23:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

I'd like to see the article build in more sections and work into a coherent article rather than the current semi-list of flypasts. You could have separate sections on the origins of the flypast internationally, on crashes and incidents, on techniques used (coloured smoke), on the mechanics of it (distance between planes, pilot training level, suitable and non-suitable planes, difficulties in getting permission for flypasts over urban areas). Basically the current article content (list of events) should be just one sub-section of the article, not the main thrust of it. - PocklingtonDan 08:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Operation Rolling Thunder

Rounding out work on this article and would appreciate any critical input. RM Gillespie 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin

A couple very minor editorial notes before actually reading the article:

• The plural for "p" (as in pages) is "pp", and not, as far as I know, "pps". The latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style recommends not using "p" or "pp" at all, since it's understood that the numbers refer to pages, but that choice is up to you.
• Page ranges in your notes and date ranges in your book titles should be en dashes rather than hypens, but no one will ever care except me. ;-)
• Your list of notes is long enough that they probably should be made smaller, using the standard trick.

That's it for now from the overly nitpicky department. —Kevin 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I notice that there are several assertions within the notes, such as "Contrary to opinion, the U.S. public still supported the American effort..." or "The most accurate description of the incidents is...." These sorts of things have to be cited as well, as you have done with some other notes. —Kevin 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks quite good; a few points to work on, though:

• The lead should be longer; about 2–4 paragraphs for an article of this size is appropriate.
• Everything cited in the notes should appear in the full list of sources. This will also allow you to remove the bibliographical information from the notes in favor of short-form citation throughout.
• The final paragraph of the article could use some editing for tone. Judgemental wording ("enviable", "tragic", etc.) is probably best avoided.

Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Randy J. Ray

I went in and wiki-fied dates. While there, I re-did some links to specific aircraft to keep a consistent style throughout, and while I was at it I changed all the "pps." to "pp.". Rjray 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• I think I read somewhere that articles entitled "Operation X" are frowned upon because they inherently cover only one side of the conflict. Is there an alternative non-combatant-specific term that oculd be used instead here?
• List of cites is excellent, so you are to be commended on that
• Acronyms are overused. I know it is handy to use a phrase once, assign it an acronym, and thereafter use the acronym, but I feel you have overused this. Quite apart from it being good to refer to a thing using a variety of terms for reader interest, if you forget what an acronym means, you have to scroll up to find out. I would especially avoid using acronyms in section headers, and I would introduce each term using its full name at least once per section in case someone clicks down fromt he TOC without having read the sections above it, especially since many are clearly USMIL acronyms I for one am not familiar with
• I would try and balance the account with more Vietnamese sources, since almost all (maybe absolutely all?) your sources are western.

Generally, though, a very impressive article - PocklingtonDan 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as the title goes, I suspect there isn't a better one, since this isn't really a typical battle at some particular location, but rather a particular sub-type/phase of the broader bombing campaign against North Vietnam. I've never seen this particular effort given a name other than Rolling Thunder, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 10:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Crisp

A highly celebrated First World War hero and holder of the Victoria Cross. Another article I have worked extensively on recently and would appreciate some feedback for future work required.--Jackyd101 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite good. Suggestions, in no particular order:

• The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs. As it is, it's not really adequate as a summary of the article.
• The use of "jr" and "sr" ought to be looked at. I would have expected these to be both capitalized and followed by a period; is this not the case in British English?
• The references section should contain everything cited in the article.
• Maybe put the citations directly at the end of the Victoria Cross section (in somewhat smaller boxes, even)?
• As usual, any other images available? The ships involved, perhaps?

Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "tiny vessel" - wiki likes quantification - can we say "tiny (just 20ft)" or similar instead? Also, perhaps parentheses what a smack is - I'd never come across one before and it seems unfortunate to have to divert to another article to find out when you've only just started reading
• "self-sacrifice in the face of overwhelming odds" seems too POV and bias without a cite
• I know finding cites for this must be difficult for a relatively obscure figure, but I would still like to see more cites generally if possible
• "the son of Arthur Soanes,[13] one of the victims of this incident, later claimed to have contacted his father through his powers as a spiritual medium and reported this version of events as fact" - I'm not sure a spiritual medium should be cited as a reason to believe a certain course of events!!
• Other that that, I found it a fascinating read. Well done - PocklingtonDan 09:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I removed the "tiny" and changed the sentance about the self-sacrifice to include a cited quote (althoug I have read that it isn't a good idea to cite things in the introduction). I have also added more citation generally although as mentioned, finding sources is very hard, much help was provided by a user in A-Class Review. Two replies here, firstly I couldn't find a way to slip in information about the nature of a smack without using a footnote, which is no less labour intensive than using a wikilink. As smack is a necessary technical term which is not related to the article itself, perhaps a link is the best way to go. Also, the spritual medium is not intended as the source for the event, the cited book does that. The medium is simply an interesting story related to the events, which is also cited. Thankyou for your review.--Jackyd101 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better, its looking really good to me - Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric Gascoigne Robinson

A Royal Navy admiral, First World War hero and Victoria Cross holder. I've recently greatly expanded, organised and developed this article and would be interested to know where to go from here with it. --Jackyd101 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite good; a number of points to work on, though:

• Citation! The article is rather undercited, at the moment; much of the narrative can't readily be tied to any particular source.
• The awards should either be worked into a normal prose paragraph or moved to the infobox. I would suggest the former.
• The references need to be formatted properly, and should include everything cited in the article. I would also suggest moving the Victoria Cross Reference bit into the list.
• The lead section can probably stand to be expanded to two paragraphs, to give a somewhat more detailed summary of the article.
• Are there any other images that could be used here? A marked-up map of Gallipoli may be useful.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I've followed the advice above, the only exception being with the references, as I don't have all of them. Do you have any further comments?--Jackyd101 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "underfire" in the lead para, should this be "under fire" or is "underfire" ana ccepted term?
• a "string of daring operations" sounds POV and biased without a cite
• "forceful and diligent officer who conducted himself with meritorious service " likewise
• The map I'm not happy with, I can't identify what part of Turkey I'm looking at there, and at the same time th exact area of Robinson's operationg is unclear - the map is at the wrong scale. I would add a single "magnifying glass" map simultaneously showing several zoon levels of which portion of turkey we are looking at and also a closeup of the exact area of operation, or else two or more separate maps.
• I'd like to see more cites. I know there is not a lot of information in the public domain on relatively obscure figures but all of the statements in the article must be based on something read somewhere,a nd should be able to be cited

Generally a fine article though on a person (and indeed series of events) i previously knew nothing about. Well done - PocklingtonDan 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply:OK, I've tried to sort this out, but I have a few questions here. 1) I'm sure that its not recommended to cite things in the introduction, since the remainder of the article should bear out statements made there. I've tried to cite the things you highlighted but I didn't want to overload the section. 2)The map was something I pulled off Wikimedia Commons as it seemed the best for this purpose. I don't have the first idea how to create a map such as you described, did you have a particular one in mind when you suggested it? I tried to label it a bit better though. 3) I don't see any major controversies which are uncited, if you see some outside the introduction, please let me know. The main problem here is that the article is based largely on a single secondary and some small primary sources due to a paucity of information. However, there isn't a lot I can do about that. Thankyou for your review.--Jackyd101 01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-30

One of the more important warplanes of our time, and perhaps the most important of the "Eastern bloc"; Indian Su-30MKIs reputedly kicked USAF F-15s all over the sky (tho the fairness of the exercise is disputed). Definitly something that should be quickly moved up to GA status methinx... - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

There's still a lot of work to be done here, obviously. In no particular order:

• The lack of references and citations is a major problem.
• Bulleted lists are overused, and should be converted into prose.
• The issue with the subsidiary variant articles needs to be resolved. I wouldn't necessarily advocate merging them in, but they'll need a longer summary section here, at the least.
• Is the "Su-30MK multi-role twin-seater" section supposed to be a sub-section of "Development"?
• There doesn't seem to be any coverage of it's operational use (or, indeed, anything after the development phase).

Once the big problems get fixed, you can turn to copyediting and fiddling with the structure and coverage; but, at the moment, it's a bit premature to consider those. Kirill Lokshin 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Askari Mark

A very good start, but I agree with Kirill Lokshin that there remains further development to be done. Not to duplicate his comments, I would add the following observations:

• An {{Aircraft specifications}} template needs to be added per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Aircraft specifications
• With the wealth of external links, there should be no problem with adding reference citations.
• Information in the article and infobox need to agree: "developed by Russia's Sukhoi Aviation Corporation in 1996" vs. "Introduced 1992".
• Has surprisingly few dates (and those entirely given as the year only) and a moderate amount of internal citations (e.g., lacking on country names like People's Republic of China, systems like fly-by-wire flight controls and axisymmetric nozzles, and roles like interceptor.
• "Irkutsk" is the name of a city and oblast in Russia; the city is where the Irkutsk Aviation Production Association is located. It was privatized as the IRKUT Corporation in 1992 [13] [14] (something that needs to be fixed in the Sukhoi article as well), which is now itself being integrated into the OAK conglomerate.
• The Su-30MKM article should be merged into this article, since the MKM is a minor variant. The Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK, however, are major variants (with extensively modified equipment and avionics), so my feeling is that they could remain as stand-alone articles or be merged into this article. (Both of the variant articles need further work as well.) — Askari Mark (Talk) 03:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

• "The aircraft is comparable with USA's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle." I'm not happy with this sentence. Why is this necessary? Why contrast to a US fighter as opposed to a British, French, Israeli, Chinese or whatever one? You assume US readership. I would remove this sentence. You have already described its role, a US-specific comparison is unnccessary
• As above, sorely lacking cites at present
• As above, more info needed on training, operational use, etc
• The "specifications" section should go in some kind of sidebar rather than being a section of the main article, in my opinion
• "Differential ±15-degree deflection of the engines' axisymmetric nozzles (with turn axes positioned at 32-deg angle to each other) enables pitch/yaw thrust vectoring control" This is all Greek to me. If using concepts like this, you should link to wiki articles on them, introduce a diagram or explain them in-line, in my opinion

I think ideally you need to find smeone with understanding of and access to Russian sources, where you will hopefully find a wealth of information that you can use to expand the article - PocklingtonDan 09:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

William C. Rogers III

Improvements were made to the article in December 2006, I would like an article assessment and any notes to improve the article. Unfortunately I haven't found an image, but I think the basics of a biography are present. There is also a minor content issue involving the frequency of pipe bombings in San Diego in 1996, maybe someone could add their opinion on that issue as well. Thanks in advance for any comments. --Dual Freq 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've fixed the citations as best I can, added some more biographical material and a couple of fairuse images, if there are anymore questions, I'd be happy to address them. Thanks. --Dual Freq 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Let's see:

• The main issue with the article, at this point, is that it's unacceptably terse. The primary reason why Rogers is known is the IR655 incident; the article only devotes two sentences to it. The main Iran Air Flight 655 article is meant to have more detail on the incident as a whole, of course; but it has, at the moment, more material on Rogers' role in it specifically, which isn't a good thing.
• The prose is quite choppy, with numerous one-sentence paragraphs. The text should really be coalesced into meatier blocks.
• The section headings should be in sentence case.

