Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2013/Promoted

Promoted

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No. 34 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Following on from my earlier noms for Nos. 33 and 36 Squadrons, yet another RAAF transport unit formed in WWII and still flying today. This is Australia's dedicated VIP carrier or, as one Air Force historian succinctly put it, "the private airline of the nation's political leaders". I actually resisted expanding this one for a while as the more "operational" squadrons always seemed more interesting, but in the event I got happily caught up in the convoluted history and inside dope of this unit, and I hope you will too... ;-) Tks to Nick-D for some additional information from his library, and Typing General for the recent GA review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Given that I've added a bit of stuff to this article recently (working out at roughly a small paragraph) I don't think that I should review it, but I'll offer some comments over the next few days.

• As a starting point, I'd suggest (with emphasis on the word "suggest"!) that the article include a list of all the aircraft types the squadron has operated and the years each type was in service for. While I'm not a fan of articles looking identical, I think that this is useful content, and answers a likely question readers have when consulting the article. If it doesn't look too huge, this could go in the infobox; I appreciate that this is a unit which has operated an unusually large number of types though (eg, compared to the four types No. 38 Squadron has operated in 70 years!). Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair point, Nick, and I wouldn't mind doing it in principle, it's just that an exhaustive list would be difficult to get accurate with the available sources. The usage dates of the main types are reasonably certain, but the one- or two-offs like the Anson, Moth, Oxford, DC-2, Prince and Auster (never mind Vampire and Winjeel for good measure!) are harder to pin down as they're generally just mentioned in passing, and I'd prefer not to have (literal) question marks in such a list... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a good point: this unit does seem to have used an eccentric range of aircraft (I'd love to know where the RAAF managed to find a Vickers Viking and why they decided it would be a good idea to put this ancient type into service!). Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• "They were immediately tasked with transport duties in northern Australia, carrying freight and Japanese prisoners of war" - there would have only been a tiny number of POWs at this time, so this could be de-emphasised
  • I think I gave it the emphasis the source did but then I may have seen elsewhere that it was indeed only a few -- will recheck and perhaps rephrase.
• The role of No. 33 Squadron in providing VIP flights could be fleshed out a bit more (I imagine that the arrangement was that the 707s handled long distance or large scale tasks while the Falcons were used for domestic and small scale tasks)
  • That'd be right I'm sure, I'll check for an RS that makes the comparison...
    • Curiously, not Units of the RAAF, RAAF Museum, Stephens, McPhedran, or available copies of Air Force News make this comparison explicit, although I think we've at least been able to say a bit more about the differences between the 707 and the smaller 34SQN aircraft. If Eather or Australian Aviation offer a direct comparison, pls let me know... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I've just added some material on this: it might be a bit long-winded though. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Tks, I think the first bit is fair enough as it follows on from the previous info but I might trim the last part (it's in the 33SQN article after all). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• The squadron's website says that it provided logistical support during Obama's visit to Canberra, and not flights (though I think that they flew the PM to or from Darwin when Obama went there from Canberra)
  • Interesting -- I borrowed the info/citation from my 84WG article and thought it said then that 34SQN actually flew him but perhaps I'm wrong...
• If this is headed for FAC, might be worth briefly noting the debate over the squadron's equipment which took place after the Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 disaster killed several Australians who were flying on the aircraft as Alexander Downer's party was too large to fit onto only a BBJ. There was a fair bit of discussion over whether the RAAF needs larger VIP aircraft so that journalists and government officials can safely and conveniently accompany senior ministers and the PM during overseas trips. You might have to look in newspaper archives and Hansard records for this though.
  • Just to show there's method to the madness, I did make a conscious decision when expanding this article to minimise newspaper/Hansard refs and let the history books carry the story. In this case McPhedran discusses it and I just left it out because I thought it might be a tad complicated, but happy to have a go since you mention it... ;-)
    • That's a good principle for this article: when I Googled the squadron it returned lots of shock-horror type news stories about the cost of its flights and the like (many of which seem to have been based around an assumption that no value at all should be placed on the time or energy of the PM and ministers, which seems rather silly to me). Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• On the topic of Hansard, this might be useful. Not surprisingly, the squadron is frequently mentioned in Parliament.
  • Ditto previous response, OTOH it might make sense to slot in some of that to contrast with today's stats.
• Is the incident where PM Rudd abused an attendant [1] worth mentioning? (it's probably more important to Rudd than the squadron, though a notable part of the incident was that the aircraft's captain confronted Rudd during the flight and asked that he apologise [hinted at here, but it was explicitly reported elsewhere).
  • Again, I decided against it because I figured it was only in the newspapers but in re-checking McPhedran I find he mentions it so I guess by my standards for inclusion that means it goes in... ;-)
• On a happier note, I've read that senior politicians sometimes help the attendants load the Challengers during flights out of remote airfields. I'll see if I can find a reference for this. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Tks, will check McPhedran too as it's the sort of tidbit he likes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No, McPhedran doesn't refer to something like this so if you have a book or journal ref that'd be great. Alternatively he mentions the flight attendants organising catering in remote areas through hotels or even improvising via the local supermarket, which we could add if desperate... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
      • My feeling is the article's probably detailed enough unless there's some really interesting and properly sourced tidbit lying around... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I would tell you about my edits, but I didn't make any. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tks Dan -- perfection at last, now I can retire! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's kind, and no you can't retire :) - Dank (push to talk) 09:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [2] (no action req'd).
  • External links check reveals a dead link [3]:
    • Gillison, Royal Australian Air Force , p. 481 (info) [awm.gov.au]
      • Good old AWM rejigging its urls yet again... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [4] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • Tks for reminder. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images appear to either be free or have an appropriate FUR. Captions look fine.
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [5] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate link per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Wonder if the ISSN, publisher and location of publishing could be added here (in the refs section)? "Moclair, Tony (December 2013). "34SQN". Australian Aviation (Issue 311)."
    • Have to leave that to Nick... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I've added it now using details from Worldcat.org. Hopefully its up to scratch. Anotherclown (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I've always used WorldCat just to get OCLCs, didn't think of it for an ISSN -- tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I read through the entire article and couldn't find any issues with prose or MOS compliance. Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Tks AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Support: I had a look and checked the image licencing. Not a lot jumped out at me except a minor typo that I fixed. Good work, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