Other than that, this looks to have the basics down. As far as an image goes, is there an official one available from the Navy? Kirill Lokshin 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I looked pretty hard through the DOD images site for an image, but I was unable to locate one. I suppose I could find his book and scan the dust cover photo, but I was trying to avoid fair use and hoping another editor might be able to locate one. The Iran Air section was removed from the article by another editor and pointed to the main article. I could try to re-add it, but I'm afraid it will revert back to it's previous condition describing the incident with quotes like:it "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago" I'll see if I can add a brief summary of the incident. --Dual Freq 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty interesting quote, but obviously needs to be given with more context. Mainly, the article should devote some more space to describing the controversy, particularly insofar as it touches on Rogers' own role in the incident. The question of whether Rogers' actions were appropriate is one that's been one of the focal points of the incident and its historiography; at the moment, the article doesn't really even indicate that his actions were controversial. Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added an overview of the downing incident, but I'm finding it difficult to summarize it in just a few paragraphs. Maybe you could skim through it once and let me know if it's overly POV one way or another. Also, I'm wondering about the need for the 1996 note that pipe bombs are a common occurrence as the bombing occurred in 1989. --Dual Freq 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The overview looks pretty good, at least as far as I can tell. The length and depth is something to play with; the article is quite short, so there's no problem with adding more material, but we don't want to go off on too many tangents that aren't related to Rogers himself.

As far as the pipe bombs are concerned: unless there's some reason to believe that the statement was related in some way to the Rogers case, I wouldn't include it, as it seems too tenuous a connection otherwise. Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Another editor is rather insistent about keeping the 1996 pipe bomb statement, if I remove it again they will likely just re-add it. I think it's being used to refute Roger's book and the widespread assumptions from 1989 that the bombing was terrorism related as payback for the Iran Air downing. The source doesn't draw that conclusion and only mentions it as a notable bombing in San Diego's history so I wanted to remove it, but have been unable to. --Dual Freq 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "Early life and career prior to 1988" offers insufficient information for the first 50 years of his life. I think the section could be expanded and maybe split in two sections: 1) "Early life" and 2) "Career prior to 1988".
• Some sentences in the same section look to me problematic: "He was commissioned December 1965, his first tour of duty was the aircraft carrier, USS Independence (CV-62)." "Captain Rogers married Sharon Rogers, also from Fort Worth, Texas, they had one son Will C. Rogers IV who was born around 1969." Maybe the punctuation is here the problem, but, in general, I think the prose of this section is a bit choppy.
• "At the time, Vincennes was one of only five cruisers commissioned that carried the new Aegis weapons system and command of those cruisers was considered to be very prestigious." IMO you should devote a few more words to what is exactly "the new Aegis weapons system".
• "Received with skepticism by some". "Some" who?! Too vague! CIte and explain, if there is available information.
• "Storm Center: A Personal Account of Tragedy & Terrorism. Sharon Rogers, Will Rogers, Gene Gregston. Naval Institute Press, June 1992. ISBN 1-55750-727-9." When you cite a book, you should mention pages.
• The formating of your online citations in not uniform. You can use Template:cite web and Template:cite news, sincr full citations are needed.--Yannismarou 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Unfortunately, I don't have any further information at this time about Rogers first 50 years. Since he is only notable for a single incident there isn't much out there. I'm trying to get a hold of his book to see if it include more biographical details, but it's not available at my local library. I've remove the skeptics part since that is addressed in the following paragraph and the Iran Air 655 article. As for the Aegis bit, perhaps I assumed people would find the Aegis info from the linked pages, I've tried to summarize it. I suppose it deserves even more treatment since some of the blame for the Iran Air downing has been directed towards the system. I'll rework the citations as soon as I can. Thanks again. --Dual Freq 17:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Eretria

A recently created article, I would like to see what can be done to improve it. Kyriakos 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Off to a good start. Some comments, in no particular order:

• The heavy reliance on Herodotus is not necessarily unacceptable, but it would be better if additional (secondary) sources could be found. I don't know what might be available, but the Greco-Persian Wars are certainly a topic that modern historians have written something about.
• The writing style is very simplistic, with almost no complex sentences. Whether this is a good or bad thing is quite subjective, I suppose; but I would suggest making at least some efforts in this regard.
• I'm not a fan of having two separate footnote sections; but this is, again, likely quite subjective.
• The images should probably be staggered along both margins.

More generally, this will likely need considerable copyediting in the future, regardless of how you decide to proceed with the other points. Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

StudyAndBeWise

I just updated the article to use Harvard citations and references. However, I left the sources. In any event, the main suggestion I have is to cut back on the citations. For example, I saw one case where several consequtive sentences had the same citation to the same page. You might want to consider only citing the last sentence in such cases. I know citing each individual sentence might make others less likely to remove sentences, but I don't think this will be an issue for the Siege of Eretria article, unless it is controversial. I'll look through a history book and see if it is commented on, and add some more (just to get a larger variety of references). However, any history book is likely to have relied on the same primary source you did. Anyway, thanks for the good work.

If you have some time to review The Origin of Species, I would appreciate it.

StudyAndBeWise 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• "In 490 BC, Darius organized a fleet of around 600 ships and an army of between 20,000 to 60,000 men." Important assessment and controversial estimation needing some citing.
• ", the instigator of the revolt, went to mainland Greece to seek support for the Ionians' cause, and the Athenians gave him twenty ships and the Eretrians five." Stubby paragraph.
• Kirill is correct when he says that the lack of complex sentences leads to a "simplistic" or "choppy" prose. Check for instance this half-paragraph, which IMO is an example of this choppy prose: "Also part of the fleet was Hippias, the former tyrant of Athens who had been overthrown in 508 BC. He had been promised Athens in return for assiting the Persians.[17] The fleet which consisted mainly of Phoenician and Ionian ships met the army in Cilicia and from there they sailed to Samos.[18] From Samos they sailed Icaria and from Icaria they attacked Naxos.[19] The Naxians were not prepared for the attack and when they saw the advancing Persians they fled to the hills.[20]" Another example:"They soon reached Euboea and they demanded soldiers from the city of Carystus.[23] The Carystians refused to supply soldiers as they didn't want to be involved in a campaign against their neighbours, Eretria and Athens.[24] The Persians after a brief siege eventually forced the Carystians to surrender and supply troops to the growing Persian army.[25] The next stop after Carystus was Eretria."
• The heavy reliance on Herodotus could be a problem. I'd prefer a parallel use of secondary sources; they often offer interesting prespectives.
• "The failed attack caused Aristagoras to lose his favor in the Persian court so he decided to stir up a revolution amongst the Ionian Greek cities." Doesn' this sentence need a , or a ; ?
• Why do you mention the same references twice; once altogether and then divided in primary and secondary sources?--Yannismarou 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Invasion of Mani

I just finished the inprovement of this article. I added the three battles of the camppaign into one article. I want to improve this article and every suggestion is well come. Kyriakos 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A number of points that can still be improved on, I think:

• The multiple infoboxes are quite excessive visually, and don't really add to the article. I would suggest removing all of them except the main one for the campaign.

Done

• Dates need to be linked, per WP:MOSDATE.

Done

• Are there any non-Greek sources available for these events? If there are, it would be helpful to incorporate them, I think.

Barrow and Fermor are the only ones I can find so far, I'll for some others.

• Extensive copyediting would be appropriate, at this point. The prose seems simplistic, at least to me; I would suggest making some effort to employ more complex sentence structure, rather than simply chaining together simple sentences.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tutmosis

Can the image usage rationale be expanded. Specifically where they came from. Especially Image:Ibrahim.PNG, who granted it permission to be used under GNU? Full dates should be wikilinked, while single months/years should be de-wikilinked, Example from text: August. I noticed that some of the footnotes are exactly the same, please refer to this guide on how to combine some of them. Thanks. — Tutmosis 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

Just a few minor points, since I'm not sure if this peer review is still actively ongoing or not:

• "The various Greek forces won a quick string of victories, however, disputes broke out amongst the leaders and anarchy ensued". Change to "victories. However,"
• "He then tried to capture Nauplio but he was driven back. He then turned his attention to the only place in the Peloponnese that was free: Mani" If he was driven back from Nauplio, surely that was also free?
• "Even though this campaign is overshadowed by other battles of the revolution, this one was one of the most important. The Maniates stopped the Egyptians and Ibrahim Pasha who had not been defeated this desicevly before" Decisively is missplet, all this needs cites. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough

Request a review from my peers. Is the Info box OK? I my want to add a legacy section later on but the article is already 63Kb long! Would this not be advisable? What's the policy on 'succession boxes'? Any general comments would be nice. Thank you. Raymond Palmer 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Overall: magnificent, utterly magnificent. The article is truly a pleasure to read; stylistically, it's the Bishonen, Geogre, Giano, et al. school of FA-writing.

As far as suggestions from me:

• The infobox looks good, but I would suggest replacing the hypens with normal bullet points (•) in the list of battles.
• There are still a number of quotes in the article that don't seem to be cited; that needs to be fixed.
• Succession boxes would be useful, particularly for the various offices he held.
• A section on his legacy (and, more generally, on the historiography dealing with him) would be a good idea; but, as you mention, the article is already quite long. It's possibly long enough that people would complain on FAC; I can see two different methods for reducing the length:
  • Moving some of the more tangential remarks into the footnotes, which don't count (since it's only the prose length that's considered).
  • Tightening some of the more redundant wording; for example:
    • "The following year in 1673" → "The following year" or "In 1673"
    • "overall command of His Majesty’s forces chosen to face Monmouth" → "overall command of the forces chosen to face Monmouth"
    • And so forth
• All the day/month combinations should be linked so that reader date preferences can work properly.