HMS Iron Duke (1912)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Now that the German BBs are all but done (at least as far as ACR is concerned), it's time to bring something new wait, this isn't a ship from perfidious Albion, is it? I figured Jellicoe's flagship was as good a place to start as any, so here we are. This article will go on to FAC at some point in the future, so pull no reviewing punches, please. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Images - source link for File:The_Burning_of_Smyrna_as_seen_from_HMS_King_George_V.jpg is dead; images are otherwise fine. But do check the alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the image check, Nikki - I've replaced the original link (since I couldn't track it down on the website) with one from Flikr. And the references are in the proper order now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Does "After the end of the war" mean something different from "After the war"? - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. Would it be better to shorten it? Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case, yes, I'd recommend shortening it. To distil advice from various places: obvious redundancy grates on some readers. I do sometimes see "after the end ..." in print, and it's fine in spoken English. (The spoken language often has more redundancy, because once you've said something, it's gone, and the listener may be lost if they didn't get it.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me then - I've trimmed it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment Support

Should the info box not include Decommissioned, Struck, and Identification: Pennant number ? Just going off another set of articles.

I don't have any of those dates, unfortunately. And I don't think there are infobox fields for the dates I do have.

In the Kitchener image it should be Field Marshal Kitchener military rank proceeds civil when in uniform.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware - I assumed most people would know him as "Lord Kitchener". Thanks Jim. Parsecboy (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [6] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [7] (no action req'd).
  • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [8] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images review completed above by another reviewer.
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [9] (no action req'd).
  • One duplicate link per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • turrets
  • Typo here: "On 28 November 1916, while she still in dry dock..." should be "On 28 November 1916, while she was still in dry dock..."
  • "In November 1931, under the terms of the London Naval Treaty, Iron Duke was disarmed and she converted into a gunnery training vessel...." Consider more simply: "In November 1931, under the terms of the London Naval Treaty, Iron Duke was disarmed and converted into a gunnery training vessel." (suggestion only)
  • Inconsistency in terms: Second World War and World War II.
  • Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • All good suggestions, Anotherclown. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories

Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...

It is a complete and stable list, with complete reliable sourcing. The templates lead is the same used on the Featured List List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories. I just went through it and cleaned it up some.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are no categories
  • Sorry. Lost in the shuffle when I imported the newest iteration of this list. Now added.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• There is an empty "Reference" section at the bottom of the article
  • Deleted.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• I recommend to add a navigation box to the lists of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11-14, 15-19 and more than 20
  • And the purpose of this navigation box would be?Georgejdorner (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Well a reader should understand and easily navigate between all the aces of WW1. Otherwise it gives the impression that 5 was the limit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Their entry through Lists of World War I flying aces should inform them there were aces with scores greater than five, even if they have never heard of the Red Baron. Or am I missing something?Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, they shouldn't have to go back to the main list to navigate within the sub-lists. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh, you are referring to cross-connecting them. Let me see what I can scare up.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, that's right. Look at any of MisterBee's lists on Knight's Cross recipients for one example of how to do it (they're all in an infobox field). You could also just use the bar across the top of the main list in your aces series. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
              • I am a bit embarrassed I did not think of the nav box at Lists of World War I flying aces. Transplanted it onto the top template, so that it shows on all victory lists. Thank you for your patience in nudging me into this improvement.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Thought I should mention that the nav box has been placed on the top template, and your suggestion has been rendered ninefold.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• wrong dash in "1914-1918" (among others), page ranges 209-210 (example)
  • Page ranges have been n-dashed per MOS. Date range dashes are in book titles.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • But the date ranges also require n-dashing. This is not consistent. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I see no reason to retitle a source—and in effect, that is your request.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Correct that is my request. The source "Above the Lines: The Aces and Fighter Units of the German Air Service, Naval Air Service and Flanders Marine Corps 1914-1918" should be referenced as "Above the Lines: The Aces and Fighter Units of the German Air Service, Naval Air Service and Flanders Marine Corps 1914–1918" because it includes a timeframe, which also governed by WP:MOSNUM#Dates and MOS:ENDASH. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
          • My personal ethics as a writer prevent me from changing another writer(s)' book title(s).Georgejdorner (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Would you let someone else do it then, George? MOS always has the final say in basic formatting of titles in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
              • I do believe WP is over-reaching in this instance.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
                • It is not a question of belief, and it is not for the reviewers to question guidelines here. If you feel that this is unjust policy then you should bring up your point where the referencing style guides are being discussed see Wikipedia:Citing sources. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • It is indeed my belief that Wikipedia may have to deal with incensed publishers at some point. It is also my belief that I do not wish any part in that. And the typically cavalier fashion in which my beliefs were dismissed perfectly illustrate why I have quit wasting time trying to question the assessment department about its practices.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• The table is initially sorted by last name. If you click the sort bottom it sorts by first. Sorting should be by last name. Use {{sortname}}
  • Hmm, that's interesting. Please give me time to check it out.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I checked it out, but I fail to see a problem. Why shouldn't the list offer various sort options?Georgejdorner (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is that once a sort button is clicked, the reader has no means to restore the list to its original sequence at load time. I doubt that this will uphold the more stringent criteria we were asked to implement in a A-class review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I just finished fiddling and twiddling with all the column headers. Jeez, what a mess! I thought I could back up to start, but that throws me off the list.
      • Which leads me to wonder, What can sortability actually add to this list to enhance its usefulness to the reader?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
      • To put it another way, does this list really need sortability?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
        • The row and column software below seems to solve the problem.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• I believe you need to make use of row and column scope in the table. See WP:ACCESS
  • No offense intended, but I have no idea what you are talking about. How will "row and column scope" (whatever they are) improve the list? Make it more usable for readers?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Check section Wikipedia:ACCESS#Tables. Screen readers require row-scope and column-scope to be set. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • This requirement is new to me. Please allow me time to check it out.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I have never even used a screen reader for reading, much less encoded for it. Or encoded for anything for that matter. My usage of wiki-markup is not root and branch…my magpie style is pluck others' shiny leaves of wikicode and reuse 'em.
        • In summary, I am a technological troglodyte.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Sorry for asking but are you asking for help on this issue or are you saying please wave this requirement because I don't know how to implement it? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
            • More a cry of dismay at the totality of my ignorance…and a reminder that it will take me a while to get on top of this. I am searching for someplace to lift the needed code.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