I think this'll be ready for FAC soon; keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

HM-15

As this article represents the first submission by this submitter, this submitter is looking for constructive comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duane Phillips (talk • contribs)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on "personal experience" - point well taken. I am concerned about the "Other Notables" section of the page. Three of the four items listed are not likely to be referenced by any third party. I have been searching high and low for any write-up that former Commanders of that squadron should have written, but alas, there are no online reports for the years during the USN/USNR integration. I now understand that WikiPedia is a source of reference, not truth, as the wide open contribution paradigm has no ability to be a validating source of previously undocumented truth. --Duane Phillips 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor

I would work on finding reliable references. Unfortunately, your reference of "Originating author personal experience" is in violation of our "no original research" policy which prevents people from writing information that isn't verifiable. Trebor 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Looper5920

Go easy on this. I think the user sent this thing up a bit to early. Give some more experienced military editors a few days to work on it and it will look much better. Right now it has some serious issues and really shouldn't be here. --Looper5920 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

T-26

Given that it failed A-class review, and I recently expanded the article a bit, I would like more input on how to make the article better, especially somewhat specific suggestions to improve the prose (which is lacking). Thank you. JonCatalan 04:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This is quite good. The prose is a little dry in places, but that's a relatively minor stylistic quirk; having a couple of fresh editors copyedit the article should smooth things out. Aside from that, a few formatting issues:

• Dates need to be wikified for date preference settings to work correctly.
• The "See also" section should be gotten rid of, if possible.
• The references for the tables would work better placed as footnotes, I think.
• The lead could perhaps be expanded slightly to summarize the main points of the article in a bit more detail.

Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! I made some quick changes, including eliminating the "See Also" section, changing the reference style for the tables and changing the summary a bit (although I hope that some better writers will take some time to make it a bit more interesting). Where would I be able to read on Wikipedia's date preference settings? Again, thank you. JonCatalan 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The best place for date settings is WP:MOSDATE, I think; I vaguely recall that there was a simpler guide floating around somewhere, but I don't remember its location. Kirill Lokshin 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I made as many edits I think I can properly do as suggsted by Kirill Lokshin and the automated peer review. I would appreciate it if anybody else took a look at the article. Thanks! JonCatalan 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed as well. Fixed some dates that had not been converted to WP:MOSDATE format, found a few minor grammatical nits, and linked to some of the German divisions that are specifically referenced. In a few places, I replaced slang with more straight-forward language ("tweaked Panzer I turret" became "modified Panzer I turrent", as this usage of "tweaked" may not be clear to non-native English readers). --Rjray 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to focus this peer review on what would be required for FAC regarding this article. Obviously, the prose needs work. Anybody have any tips? JonCatalan 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, if you're out of ideas for copyediting, you might try asking at WP:LoCE; aside from that, the issue is mostly playing with the wording until it sounds right, and that tends to be an extremely subjective thing. Kirill Lokshin 05:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Welter

Kurt Welter seems to be a controversial character. Some references claim that he is the highest scoring Jet Ace of World War II and other references indicate that his claims are exaggerated above and beyond what seems "normal". First, I want this article reviewed since I am relatively new to Wikipedia and want to uphold its quality standards. Secondly I want to avoid a situation where continuous reverting of the content takes place Erwin Rommel is a good example here. I also would like to know where to get a Wikipedia compliant picture from.MisterBee1966 12:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This article still has a lot of work ahead of it. The main problems:

• It's pretty devoid of any details about Welter aside from his role as a fighter pilot; presumably the man was born somewhere, grew up, etc.
• Extensive citation is very necessary here.
• The tone seems hagiographic, in parts.
• The list of awards can be moved directly into the infobox.

As far as images go, I'm not sure. Are there any official photographs of him produced by the Luftwaffe? Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• I see two particularly stubby sections, and in the middle a quite long one. This is not nice structure. Take a look at WP:LAYOUT. Obviously more family and personal infos are needed as Kirill pointed out.
• The prose in "World War 2" is not good. Too many stubby sentences that make the section listy and with bad flow.
• "Here Welter". I don't like "here", since you start a new paragraph. "Here" is where? And you use it again later. IMO it is not a nice form of expression, but this may well be a personal preference.
• weasel words and expressions like "It is thought that during his service with 1./NJG 10 and 10./JG 300, Welter recorded 12 victories in only 18 missions." should be properly rewritten and cited.
• "For a list of Luftwaffe jet aces see List of German World War II Jet aces". Try to find ways to link other wiki-articles within the prose of the main articles; not in notes.
• This is an example of choppy, repetitive prose:"Welter claimed 25 Mosquitos and two four-engine bombers shot down by night and two further Mosquitos by day while flying the Me 262. Welter tested a prototype Me 262 fitted with SN-2 Lichtenstein radar, however the majority of Welter’s 20+ jet victories were achieved in standard radarless Me 262 aircraft. Welter was awarded the 769."--Yannismarou 09:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

USS Texas (BB-35)

I got to work on this battleship becuase the World War I portal should have at least one piece of hardware rated FA class. I am looking for any further suggestions as to how the article can be improved; I intend to take the all the way to FA status. As per the Emt147 declaration, do not object on the basis of week citations, add {{fact}} tags to stuff that you as the editers feel is not cited and I will address it accordingly (assuming that it has not already been addressed). Note that as a US ship article composed largely of historical information, this article is almost entirely an NPOV copy/paste from the PD Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks pretty good. The citations seem sufficient, given that this is mostly DANFS material; beyond that, there's a number of other things to look at:

• The lead seems a bit choppy; the first and last paragraphs are too short, in particular. If it can't be gracefully expanded, it may be better to collapse the whole thing to a single paragraph.
• The second paragraph of the "Construction" section seems bizarrely out of place; was it intended to be in the lead?
• The "Construction" and "1914-1920" sections might be better off being merged together.
• The use of military time is inappropriate in a general-purpose encyclopedia; it should be changed to a more normal format.
• The constant repetition of "14 inch (356 mm)" is excessive; once the conversion has been given, there's no reason to repeat it anytime the guns are mentioned. (Couldn't they be referred to simply as the main guns, incidentally?)
• The last three sections ("Post-WWII", "Memorial", and "Film career") are somewhat stubby. It may be sensible to merge all three; but, at the least, I would suggest merging the "Film career" section in with the "Memorial" section.

Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes as per your suggestions. I am still not entirely sure what I want to do with the "Film Career" section; narrowly speaking it is noteworthy, in a broader sense it could be conisidered a "Pop Culture" section, which would warrent a removal. What do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not that much material; maybe just mention it at the end of the "Museum Ship" section? Both of the films were made during that period, after all. Kirill Lokshin 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merged the section as per your suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Nice job. These are my suggestions:

• Prose problems from the lead:

USS Texas (BB-35) was a New York-class battleship, and was (see the repetition too close in the same sentence: was ... and was) the second ship of the United States Navy named to honor Texas, the 28th state. Texas' keel was laid down on 17 April 1911 at Newport News, Virginia, by the Newport News Shipbuilding Company. She was launched on 18 May 1912 sponsored by Miss Claudia Lyon, and commissioned on 12 March 1914 with Captain Albert W. Grant in command.

Well too many "was" for me. Not "brillian" the prose here IMO, and it is the lead!

• "the first receive a commercial radar in the U.S. Navy". Is a "to" missing here ("to receive") or am I wrong?
• "system of hull classification symbols.[4][3]". Don't you think that it would be better like that: "system of hull classification symbols.[3][4]".
• "She returned to New York early in 1929 for her annual overhaul and had completed it by March when she began another brief tour of duty in the Pacific. She returned to the Atlantic in June and resumed normal duty with the Scouting Fleet." Repetition of the same form of expression in two successive sentences. And IMO it is not nice when a new paragraph starts like that: "She ... " I prefer in this case: "Texas ... " or "the battleship ... ".
• "At that point in the war, amphibious warfare doctrine was still embryonic; and many did not recognize the value of a pre-landing bombardment." I think such a general assessment deserves its own citation. I tagged it with .
• "At 3:00 AM Texas and the British cruiser HMS Glasgow entered the Omaha Western fire support lane and into her initial firing position, at 4:41 AM, 12,000 yards (11 km) offshore near Pointe du Hoc, along with battleships Arkansas and Nevada, and three US heavy cruisers, along with a combined US-British flotilla of British battleships, along with five cruisers and 22 destroyers." Uncited paragraph.
• "Although Texas is the oldest remaining dreadnought-type batleship, she is not the oldest remaining battleship: The Japanese battleship Mikasa, a pre-dreadnought battleship, is older than Texas." According to whom? Any source?
• "Anti-ship missiles such as the Fritz X were among the first instances of short range guided missiles during the Second World War. The German Luftwaffe used them to some effect against Allied shipping, and sank or damaged some large warships successfully before the Allies devised countermeasures, principally radio jamming." Again source, please? The fact that these assessments are in notes does not mean that they should be uncited.
• "Johnston, Ian and McAuley, Rob. The Battleships. Channel 4 Books, London ISBN 0-7522-6188-6": Is this book mentioned in notes? I did not see it, but again I may have not looked carefully. But if it is not used, it is not "reference" but "further reading".
• As far as the other books are concerned why do you repeat full data (publisher, ISBN, year of edition etc.) in both "Notes" and "References"?
• Categories are not alphabetized.
• "As per the Emt147 declaration, do not object on the basis of week citations, add {{fact}} tags to stuff that you as the editers feel is not cited and I will address it accordingly (assuming that it has not already been addressed). Note that as a US ship article composed largely of historical information, this article is almost entirely an NPOV copy/paste from the PD Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. " I understand what you say, but I have to tell you honestly that the great dependence from "American Naval Fighting Ships" would be a problem for me in FAC.--Yannismarou 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I like a challenge. From the top: I inserted that missing "to" for the commericial radar. Good catch. Citation numbers are now in correct order. I have adressed the tag you inserted, the information was from DANFS. According to Wikipedia, Mikasa is older, but I suppose I need to find someone else to state that so I can properly cite it. The part about anti-ship missiles caught me off guard, I included that in ref tabs so others would also be suprised. I am working on that angle at the moment, when I get more info you will to. "The Battleships" is a small book with fun tibits about the nations that built and operated battleships since there inception. Most of what is stated in the book is stated here from other sources. In this case specifically, the info on Texas comes from the last chapter, which notes in part that "...the United States has preserved by far the greatest number [of battleships], 8 in all, including the vintage WWI Texas," and later noting that "...only Japan has preserved a battleship [in the modern sense of the word], Mikasa, Admiral Togo's flagship..." I have not yet had a chance to thoughly investigate this source for additional info on Texas, though I suspect that there may be some info in with the battle sections. I was unaware that the books in question had been added to the "Notes" section, that is why they are cited twice. They are not there now. Categoris have been aplhabetized. Finally, American battleships are like american presidents: there are a few that stand out immediately and recieve a disproportionately large amount of the lime light, and there are those that come under the head of "whats his name". Texas is in with the latter category; there have been no major works published about her battle history beyond DANFS, therefore the article draws on DANFS for most of its information. It isn't that I am not willing to add more sources, its just that no one has taken the time to publish accounts exclusive to the ship in question. DANFS reliance should not be counted against this article: Wikipedia has long reconginzed its importance, and DANFS material is what makes up nearly all of the US ship pages here. You will note that when aplicable, I have used sources other than DANFS for the citing, such as in the sections on D-Day, which draw not from DANFS but from the Historical Naval Ships Visitors Guide. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Prior review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 1

I'm getting ready to re-nominate this article for FA and would like some serious nitpicks on this article... particularly around the issue of prose. Balloonman 06:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Looks very good now; a few minor points to fix, though:

• There are still some {{citation needed}} tags that need to be dealt with.
• If possible, get rid of the "See also" section; if it's not worth mentioning in the text, it's generally not worth mentioning at all.
• The image captions need to be copyedited. In particular, the triple-hyphen is simply wrong; the typewriter version of the em-dash is a double hyphen (but it's better to just insert a proper em-dash there, in any case).

The prose seems a little choppy (too many short and simple sentences, and so forth); but I tend to go for rather convoluted prose, so take my opinion on this with a grain of salt. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill... could you point out a few of the places where you thought it was choppy? I tend to go for short and simple, not liking convoluted prose, but if it is choppy and needs to be longer... ;-) Balloonman 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, one example that stood out would be the first paragraph of the "Classism" section:

Military life is strictly segregated by class, centered around one's rank.[45] The facilities provided for officers and enlisted personnel differ dramatically. For example, on base housing for officers will be significantly nicer than those for enlisted personnel. The officers' housing will generally be more accessible to base activities, larger in size, and better landscaped. Occasionally, on larger bases, the officers' housing will be broken down into different categories. Senior officers housing may be slightly larger and more opulent than their lower ranking counterparts. On the largest bases, there might be a row of opulent houses referred to as "Colonels' Row" or "Generals' Row." In these houses the highest ranking personnel on the base reside. On the other end of the spectrum, are the enlisted quarters. Oftentimes enlisted personnel might be assigned apartments and only then if space is available.[45]

I'd probably chop the number of separate sentences here in half by using more semicolons and nested clauses; but this may be a matter of personal preference, so I wouldn't worry too much about trying to impose a more complicated structure if that's not a writing style that you're in favor of. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Made those changes... BTW is there a guideline on the "See Also" section. When this went up for FAC before, it was criticized because it didn't have a see also section (I had removed it based on your oriignal peer review comments.) Balloonman 10:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy

Congratulations on your persistent hard work.

I still don't like the idea of the parenthetical U.S. subculture in the title, and hope someone will come up with something to address that.

I also dislike the non-standard placement of the Table of Contents; in fact, there must be something somewhere in WP:MOS about that, and if there's not, there should be. Please use a standard layout for lead and table of contents.

I just corrected a section heading for WP:MSH - please try to watch items pertaining to WP:MOS and WP:LAYOUT :-) I also deleted several articles from See also which are already linked in the text: See also should be minimal, and confined to articles not already linked in the text.

I correct some refs that pointed to the same source - pls remember to used named refs for those cases.

Many of the images have non-standard placement: I don't know where to find the guiding policy on this, but I've seen them corrected often when on the main page - you have images placed so that they extend into section headings, distorting the section headings.

I switched some Lambert (author) to Lamberg, and used named refs for those.

Be sure to include last access date on all web sources, for example, Lamberg (2004) p 1541. See also The National Childhood Traumatic Stress Network Pls doublecheck that all web sources have last access date.

Now, looking at prose:

• (Do all brats live overseas, or does article apply equally to brats whose parents may have only been stationed in the US?) Having had the opportunity to live around the world, military brats often have a breadth of experiences unmatched by most teenagers (I'd also prefer "other teenagers" to "most teenagers", feels less absolute - my children have lived around the world, and so have most of their friends, and they aren't brats.)
• Consistency - you use U.S. and U.S.A. - better to pick one and stick with it.
• (This needs to be reworded to reflect methodological limitations on all broad-based - epidemiological - vs. biased samples - they aren't impossible, they are just very difficult and *very* expensive.) While research is conducted utilizing scientific methodology, there is risk of biased samples because truly random samples on adult brats is impossible. (I suggest) Even research that is conducted using scientific sampling methods may contain bias because of the difficulty in conducting epidemiological studies across broad-based population samples. (Or something like that - you can ask Apers0n (talk · contribs) or TedE (talk · contribs) for help on that wording.
• Since the Department of Defense does not track or monitor former brats, any study on adult brats is based upon self identification.[12] (add on something to the effect of) hence, may be biased towards subjects who self-identified because of psychological problems, resulting in underrepresentation of brats who don't have psychological issues. (or something like that)
• (Incorrect use of e.g.; better to just say for example) (E.g. nigger, queer, redneck and geek)
• (repetitive prose - those groups, those groups) that recently were viewed as hurtful to those groups. Those groups have various degrees of success to their efforts,
• (Connect these thoughts with a semi-colon) Mormon, Methodist, Sooner, Tar Heel, Quaker, cowboy, Christian, Tory, and Whig were originally insults; by embracing the insulting term, the target group takes control over one's self image and denies others of the ability to define them.
• (Because is the wrong connection here, and may not always be true - change) Non-military personnel may find the term “brat” insulting if they do not understand the term in this context.
• (I'm not a grammaria, but not sure "their" is correct here: culture - their?) Military culture has reclaimed the term to make it their own.
• (awkward) For example, while civilians may grow up in the same house their entire youths,
• (Difference between the two is not defined) Eighty percent of brats describe their father as "authoritarian" (not to be mistaken with "authoritative")
• (Avoid overgeneralizing - *can be* much greater ???) The consequences of misbehavior for a military brat are much greater than for civilian children.
• (This is the kind of "study result" that needs to be very well defined - what kind of study was this, how large was the sample, and what kinds of behaviors were examined ??? - A statement like this can't be taken at face value - the strength of the study needs to be examined. Was this study controlled, replicated, what was the sample size, was it retrospective or prospective, did it use standardized and validated measurement instruments and face to face interviews, etc - give me some of the verbiage from the actual studies, and I'll help you phrase this better, to help avoid overgeneralizing or everextending conclusions depending on methodological limitations of studies.) Research into military brats has consistently shown them to be better behaved than their civilian counterparts. [3] (also, remove spaces between punctuation and refs - I'll do that with Gimmetrow's ref fixer, now that I've seen this one.)
  • This is a very common theme in the research. The citation I provided actually lists a number of the studies on the subject and the consistency of the result. Balloonman 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• (Again, to avoid overgeneralizing, we need to understand this Dr.'s study sample - maybe s/he only dealt with the worst of the worst - again, we need to know more about the study methodology and sample before making broad sweeping statements about all military children. Rather than relying on Wertsch for this, it would be good to locate the specifics of the exact study, in order to get a sense of how strong this conclusion is.) A military psychologist publishing in the American Journal of Psychology concluded that 93% of his brat patients came from military families where the parents were overly authoritarian.
  • He was basing it upon a review of his patients, not a formalized study. Actually, looking at what I have, it wasn't just his patients, but those at his clinic.Balloonman 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• (Don't know what this means - what is the overarching community in their adulthood?) When brats grow up, however, these boundaries normally disappear and are replaced by an overarching brat community.
• (The first two sentences can be combined, and the third has prose problems) In 1948, President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 integrating the military and mandating equality of treatment and opportunity. Shortly thereafter, military children began growing up in closely confined integrated schools and neighborhoods. Military law to makes it illegal to make a racist remark or not intervene when someone else does.
• (Want to know how large this study was, whether it was retrospective or prospective, and from where he drew his sample - where these kids who presented with issues, or were they randomly chosen? Give me some of the wording from the actual study, and I'll help you address it.) Sociologist Morton Ender conducted the largest scientific study to date
• (First sentence contradicts some other statements made in the article, second sentence is a fragment.) Sociologist Henry Watanabe showed that the psychological profile of military brats matches that of their civilian peer. But that growing up in a mobile community offers brats opportunites and experiences generally unavailable in the civilian world. (Again, depends on the sample population - what kind of sample was Watanabe looking at ?)
• (This statement needs attribution - again, depends on the strength of the study sample. My TCKs are very outgoing and independent, probably for similar reasons :-) Avoid overgeneralizing, specify who says this, based on what sample.) Because military brats are constantly making new friends to replace the ones that they have lost,[53] military brats are more outgoing and independent.[54] (Eighty percent according to whom and what kind of study? This quote is from TCKs, so I wouldn't be surprised if it really applied to all TCKs.) Eighty percent of brats claim that they can relate to anyone, regardless of differences such as race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.[55]

OK, that's as far as I got, but that gives you an idea of the kind of wording I'd like to see tightened up with respect to strength and validity of study results, attribution of generalizing statements, and examination of study populations. Take care that X study showing Y conclusion doesn't equate to a fact, since studies have limitations - wording has to account for that. (For example, you handled this well in the abuse and alcoholism section, by presenting conflicting studies.) Amazing progress so far - I think you're just about there !!! Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, you are awesome... I changed many of the pictures, but couldn't get all to work. The Lamberg article was not one that I accessed via the internet, it is one that I have originals from the library. The name, I too would like something better than the US Subculture, but I don't know what that might be. I prefer "most children" over "other teenagers." Too me, other children sounds more absolute because it is saying "all others" while most implies that it isn't just brats. Your children may not be brats, but they have experienced more than most other teenagers. The "studies" on behavior of brats are numerous and repeated. It is a consistent theme in much of the brat research. As for the Ender research, it was a study of over 500 brats who filled out a questionaire and then conducted interviews with Ender. The problem with the study is that he obtained his sample via Brat Organizations and the Internet, thus may have selection bias in identifying more educated brats.Balloonman 10:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Made most of the changes indicated above, except for where I explained why I didn't here.