try this

{|class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" style="font-size:95%;"
|-
! scope="col" | Name
! scope="col" | Country
! scope="col" | Air service(s)
! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Victories
|-
! scope="row" | {{sortname|Albert|Achard}}
| {{flag|France}}
| [[Armée de l'Air (Part I: From birth to "Torch", 1909-1942)|''Aéronautique Militaire'']]
| 5<ref>''Over the Front: A Complete Record of the Fighter Aces and Units of the United States and French Air Services, 1914–1918''. p. 112.</ref>
|-

and so on MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• • I am experimenting with the above in my Sandbox. Been plagued with intermittent internet outages, so am knocking off for present.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I removed the "nowiki" statements from your sandbox. I used them here so that you can read the syntax. They were not meant to be copied MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh, that explains a lot. Will I be able to add the "scope="row" | {{sortname" bit to the names on the present lists without fouling them up before I import the screen reader code from the sandbox?Georgejdorner (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Nemmine, fiddled with it until some understanding dawned upon me.
        • Okay, I now have a sample prototype in my sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Georgejdorner/sandbox. Works except it red links the non-notable aces, who should appear in black print.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Have a look at {{sortname}} again. You could make use of the nolink parameter. Example: {{sortname|George Benson|Anderson|nolink=1}} (do not copy the "nowiki" parameters) I made one change to your sandbox to show you how it works. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Ah, the magic "no link" bit. Invaluable. Many thanks.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• The last column doesn't have a header. Since all entries are 5, you could probably disable sorting for this column.
  • Restored column header.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC) MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• One more comment. The discussion I pointed to below also indicates that the lead required expansion. The length of your lead is also at the lower threshold. You could expand it by going into some statistics. The simplest thing to do would be to provide a statistic by country. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Any comments added will have to apply to all nine lists. The top template strikes again….Georgejdorner (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    • You know, you could always abandon the template altogether and simply tailor the leads to each list. There's no reason they need to have identical introductions.
      • Offhand, I can't think of any necessity for variation in the leads, nor anything distinctive to write into new leads. And the only stat I have ever found was that the Russians believed 40% of all victories were by their aces. Given that I have been unable to discover any Russian standards for accrediting aerial victories, that stat seems ludicrously unreliable. I have added a bit about the criteria for inclusion on an aerial victory list.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, for instance, the top scorers' list should really mention the most famous of them (Richtofen, Goering, Rickenbacker, and so forth) and probably those who went on to further, notable military careers in WWII. I'm not familiar enough with this topic area to know whether any of the 5-victory aces are particularly famous to merit singling them out in the introduction, you'd be the better judge of that. But that's one way to customize the leads for each of the lists.
        • You could also break down the statistics - for instance, it seems from a quick glance at the list that the UK had far more aces than any of the other combatants (whereas Germany seems to be predominant in the top scorers' list). There is probably a reason for that discrepancy, and it is probably worth including if you can find out why. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I can't break down non-existent statistics, and I refuse to generate some because that would be OR based on a "garbage in-garbage out" model. As shown by Aerial victory standards of World War I, victories were so differently defined from one air service to another as to make comparisons meaningless.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
            • The suggestion about adding statistics was motivated by the recommendation that you should expand the lead. We are not advising you to add statistics, but we are asking you to expand the lead. How you achieve this is up to your expertise on the subject. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I also think it is more than a bit presumptuous of you to require me to rewrite nine leads to get one list through review.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