Yannismarou

Very very interesting article of unique quality! This is my review:

• The lead: IMO, this stubby second paragraph is not nice. I would suggest you expand it a bit or you merge it with the next paragraph, so that you have two nice paragraphs. Prose stuff: In the last two short paragraphs of the lead, I counted 7 times the word "brat".
• "these analysis have been criticized because they over-emphasized negative attributes of growing up in a military family". You mean these analyses have been criticized?
• "Even research that is conducted using scientific sampling methods may contain bias because of the difficulty in conducting epidemiological studies across broad-based population samples. Since the Department of Defense does not track or monitor former brats, any study on adult brats is based upon self identification. Some researchers, such as Wertsch and Ender, discribed how they used referrals, internet, and newspaper articles to identify military brats." Uncited paragraph.
• "Military culture has its own norms and expectations that often appears foreign to cilivians." That oftern appear maybe?
• Paragraphs like this one "The children of officers socialize with other officers' children. The children of enlisted personnel socialize with those of other enlisted personnel's children. Even if an officer brat and an enlisted brat became friends at school, this friendship rarely carries over to the home life. The physical separation and differences between available activities make it very difficult." looks also to me as a bit choppy. The prose might need a slight overall polishing.
• "While generally true, like all truisms the generalization has or has had limits." Huh?! This is redundant verbalism for me. I don't think we need this sentence in an encyclopedic article.
• "While generally true, like all truisms ... and base exchange." Another uncited paragraph.
• Section "Racism" that in all the last decades there were no racist incidents deserving mentioning in the article. The Presidents imposed the right legislation and the problem was fixed! No crises! No tensions! Isn't that a bit idealistic?--Yannismarou 10:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yuck... I didn't see that paragraph with the "truisms" snuck in there. The person who added it, did some other good edits when adding it that I didn't notice it. Thanks for catching it. I'll look over it in closer detail and either find citations for it or get rid of it. I don't want to discard another persons contributions to the article, but it does need to be cited---and I do not like the way it it written. As for your other comments, thanks I'll definately incorporate them.Balloonman 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, is unique quality a good thing or a bad thing ;-) Balloonman 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good! Why bad?--Yannismarou 14:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It was half in jest... "That is a unique choice in color" could be an insult.... but I figured based on your comment that it was good ;-)66.7.182.35 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! You know I am not a native English speaker, and even if I wanted to insult, I could not have been that good!--Yannismarou 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that you aren't a native English Speaker... your English is much better than my German. I wouldn't even try to edit something in German---I'd have to use a dictionary just to understand it all. But yeah, saying something is "unique" can sometimes be a veiled insult in English. EG you say it's unique because nobody else in the world would like it. I knew that's not what you were saying ;-) Balloonman 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Doris Miller

I have drasticly expanded this article and would like to get any further ideas to increase the rating of this article --Wilsbadkarma 01:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A good start. There's a lot of things that I would suggest further work on, though:

• The layout in the infobox is too tall. If you want to include an image of the cross, I'd suggest placing it side-by-side with the photo, as is done with the various USMC MOH recipient articles.
• The "Dates of Rank" and "Decorations and awards" sections should be worked into the infobox and the body of the text; bullet lists of that type should generally be avoided.
• The "Memorials" and "Popular Culture" sections are problematic (the latter one in particular). I would suggest combining the two into a single "Memorials and tributes" section (in the form of a prose summary, not a list) covering both topics.
• Most significantly, major work is needed on the referencing. Much of the article is uncited, including a number of direct quotes; see the project guidelines on citation. Beyond that, the use of only a handful of websites as sources is somewhat questionable; has this man never been covered in published historical works? I would have expected otherwise, given that he seems to have acquired a certain level of fame.

Working on these points would result in a significantly stronger article, in my opinion. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm in the process of attempting to add more references however my one issue is with the image and the cross. I have them sitting side by side. I have seen the MOH infoboxes with the medal on the right and thats honestly where I got idea from. But I'm placing the images the same way. I can't get why your seeing it vertically. Oh and thanks for the input --Wilsbadkarma 09:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

USS Missouri (BB-63)

First Peer Review Second Peer Review

By accidentall oversight its been more than two years since this article has seen any type of community attention, so I am submitting this article for Peer Review ahead of a needed FAR to address any issues that may need to be fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight

Alright, pretty good article. Couple of minor suggestions:

• In the introduction, US Navy and United States Navy are redundant. The first could be removed, and the second linked.

• In the "Service with the 3rd Fleet, Admiral Halsey" section, 2nd paragraph, the first link to Honshu is in a better position to be linked then the second one.

• In "Signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender", the first link to Honshu could be linked.

• Redirect Navy Day in the Post-war section to the correct sub-section.

• In the same section, "both nations' independence.[4]" doesn't seem to refer to two nations at all. I'm guessing that it's referring to Greece and Turkey?

• In the Korean section the "Republic of Korea." is not previously mentioned, and could lead to confusion among readers

• "In an effort to dissuade U.N. forces from completely overrunning North Korea the People's Republic of China", comma after Korea.

• Same section, Link to Mark Wayne Clark ("sailed thence to Sasebo, Japan. General Mark W. Clark,")

Good job on this article, and good luck on the FAR. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Golymin

As I intend to contribute more in a similar style I would be grateful for some guidence that I am getting it right. Two specific questions are - Is there too much detail? Is the list of forces engaged appropriate for the article?

The Stratigic Situation bit could be moved to a seperate, longer, article on the Campaign in Poland 1806 with map(s)- but at present I have not got the time!

Andrewshobley 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice. Some general suggestions:

• The lead could stand to be a little longer; it should (succinctly) summarize all the major points of the article.
• Headings should be formatted per the MOS; in particular, a leading "The" should generally be omitted.
• A lot of the choppier sections (weather, site, analysis) could be merged into the surrounding prose. There's no need to create a new section for every topic being discussed.
• The same can be said for the choppy (often one-sentence) paragraphs, particularly in the latter portion of the article.
• More citations are needed in various parts of the article; see WP:MILHIST#CITE. Particularly worrying is the appearance of uncited historiographical judgements (e.g. "Stolarski’s article appears to make too many assumptions about the Russian order of battle at Eylau to be reliable").
• The order of battle should really be given before the narrative of the battle itself, and would probably work better as a table than as a bulleted list.
• Are any suitable images available? If nothing else, portraits of the commanders can be used to add some color. The two maps should probably be spaced out a bit more, and shifted onto opposite margins.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa

A GA clas article, on GA review and with a debate resurrected from mediation archive going on. Comments appreciated, regarding the GA status, current debate and anything else that you think can be added/improved in the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: replied to comments below in small font.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

I think it's a really good article. A few suggestions:

• Add more inline citations, at least one per paragraph (preferably at the end of each paragraph) should keep tags from being added all over the place.

Improved, but we still can use more.

• More chronological details of World War II operations. I think that section should be expanded.

Expanded.

• The "Structure and Membership" and other technical details that use tables might could go in a separate article in order not to interrupt the flow of the main article.
• The Lithuanian section is so long that it might also stand as a separate article.

Done, although one user strongly objects, comments on talk page would be appreciated.

Cla68 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, if a bit on the long side. Some general suggestions:

• The lead ought to be a longer summary of the article; the current one-paragraph version doesn't really provide much. I'd also suggest looking at whether {{Infobox military unit}} would work here.

Lead expanded. I am not sure how to use the template in this case, though.

• More citations would be helpful; at the very least, the outstanding requests need to be dealt with. (See WP:MILHIST#CITE for some more ideas on this.) Beyond that, the existing citations need to be cleaned up; the external links should be changed to proper footnotes, and the sections at the bottom may need some shuffling (is "Literature" meant to be "Further reading", or a sub-section of "References"?)

Improved.

• As Cla68 mentioned, the Lithuanian section probably ought to be split out to an article of its own, with only a summary left here (similarly to the Soviet section).

Done.

• The "See also" section should be done away with.

4 see also is not to much, I'll see if the can be incorporated. The red ones, once stubbed, can almost certainly go into article.

Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• I agree with Kirill about the lead. One more paragraph could be added.
• "There are some accusations of negative actions committed by the AK towards ethnic minorities, particularly the Lithuanians (see below)." This one-sentence paragraph looks stubby and mis-placed as it is now. In general, I think that the second part of "Second World War" needs better writing-more consistent and with better prose flow.

Sentence removed. Copyediting for nicer prose is not one of my specialities, I am afraid.

• These ugly should go, and the article should be properly cited.

Improved, per above.

• "Polish communists viewed the underground loyal to the Polish government in exile as a force which had to be removed before they could gain complete control over Poland. Future General Secretary of PZPR, Władysław Gomułka, is quoted as saying: "Soldiers of AK are a hostile element which must be removed without mercy". Another prominent Polish communist, Roman Zambrowski, said that AK had to be "exterminated"." In this paragraph you offer a Polish source. For better verifiability and credibility could you give an English source?

When I find an English source, I'll, but per WP:RS non-English soruces are permitted; especially when (as in this case) this fragment is not disputed.

• Inconsistent linking of years. Needs fixing per WP:MoS.
• I now see that Rzeczpospolita is the source used to almost all assertions against Soviets and to the whole "Postwar" section. I would suggest once again an English source; it would offer a "sense of objectivity" and would be easier verified.

They had a nice article on this. Eventually I fully agree it should be replaced by English academic sources... but for now it's all we have.

• "The third AK organization was Wolność i Niezawisłość". Which are the other two? This may happen, becase I read a bit quickly, but I do think "Postwar" could be better written.

NIE and Delegatura Sił Zbrojnych na Kraj were the two previous ones.

• Citations go after punctuation mark. You are inconsistent. And try, if possible, to place citations at the end of the sentences; not in the middle.

If we have a controversial fact, I try to reference the fact, not the sentence - especially when it contains information from many sources.

• Officially this is not an object for FA status, but for me there are far too many red links.

Stubbing all the time...

• "Three out of seven members of the Collective Command of the AK (KG AK) had Jewish origins." This sentence as it is now, it looks like being in the middle of nowhere!
• While most historians agree that AK was largely untainted in collaboration with Nazis in the Holocaust,[8] the accusations of the complicity of single AK members or groups in anti-Jewish violence in Poland are frequently brought up to this day.[8] Why are you using the same citation twice in the same phrase? No obvious reason.

I think the first part was controversial some time ago, feel free to remove the ref though.

• "However Stalin's aim to ensure that an independent Poland would never reemerge in the postwar period." Is this sentence OK? Is something missing there?

Clarified, I hope

• "Soviet forces continued to engage the elements of AK long after the war." This phrase needs elaboration. unless you think the issue is covered in "Postwar". In this case, get rid of this stubby one-sentence paragraph, which does not offer a nice ending to the article.

I like it in the current format as it links back to the postwar section; it is important to note the connection between 'Relations with the Soviets' and 'Postwar history' sections.

• Per Kirill about the "See also" section.
• "In total number of victims of Polish revenge action in the end of June of 1944 in Dubingiai and neighbouring towns of Joniškis, Inturkė, Bijutiškis, and Giedraičiai (town), was 70-100 Lithuanian civilians.[20][15][21]" Do you like the ciations as they look here, because I do not. Wouldn't be better if they were like that [15][20][21]. This is just an example of similar problems.
• "Nonetheless in the recent years there are signs that Polish and Lithuanians historians, and veterans, even if they still do not agree on the same interpretation, are increasingly able to reach some compromises." What is the essence of these compromises? Where does this provisional scholarly consensus lead?--Yannismarou 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is mostly discussed in a subarticle now.

Campaign history of the Roman military‎

I have been working on this article for the last few weeks after splitting the Military history of ancient Rome into the four componenets of Structural, Political, Campaign and Technological histories. Campaign is the first of the four I have been working on, but I intend to work on each of the others in turn.

I will be seeking featured article status for the article shortly and want to polish off any rough edges in a peer review first.

It was tough trying to stick to a straightforward campaign history without going into too many other areas on the one hand, or having a dry, soulless list of battles on the other. I hope that I have struck the right balance.

Any comments etc appreciated, but given scope of article factual checking from those with topic knowledge especially welcome - I have tried to cite as much as possible. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 10:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, but a variety of things that still need work before this would be ready for FAC:

• While I don't object to the {{href}} format in principle, I would avoid using it until the technical issues with it are worked out. In particular, anyone printing the article is currently out of luck as far as getting the citations is concerned.

Its not really that big an issue for me, if it needs doing, so be it, but I'm against the idea at present - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• In any case, footnotes need to be placed after punctuation, not before it.

See discussin below - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article might be a little campaignbox-heavy. More practically, please make sure that all of these new campaignboxes you've created are (a) listed at WP:CAMPAIGN and (b) comply with the standard formatting documented there. In particular:
  • The dates of battles should be omitted, with ordinals (1st, 2nd, etc.) used to disambiguate within a single campaignbox, where necessary.

Corrected now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The articles linked to should be actual battle articles (even if they don't exist) rather than merely the city articles themselves.

Corrected now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • A number of single-battle campaignboxes (e.g. {{Campaignbox Rome against the Cilician Pirates}}) aren't very useful unless they have potential to be expanded; otherwise, they don't really provide any navigational benefits.

I would see all or most campaign boxes as starting out with only one or two entries and then being expanded, just as most articles start as stubs and get expanded - i know there was more than one battle in all these campaigns and would hope someobody will expand them in future - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seems fine, then. One point: {{Campaignbox Crisis of the Third Century}} should really be broken into two templates, since the second half of it has nothing to do with the Third century. We ought to have a separate one for the fourth-century civil wars, possibly merging {{Campaignbox Constantine Wars}} into it as well. Kirill Lokshin 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I will get on it - PocklingtonDan 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The use of first-level headings ("History" and "Assessment") isn't permitted by the MoS; everything will need to be bumped down. Alternately, you could just eliminate the "History" heading entirely; as the article is titled "campaign history", there's not much else that a reader could be expecting.

Corrected now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The first two sections seem rather short; I'd combine them into a single pre-Republican section.

Done now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Adding date ranges to the Early/Mid/Late headings may be useful.

Done now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Having a campaignbox and one of the left-floated blue pullboxes in the same place causes alignment problems; they should be spaced so as to stagger themselves.

Can you describe this a bit more? It doesn't seem to cause any alignement issued my browser so I don't quite see what needs doing - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Example: at the start of the "Triumvirates, Caesarian ascension, and revolt (53-30 BC)" section, the text is squeezed between boxes on both sides; at lower resolutions, you get a one-word-wide column. Kirill Lokshin 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm with you now, hadn't considered lower resolutions, will fix this now - PocklingtonDan 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The heavy use of parentheses in the text is somewhat distracting. I'd suggest copyediting into more natural list forms, where possible; for example, replace "incursions in 356 (Battle of Reims), 357 (Battle of Strasbourg), 367 (Battle of Solicinium) and 378 (Battle of Argentovaria)" with "incursions in 356 at the Battle of Reims, in 357 at the Battle of Strasbourg, in 367 at the Battle of Solicinium, and in 378 at the Battle of Argentovaria".

Agreed, copyedited out now - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The list of battles in the "Usurpers (193-394)" section seems something of a cop-out. The period is complicated, but not so much that a narrative can't be written (particularly as the battles are not, except for one small group, ocurring at the same time); but, even if no narrative is given, the self-referential explanation of why none is present needs to go.

I know its a copout but I'm not sure how to move forward with it! I'll have a stab at writing a narrative for it later today - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: turned into prose now - PocklingtonDan 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The ending (e.g. "eternal glory or damnation", etc.) seems a tad melodramatic for my taste. At the least, it ought to be cited to a historian, with quotes used if possible.

Melodrama removed! - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside: it's not necessary to double-list things onto the MILHIST PR and the central PR by hand; there's a bot that will replicate all the MILHIST requests onto the central list. ;-)

Doh! Now I know. Oops - PocklingtonDan 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, I will get working on everything you suggest. The only items I have issue with are:

• "In any case, footnotes need to be placed after punctuation, not before it." - I believe this is just US convention, I am British and was always taught the opposite!!
• not using "hnote" reference system - I agree it is not perfect, but the standard reference system both led to a ridiculously long list of footnotes that took up several screens worth, and also led to great distraction when reading the text - "N" is a lot less of a distraction than "123", espcially if two cites are provided in a row for one fact, ie "NN" versus "[123] [125]"

I'll get cracking on everything else - PocklingtonDan 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The placement does seem to vary—although I've certainly seen any number of British works using the footnote-after-punctuation system—but the Wikipedia convention is to place the notes after most punctuation; see WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE.

As far as the formatting of the notes themselves, I suspect this is largely an issue of personal preference. I tend to have no problems with very long sections of footnotes; but I also tend to add a lot of annotations to them, which wouldn't be possible with a more compact form. As I said, I have no problems with the principle here; my only concern is that these templates won't render correctly when the article is printed/accessed on a portable device/viewed through a text-only browser/etc. I suspect that you'll hear plenty of opinions on this topic once you take the article to FAC, though. Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative, do you think if I reverted to plain footnotes it would then be possible to have them hidden by default by displayed by election, ie as the "More information" section int he MILHIST banner at eg Talk:Campaign history of the Roman military???? This would seem to address both your concerns and mine if possible... - PocklingtonDan 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a particularly clean solution; the collapsed-by-default section will prevent the actual hyperlinks in the note numbers from working. Whether that's better or worse than the current setup, I don't know; but, strictly speaking, both of them are "broken" in certain scenarios. Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I prefer it to the current solution though - it solves the problem of being neat and hiding the footnotes until the time anyone elects to show them for printing or whatever. Do you know how to implement this? - PocklingtonDan 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Add the following at the top of the "References" section, before the bibliographic listing:

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width="100%" style="border: 1px silver solid; background: transparent;"
|-
! style="text-align: left;" | Notes
|-
| <references/>
|}

One additional point you might want to think about: the article is quite long. I don't see that as a problem, personally; but it's almost certain that somebody will bring it up at FAC. Kirill Lokshin 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) thanks for the footnote code, I think I will use this. As for the article length, I do think it is too long in that it is not an easy on-screen read in a single sitting, but I don't think its too long in that its a good go-to summary of all of rome's military campaigns. I think it depends what you want to use the article for - PocklingtonDan 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And just to say thanks for some really excellent input, I notice that at times it seems as if you are tackling all the MILHIST peer reviews etc single-handed and you still find the time to give useful, in-depth responses to each, so thanks - PocklingtonDan 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

United States Navy enlisted rate insignia

I have been working on this article for a long time now, I have completely revamped it including the creation of all new images. I would like to put it up for featured but there has been some discussion between myself and a few others as to whether this is a list or an article. So, on top of requesting a peer review I would also like to get a general consensus as to which category this falls into. — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice. A few comments, in no particular order:

• I would say that this is more a list than an article. The volume of prose is fairly low, compared to the tables; it seems cleaner to consider this to be a well-annotated list than a scrawny and list-heavy article. ;-)
• Can we eliminate the "See also" section? It seems quite strangely placed; I'd do the following:
  • Place the horizontal template at the very bottom of the article.
  • Place the portal link at the top of the "References" section.
  • Remove the two plain links; they're both already linked in the text.

I think this should be ready for FLC in short order; keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made the changes you suggested and thanks, I am going to leave up both peer reviews until tomorrow and if there are no further issues I'm going to put it up for FLC. — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War

Previous peer review

I just withdrew the article's FA and I want some advice and to see what can be done to improve the article before I re nominated it in the future. Kyriakos 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Well, at this point, the most sensible thing would probably be to focus on the objections raised during the FAC. The chief ones seem to be:

• Sources: adding citations to modern secondary works shouldn't be too difficult; ideally, there ought to be enough to stave off any questions of over-reliance on ancient primary sources.
• Lead: this could, admittedly, be reworked quite a bit; it seems to have moved away from attempting to summarize the article and goes off on tangents about Nabis's title and such.

I remove the comments about Nabis' title and put them in the notes section.

• Prose: the writing style is probably the most subjective thing here. The only thing I can really suggest would be to try and find a few fresh editors to give the article some copyediting.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Per Kirill on the sources. I think the most important thing in this article is now further and more thorough research based on both primary (in case, you have missed any - something I do not believe) and (most importantly) secondary sources. This is I believe the main problem that impeded FA promotion.

The prose looked and looks to me fine. It has been copy-edited by an excellent copy-editor, and it has been well worked by the main editor. Maybe, a second addition external copy-editing wouldn't hurt. In some of my articles, I have asked the assistance of more than one copy-editors.

More photos incoroporated in the article (not just "external photos") would help the article to "show" better. It is not the most important thing, but it definitely matters.