            • From a procedural point of view we are reviewing one list, not nine. If you think that the technical implications require you to rewrite nine, well than that is your choice. Vice versa, as you stated below yourself, the other lists would also benefit from the improvements made to this list. I think you want to be careful with how you phrase your comments. What you don't want to do is to give the impression that you are cherry picking, accepting all remarks which are easily implemented and refusing those which pose challenges of various natures. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Yes, all nine lists benefit when the template(s) are corrected. Eradication of the template(s) equals erasure of the improvements. Conversely, wiping the template clean wipes out the lead to nine lists—not exactly a rational act.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
              • And, like anyone would, I make the corrections I can while I struggle to comprehend the others.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Section "Further reading" the reference Fighter Aces make use of the {{ASIN}} template MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I eliminated "Further reading" just prior to discovering this comment. I do not believe that listing a "fanboy" book that covers aces of all eras added to this article.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• I have seen criticism regarding the use of the dagger for indicating that the individual was killed in action. The arguments used were that the dagger too closely represents a Christian cross. Unless you know that the individual was of Christian belief this could cause an issue. Therefore the asterisk is often used as an alternative symbol. Something you may want to consider. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the heads-up. That symbol is now officially a sword.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Then do you plan on using it instead of the †? have a look at the {{KIA}} template it uses the † MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Didn't realize there was an actual sword symbol besides the cross. Thought I could relabel and go upon my way. At present, I am inclined to await complaints.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Besides, those who dislike it can edit to replace it in its hundreds of locations.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• I still see a few issues to address before I can support the nomination. 1st, the lead is too short I gave you an example of how it could be expanded (adding statistics), 2nd the dashing in the citations are still wrong (requires ndashing in date ranges) and 3rd, the color coding for those killed in action has dissapeared (I thought it was there before). MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • To add to that, some references have ill formated ISBN numbers (without the dashes) and some have missing authors. I suggest you use the {{Cite book}} template. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • As I have mentioned above on two occasions, I have not seen any of your beloved statistics in my five years of researching in this niche, nor will I commit Original Research to whip up some basically useless numbers. I suspect that no aviation historian has ever wrangled the numbers simply because it is not worth doing. Certainly, there has been a WP consensus that WWI victory score data is not accurate enough to illustrate the over-claiming of air victories.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I acknowledge that you completely fail to see the issue. The lead is too short. I repeat myself, adding statistics can be one way of lengthening the lead. How you lengthen the lead is totally up to you.
    • However, if you have some stats to share from a reliable source, I would certainly consider them.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • We will have to agree to disagree upon the subject of rewriting source material, even unto the lowly N-dash.
    • Bibliography is now templated. This correction is another nine for one deal.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Color coding was supplanted by screen reader wiki-code. I have also eliminated the contentious crosses. I never saw much reader usefullness in this feature.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't buy that. You can have both, if you know how its done. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • There are a few references still badly formatted. Check

1. Kulikov, Victor. Russian Aces of World War 1: Aircraft of the Aces. Osprey Publishing, 2013. ISBN 1780960611, 9781780960616.
2. Newton, Dennis. Australian Air Aces: Australian Fighter Pilots in Combat. Newton, Dennis. Motorbooks International, 1996. ISBN 1875671250, 978-1875671250.
3. Pieters, Walter M. Above Flanders Fields: A Complete Record of the Belgian Fighter Pilots and Their Units During the Great War. Grub Street, 1998. ISBN 1-898697-83-3, ISBN 978-1-898697-83-1.
4. Shores, Christopher; Mark Rolfe. British and Empire Aces of World War I. Osprey Publishing, 2001. ISBN 1-84176-377-2, ISBN 978-1-84176-377-4.

The problem is that {{Cite book}} renders the references in the sequence <last name>, <first name>, <year>, <title> the references above but the year of publication at the end. This needs to be consistent MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Hi George, not an expert on lists but I guess I know a thing or two about WWI aces and I do recall reviewing the list of aces with 20 or more victories ages ago...

• Image licence looks okay, however the pic should be on the right, per std procedure in articles (incl. the 20-victories list); the fact that the subject would then look 'into' the article is an added bonus.
  • Switched.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Good, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• I realise "This list is complete" is common to the 20-victories article but I think that's a very bold statement no matter how well researched the article. If the list was known to be incomplete then we should say so but I think readers will assume that it's (believed to be) complete unless otherwise noted.
  • How about: "This list contains 100% of all World War I credited with five aerial victories by their respective air forces. Proof from source contained date, location, and opponent for five defeats." Because that is what it is. In six instances, that means the Aerodrome is the sole reference. In this instance, [10], I am not accepting an Aerodrome listing.
    • Still doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. I just think there will always be the possibility of dispute over who was or wasn't an ace, or new information/assertions coming to light; this particularly applies to the list of those who 'just make the cut', as here. An example is Les Holden, whom I mention below. One of the major sources for Australian aces, A.D. Garrisson's Australian Fighter Aces, doesn't include him. Dennis Newton's Australian Air Aces does. Generally I've found Newton a somewhat more meticulous chronicler than Garrisson, but the decider for me was that Osprey's S.E.5/5a Aces lists him as well. As I said above, I just don't think such a note is prudent or necessary at all, we should just say something if we believed the list was incomplete. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • But I had him listed, did I not? And I don't see any requests for inclusions, only for exclusions. No, Ian, I will extend my statements above. As you are well aware, this list is the last in a sequence of nine. All nine of those lists are complete.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I might add there will probably always be hassles about who is truly an ace, regardless of circumstances.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Howsomever, if consensus developed that the Aerodrome is not reliable enough to be a sole source, then those six names would be removed…and the list would still be complete!Georgejdorner (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Yep, well if The Aerodrome is the only source I'd have to go with losing them (as far as consensus goes, doesn't appear I'm the only one questioning it). If The Aerodrome entries happen to cite reliable sources, then I'd check those sources and use them to ref here. Either way, I'm afraid I can't support this with The Aerodrome as a source, particularly a sole source. Sorry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• As far as referencing goes, Newton isn't currently cited; I would correct that by using him, rather than the Australian Dictionary of Biography, to cite the Les Holden score (Newton pp. 38–39).
  • I like the idea of the extra cite. It may take a bit of doing, as I believe that the Bibliography is on one of those darned templates. Give me a mo or two, guv'nor.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • No hurry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Done.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Further on referencing, you know what I think of The Aerodrome at A-Class; with all the other refs you have I'd be surprised if it was needed (in fact if it were the only ref for certain scores then I'd be a little suspicious).
  • See third entry above.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Ditto... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Prose-wise, there's not a lot but it looks fine and I realise is common to similar lists. However the statement "The scores presented in the list cannot be definitive, but are based on itemized lists that are the best available sources of information. Loss of records by mischance and the passage of time complicates reconstructing the actual count for given aces.[2]" is used twice. I would get rid of the first instance, so it appears only at the end of the intro.
  • I note the dup passage is still there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Need I say…template?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, I dealt with it.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Otherwise I'm pretty happy with this, certainly in comparison to the 20-victories list that's been at FL for some time. However if this list's ultimate destination is also FL then as far as formatting goes I'd listen closely to others who have had nominations there recently like MisterBee or Parsecboy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Belatedly supporting for the record as all my concerns were addressed by the end. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments (since I was pinged)