I promise I'll soon read the article once again in detail, but I really think (and I agree on that with Kirill) that what it really needs now is "fresh eyes", which will feed it with "fresh nurture": fresh ideas and fresh conceptions. The article is definitely on the right track, but the FAC reviewers seemed to believe that it lacked the "spark" a FA has to have.--Yannismarou 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes the prose gets "choppy". See here for instance: "Nabis built new ships and besieged Gythium in 192 BC with a navy and an army. The Achean's sent an envoy to Rome with a request for help.[8] In response the Senate sent the praetor Atilius with a fleet to repel Nabis' attacks as well as an embassy headed by Flaminius.[8] The Achean's themselves under Philopoemon headed with their troops towards Gythium to try and relieve the city. The Achean fleet under Tiso seems to have been in a very bad shape as reportedly the flagship was so unseaworthy that it fell apart at the first assault." I think you should go from one event to the other, from one sentence to the other more "smoothly". And I think it is the "Acheans"; not the "Achean's".
• Prose problem again: "The Roman's however did not strip Nabis of his power. His allegiance was assured with five hostages, amongst them his son Armenas.[32] However, the exiles were not restored to the city, but their Spartan wives, who had been remarried to former helots, were allowed to leave and rejoin their husbands.[32] The Roman's however did not strip Nabis of his rule." Repetition of the same forms of expression. And again: why "Roman's" and not "Romans"? Am I missing something here? I am not anymore sure, and, therefore, I did not correct here. I then see "his force's". Isn't it "his forces"?
• Mixing styles that Piotrus points out in the references is a problem that can be easily be resolved: either adopt a common numbering ([1][2] etc.) for all your notes with no exception either divide the notes in "notes" and "citations", as I like to do (and Kirill doesn't!). It is up to you. Maybe a single numbering in a single "notes" section is the best solution for this particular article.--Yannismarou 09:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus

A map of troop movements would be invaluable. There seem to be some confusion between notes (two systems) and references, please streamline.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would any one be able to make a map about the troop movement? Kyriakos 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii

I haven't looked at it yet but I plan on giving it a thorough going over tomorrow. Do you want copyedit/prose concerns adressed, or were the objections that lead to your withdrawl more content oriented? Thanatosimii 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The big problem is and was the prose. Wandalstouring 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

PSS Silent Pistol

This is an new article about a relitively unknown Soviet/Russian pistol, and is also my first Wikipedia article. I would like to run it by more experienced members, with hopes of improving it. JVkamp 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Well, as you said, this is a new article; the main thing it needs right now is simply more material. There's a lot of historical context missing that seems like it would be publically available: when and how did the weapon fall into Western hands? Are there records of it being used? What examples have been located, and where? What information is available about its development and manufacture? And so forth. At the moment, the article touches only on the technical aspects; it should, if possible, go beyond this.

Aside from that, some general issues:

• Citations should be added as appropriate.
• Are there any images of the weapon or the ammunition? Or perhaps diagrams that could be drawn based on the description?
• A lead section is needed.

Kirill Lokshin 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Leapfrogging (infantry)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam ware (talk • contribs)

• Is this the same as the British technique of 'pepperpotting'? Buckshot06 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• How about a history of the evolution of this technique, and a comparison with what came before? (Presumably linear tactics? Or something else?) Is this any different than just providing covering fire for an advance? — RJH (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Well, this obviously still needs massive work. Some major areas to focus on:

• References and inline citations need to be provided.
• More on the history and context. When and how was this tactic developed? How is it taught? How does it relate to other infantry tactics? How does it relate to the idea of suppressive fire in general? Where has it been used? What is its effectiveness in combat? And so forth.
• Generally, any additional detail that can be added would be helpful, at this point. Kirill Lokshin 06:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Needs proper wikification as well. And the normal headers, 'see also', 'references', 'further reading', 'external links'. — Wackymacs 11:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Ghazni

I wrote this article from scratch. Fixed and edited it and have it cited and referenced. Just want to know what else can be done to improve this article?

Thanks Mercenary2k 07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A good start, but still lots of improvement that can be done, I think; some general suggestions:

• More citations are needed, and (more importantly) to more reputable sources. BritishBattles.com really isn't an appropriate reference in the long run; the article needs to be sourced to published historical works (see WP:MILHIST#References).
• The lead section should be a two/three-paragraph summary of the entire article.
• The OOB would probably work better as a table; any additional information for it (commanders & strength of each unit, mainly) would be very helpful.
• Any chance of getting some maps, both of the campaign and of the assault on the city itself?
• Some more images might be possible; I would assume that there would be contemporary prints and such that would be {{PD-Art}}.

More generally, any additional detail would be helpful; the article is still fairly brief, as such things go. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alphageekpa

I'm going to agree with Kirill. Probably the single biggest area for improvement is increasing the number of citations, and using more traditional and reputable sources. Websites are fine for general and background information, but the key to taking this article to the next level is going to be incorporating published (print) resources. Great start, and keepin up the good work! Alphageekpa 11:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Angevin Empire

I would like this article to be improved as much as it could, it has been suggested that with improvements it could be a candidate to be a featured article, since I'll have more time this week I can work on improvement with suggestion. As my first article it is unlikely that it goes that way though. Matthieu 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

This is quite nice, but it still needs quite a bit of work to be ready for a smooth FAC:

• The lead section should be a summary of the entire article, not an introduction to the topic (with information that appears nowhere else); the actual content should be moved to the body.
• More detail on the historiography of the name would be appropriate, I think.
• The headings should be formatted per the MoS; and should be kept as grammatically sensible as possible (e.g. "John's reign and the collapse" rather than "John's reign, the collapse"). "Angevin Empire" should be omitted as well.
• More citations! Large portions of the article are entirely uncited; see the project guidelines for some ideas on this.
• I'd replace {{cquote}} with regular blockquote formatting.
• Thorough copyediting will be needed, as there are errors in grammar and word choice (e.g. "accessed the throne" for "ascended the throne", etc.) sprinkled throughout the article.
• Most of the uses of {{seealso}} and {{main}} should really be {{details}}.
• Bulleted lists should be converted to prose where possible.
• The "See also" section should be eliminated by working the links into the body of the article.
• A bibliography-style "References" section separate from the footnotes might be helpful.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the introduction to a new section about the name and the way it is applied. As well contemporary views on the structure, it is therefore expanded, I frankly don't see what can be added on this specific topic now. There is a new (very brief) introduction too.

I may add a "further reading" section to complement the footnotes. I have also added some citations and notes, I'll do more as time goes on.

Sorry for the grammatical mistakes, well as I said English is not my first language. If there is an English language buff that wants to help he is welcome.

Matthieu 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

About the citations, if you could indicate me which points seem contestable or will attract controveries I will dig quotes, but I think there are a lot in the notes already. I tried to give more weight to the areas which would be contested (these relatives to the nature of power of the Angevin Empire, its structure and the political weight, as well as the hommages and things that would attract debates have been given notes). Matthieu 14:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much anything in particular (or, more precisely, I don't know enough about the topic to be able to give a good analysis of which points are controversial), but rather a general sense that a reader ought to be able to go to any point in the article and find a (reasonably close-by) citation for the statements there. There's no specific requirement for a certain density (see the project guideline); but having at least a citation for every paragraph is often a good rule of thumb. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I have quoted everything that could raise questions or controversies really. From now I hardly something that can require more attention than the rest, but I'll keep watching Matthieu 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Raymond

Just some additional things (apart from the grammar) that will need attention:

• Misuse of the hyphen eg: But by October the new Count of Toulouse -Raymond VI- left the Capetian side. . .

Commas are fine, eg But by October the new Count of Toulouse, Raymond VI, left the Capetian side . . .

• All citations must come ‘’after’’ the punctuation

• Hasn’t, wasn’t etc, should be written – Has not, was not etc.

• The map has misspelled the word Plantagenet

Not too bad, but as Kirill said, it will need a bit of close attention to the prose. Raymond Palmer 01:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the map is not of my fact :P but yeah it's annoying. Matthieu 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bukvoed

• I'm genuinely impressed by the sheer amount of information.
• Don't see major problems with formatting / citations etc.
• But the language seems a bit awkward at times. At least that was my impression, perhaps a wrong one since I'm not native English speaker myself.
• Also, the article is very long; this is not necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps some sections could be trimmed down ? Or may be even splitted to separate articles ? Again, not sure about it.
• I'd like to see a separate section with a list of sources used.

Bukvoed 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Red Army

Having copied the text to Military of the Soviet Union to concentrate on the land forces of the USSR, I've started improving this article, with refs, changing the structure more toward the U.S. Marine Corps military branch template, and filling out the new sections. There is more on all that to do, but I would appreciate thoughts on anything I've missed. Buckshot06 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

It's clearly moving forward now. Some suggestions on the content:

• There seems to be a pretty bizarre choice of focus in some sections; for example, the single episode of Khalkhin Gol gets more coverage than the entire Civil War. I would avoid detailed discussion of battles in this article in any case, and limit the history section to talking about wars, with individual battles mentioned in context, but not getting detailed narratives in their own right; otherwise, this is likely to become unreadably long.
• The discussion of the Russian Civil War and Polish-Soviet War (both of which should be discussed more) should probably be in the first section (with the context of Trotsky, etc.), with the next section covering things from the end of those to the start of WWII and the Winter War.
• More detail on the Winter War would be appropriate, I think.
• More coverage of doctrine is needed; the bulk of it should probably be left for Military doctrine of the Soviet Union, though, as it's a very complex topic in its own right.
• More citations throughout are needed; the entire "The end of the Soviet Union" section is uncited, for example.

Aside from that, some more minor formatting issues:

• {{Infobox military unit}}, maybe?
• A separate bibliography-style "References" section would be helpful.
• More staggering of the images along both margins might improve the layout.
• I'd replace {{main}} with {{details}} throughout.
• The headings should be fixed to follow the MoS.

Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

M3tal H3ad

Looking good, but a few things,

• Years alone should not be wikilinked, i removed some.
• References go after full-stops or commas not in the middle of a sentence. (only saw this once or twice)
• Try to avoid weasel words like 'some critics' just put critics.
• When using references to the web, please use the WP:CITE template. So links are organized better.
• The image will require a source and fair use rationale Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale
• Years with dates should be wikilinked example, December 25, 1991.

Otherwise it looks good to me, Goodwork M3tal H3ad 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

As noted by Kiril, this article is definitely heading in the right direction. My suggestions are:

• I'm not sure about the value of the 'Weapons and equipment' section. As the Red Army must have fields hundreds of different items of weaponry over its history it's not feasible to cover even the most important bits of hardware in any detail. If this section is retained I'd suggest that it be limited to discussing the underlying philosophies behind the Red Army's weaponry (eg, the preference for mass producing of indifferent tanks rather than building smaller numbers of high quality tanks, etc)
• Coverage of the Red Army's combat potential during the Cold War would be useful and interesting. Given the poor military performance of the USSR's sattelite states, coverage of how the Red Army would have performed using the same weapons and tactics would be really valuable.
• Much of the material in the history section isn't really relevant to the Red Army. For example, the background to the German invasion in 1941 would fit better in an article on the military history of the Eastern Front. A discussion of the Red Army's capabilities over time would be more useful than the current material of the USSR's military history.
• I'm not sure if this is possible, but some graphs showing the size of the Red Army could be a really powerful way of illustrating its sheer size
• More citations are needed. I've added citation flags to some assertions which, while doubtlessly correct, require a source. --Nick Dowling 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Planemo

The article looks very unbalanced and lacks any structure.

• Needs more words about ranks and uniforms.
• Needs more words about army branches (especially, tanks, aviation, communications).
• Needs more words about weapons used.
• Needs a section about decorations.
• Needs a short review of notable battle commanders.
• Afghanistan war does not belong here since there was no Red Army at that time (it was Soviet Army). If the coverage of the article extended to this period, then need info about missle forces, modern equipment etc. I suggest to make two articles:one for Red Army (Civil War, pre-WWII campangns and WWII) and one for Soviet Army (Cold War, Afghanistan and Warsaw pact).
• The USSR is generally considered to enter the WWII 22 June, 1941, so Polish campaign should be separated from the WWII section.

--Planemo 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how meaningful a split of the article at 1946 would be. While the term "Red Army" was, admittedly, abandoned (at least in official usage), it remained fundamentally the same force regardless of the exact name. Kirill Lokshin 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And present-day Russian army is also fundamentally the same force. Anyway the article will be very long if to combine the both and there is little in common between Red Army in 1918 and Soviet Army in 1985. We also need a large section for WWII in this article I feel, so it will be only fair to split it in two. The aims, doctrine and strategy of the army also were different before the Cold War and after it srtarted. Otherwise the article should be renamed anyway.--Planemo 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Joint Security Area

I think the article now has a good start, with appropriate separation of data into proper categories. However, I know there is a lot more information out there that hopefully others can find or share. wbfergus 19:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think I've taken care of most of the points above. Thanks for the feedback guys! There are a couple more areas that need a bit more work though:

The section on buildings needs a lot more work.

Still need to improve the picture flow.

Any other ideas/suggestions?

wbfergus 15:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I spent a few more hours today going over them and trying to correct what I could, and adding more references as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by wbfergus (talk • contribs)

Visviva

Impressive work! Couple o' thoughts:

• A lead section should summarize the article in such a way that it could stand on its own (see WP:LEAD). As written, the lead section could stand on its own quite well, but it doesn't really summarize the article; the main body of the article currently expounds in great detail on the various operations and incidents in the JSA, but these are scarcely mentioned in the lead. This might best be addressed by adding sections to the body of the article which would expand on the topics raised in the lead (such the JSA's legal and diplomatic status).

• There are some NPOV concerns... in particular, the assertion that all incidents in the JSA have been due to KPA provocations really needs an authoritative source. More generally, at present (thanks to your wonderful efforts) this article describes American actions in the JSA in great detail; more information about the North Korean side of things is needed. Although, of course, that information won't be easy to come by...  :-)

• A couple of small things:
  • the relationship between the JSA and Panmunjeom is not clear. I had always been under the impression that the JSA was in/near Panmunjeom, not identical with it. A detailed map would perhaps help to clarify this, if one can be found.
  • People like me who have seen JSA (film) are going to want to know if there are really Swiss and Swedish soldiers there. And if not, were there some in the past? What about Chinese or Soviet soldiers?

Thanks for getting this article off to a great start! -- Visviva 02:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

A good start. Some general comments:

• The lead section should be a summary of the article, not material in its own right. The description should be moved into the body of the article.
• The division into "Major events" and "Incidents" seems artificial and unnecessary, guided more by the availability of operational codenames for one set. I'd combine the two into a single narrative flow, from start to end, broken up into a few sub-sections by period or theme.
• Operational codenames should not be rendered in all caps. That quirk of military typography is deprecated on Wikipedia.
• Section headings ought to be kept short; the dates are almost certainly not needed in them.
• The gallery should be broken apart, with the images—with appropriate captions!—spaced throughout the article.
• Thorough citation is necessary for all the material here.
• The "See also" section should be trimmed by providing the links in appropriate places in the text.
• A map of the JSA would be really nice to have here.

Kirill Lokshin 01:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikimachine

Hi! I'll just go into details and specific cases of grammar mistakes because the two editors above covered the general format, etc. (grammar: only for the intro)

• The intro should have references.
• The section "creation" should be renamed "establishment"
• The section "Unit History (UNC)" should take "UNC" out. It's not only about the UN Command.
• The Joint Security Area (JSA), often called the "Truce Village" often called the "Truce Village" in Korean or English?
• From time to time, it is the scene of negotiations between South and North. The section is reserved between the two Koreas for diplomatic engagements.
• The original village of Panmunjom with the land farmed by the villagers, actually encompassed a larger area, of which the current boundaries of the JSA fall within. The original village encompassed a larger area than the current inter-military complex, and consisted mostly of farms.
• It is because of this that there is often ambiguity between the terms JSA or Panmunjom. What is "it"? The fact that the village does not exist & the village was prevented from re-settlement?

(Wikimachine 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

HMS Dreadnought (1906)

Looking for general suggestions for improvement, specifically for A-class, as I plan to make this my first real improvement project. Carom 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Buckshot06

I'd review the Featured Article criteria to get an idea of what's most required, but for a start, there's masses of good information that needs in-line citations added. Good luck..! Buckshot06 02:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

The main point to work on, at this juncture, would be the lack of inline citations; they should be liberally applied throughout the article. Aside from that:

• Some images of the actual ship would be very nice.
• The lead should be lengthened.
• There are a number of very short sub-sections in the "Genesis" section that could stand to be lengthened, if there's more material available.

Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Harlsbottom

I echo all that Kirill Lokshin has said, however I have two major complaints;

Quite apart from being uncited, the Technology section is not very good, while the entire latter third is useless. Someone with a sadly deficient knowledge of fire control has confused the essentials. If I had the time I would rectify it, but all I can do is point people in the direction of Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland by John Brooks.

I think that for this to be FA all the American (W.S. Sims' ideas) content would have to be cast out - on a subject of (arguably) such magnitude an article on the development of the dreadnought would be a good plan, instead of trying to squeeze everything hodge-podge into this one.

My very short views on the subject. --Harlsbottom 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

John Moore 309

There is much that is good here, but also much that strikes me as subjective in tone, with overuse of terms such as “useless”, “ironically” and “obsolete”. In particular, why is the section on the ship’s war service entitled Decline? The Genesis and Technology sections are verbose and repetitive, as well as being unsourced, while the section on Significance is a stub.

The article also includes an alarming number of factual inaccuracies and unfounded judgements. The following list is not exhaustive.

• ’’Another major innovation was the elimination of longitudinal passageways.’’ This was not an innovation in Dreadnought, having already been introduced in the Lord Nelson class.

• ”A collision during fleet exercises had earlier resulted in the sinking of a battle cruiser”. This unreferenced statement presumably alludes to the loss of HMS Victoria in 1893. Definitely not a battlecruiser.

• ”Then-new American and German dreadnoughts, … mounted all of their guns on centerline”. The German contemporaries of Neptune were the Helgoland class, which used wing turrets, as did the subsequent Kaiser class

• ”Withdrawn from the fleet because her low speed made it impossible to keep station”. Dreadnought was good for 21 knots, the standard speed of the Grand Fleet’s battleships.

• ”Smaller 12 pounder (76 mm) guns were added”. They were fitted from the start.

• ”by 1910 she was obsolete”. Hyperbole. She was considered obsolescent, which is not the same thing, from about 1915.

Obviously this is a key article for the Wikiproject. I haven’t spent a lot of time for Wikipedia lately, but I will try to look at some of these issues in the New Year.

Regards,

John Moore 309 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark83

WP:Lead says the introduction "should briefly summarise the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." that is not the case here. For example its obsolescence and eventual decomissioning should be summarised. Mark83 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Military operations of the Invasion of Cyprus (1974)

Respectfully, I would like to nominate this article for peer review in order to recieve criticism about how to improve it. The article is currently graded as Start.

(User383739 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

Thank you all for the input. I have made a number of changes based on these recommendations:

1. The orbat has been placed in context.

2. Pictures and maps have been added.

3. Add introductory context.

User383739

Kyriakos

Nice start to the article here are some suggestions.

• You might want to put in inline citations.
• There are quite a few short sections.
• The article would benefit from photos or maps.
• There too many lists in my opinion.
• Also the article is quite short. I'm certain that you can find more books or sources on the internet to help you find infomation to improve this article.

I hope you can improve this article in the future. Kyriakos 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

I'll mostly second the comments that Kyriakos has already made. Somewhat more generally, the article doesn't seem to have a clear logical structure; it's half order of battle and half narrative, but the two aren't tied together in any way. It needs to be expanded with more detail, obviously, but it also should be restructured into a narrative of the military operations, with the details of the units involved being given in context with the broader picture. Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Balloonman

No introduction? First section is simply a list of combatants... with the exception of the fact that somebody invaded cyprus, I had no idea of what this was. Who invaded cyprus? Why? Give me some reason to read the article. I STILL have no idea as to why the Turks invaded, what they hoped to accomplish, or anything. I have no context for this article, which made reading the details of the battle unmeaningful.Balloonman 07:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou

Many problems here:

• There is no lead.
• I see too many sections, most of which are stubby.
• No inline citations.
• Many listy secions which should turn into prose.

I recommend:

• First check WP:MoS, WP:HOW, WP:LEAD and other helpful links within Wikipedia.
• Then, start rewriting and restructuring your article.
• Finally, ask for a new review.--Yannismarou 11:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons

I am nominating this list just to make sure that I am on the right track with the direction I am heading with its layout, detail, etc.... I realize that a comprehensive introduction needs to be added and that some units still need descriptions but I wanted to get feedback on the overall look of the list. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks--Looper5920 11:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

NeoFreak

Wow. I find you attention to detail amazing and your work tireless. Simply put, you rock. Being a member of the Marine Corps avaiation community if you need help with anything please ask. Also, I believe that VMFA-332 (AW) or VMFA-533 (AW) (or both) are disbanding. I'll try to find out for sure and get some details. NeoFreak 11:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just 332 for east coast d's...and they disbanded already, 2 months or so ago I think. Robp 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Very nice. A few suggestions:

• The images should all be the same size; having them contract and expand as one moves down the page is somewhat jarring.
• The default "INSERT IMAGE HERE" image should be replaced with a properly sized transparent one.
• The nicknames should be italicized throughout; they're set in normal type in some sections.
• The headings should be fixed to nest properly; using level 1 headings isn't permitted in articles.
• I'd add comissioning/decommissioning dates to the tables. (The latter, in particular, are a very interesting data point for the inactive units.)
• Rather than having "N/A" for some nicknames, I'd just leave those fields blank.

Other than that, this seems to be a very nice list; are you planning to take it to WP:FLC once you get an introduction written? Kirill Lokshin 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the ultimate goal but there is still a ton of work that I want to do on it. Thanks for the input.--Looper5920 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Leathernecks

Have you thought of possibly adding lists of members? I realize that will take a lot of time and I am willing to help, just I think it would be best for history to remember the men that sacrificed their time and/or their live in defense of America. Just contact me if there is anything that I can do to help you with this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leathernecks (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a memorial, for what it's worth; such lists will doubtlessly be deleted in short order. Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)