• Why is there an empty "References" section at the bottom?
  • Deleted.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Why are both 10 and 13-digit ISBNs included?
  • To insure maximal reader access to sources. I realize there is a belief that every English language library in the world instantly changed to 13-digit ISBNs when they came in, but I don't subscribe to that. Some libraries, especially in third world countries, are almost certainly still stuck with 10-digit ISBNs.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Why is a non-standard reference style used?
  • Nonstandard? At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Types_of_citation, it is the first type of cite mentioned.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not talking about the citations. I'm talking about the references. Just about no citation styles recommend title first. The author names come first in all of the major citation styles (CMOS, APA, MLA, etc.). We've been through this before on one of your earlier lists.
      • We can take it as an article of good faith that I have an imperfect memory. Having settled that, are you talking about nonstandard reference style in the Bibliography listings?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
        • It was some time ago, so I understand not remembering. But yes, the formatting of the references does not adhere to any style guide I am aware of. I believe your rationale in the earlier discussion had to do with the fact that the same handful of authors wrote the majority of these books in varying combinations. I suggested using the {{sfn}} footnote template, which links each footnote to the reference entry in question, to avoid any confusion. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I remember that case quite well; I was foolish enough to BE BOLD and suggest that readers might be capable of referring to sources by alphabetic lookup instead of page number. That is irrelevant to this case. Once again, I am asking: Is your "non-standard" comment aimed at the Bibliography listings?Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, that section should adhere to one of the standard formatting guides. Since this is a history-related article, Chicago style might be the most appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Altered.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Just one last question on this: on the first ref, why are the three names listed after the title? Are they editors/translators/something else? If so, it should be make clear.
                  • Missed that in the change and sort party I had down there. Great catch. Corrected.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Why is the first citation in a different style from the rest?
  • That cite is the only one that refers to a magazine article.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • No, do you see that the text is smaller?
      • Ah, that. That's on the top template. I'll see what I can do (if I can find my way into the top template to edit).Georgejdorner (talk)
        • I've been into the top template. I expected to see the "small" operator in use, and eliminate it. However, I was unable to identify any codes that reduce that footnote's size. "It is a bepuzzlement."Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
          • It is odd, because it shows up normally in List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories.
            • I found and extinguished a "small" operator enclosing the cite in question. It makes no size difference on any list.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
              • It looks to have fixed the problem.
• What makes The Aerodrome a reliable source? I couldn't find anywhere on the website a list of its authors and their credentials.
  • Please see discussion above.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to add, that while I have accesssed the site's bibliography in the past, I'll be darned if I can locate it now.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Ian on the "This list is complete" bit, especially since the line directly above starts with "The scores presented in this list cannot be definitive…"
  • Again, please see discussion above.
    • I know, I was just voicing my opinion.
      • Acknowledged.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • What you might do is add a footnote explaining how entries were included/excluded. For instance, see here in a list I've gotten through FLC.
          • I kind of touched on inclusion/exclusion with Ian above. We already have "When aircraft began to shoot or force down other aircraft, systems to count "air victories" were subsequently developed. The American qualification of five victories eventually became the standard…" are the second and third sentences of the article. The See also link above will yield a definition of what constituted an aerial victory, air service by air service. However, I do think you are onto something.
            • What I'm getting at is that you've made editorial decisions about who to include and who to not. For instance, you pointed out above that you chose not to include Norman McNaughton because the evidence presumably isn't strong enough to confirm his five kills. It would be better to have something along the lines of "This list contains all airmen whose claims to five victories can be reliably verified. Those for whom the evidence is unavailable or fragmentary have been excluded." Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Added similar comments to lead, tailored to fit the template. Brilliant suggestion, by the way.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                • That looks better.
  • I might add, that if these victory lists can exist only by reporting definitive scores, then they will be abolished. I think there will be a bit of reader reaction to that.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Translations for foreign language terms should be included on the first mention.
  • Only foreign terms in list are names of air services listed in the clearly labeled Air Service column, next to their nationality. The translation of the air service's name is available at the other end of a link. How about giving our readers a little credit for perception?Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • One should never assume what the reader knows. And one should also not force readers to click a link to find out what something is.
      • I do believe in readers' common sense and their ability to use a blatantly obvious context, that's all.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • It's unwise to decide that what you find to be blatantly obvious to be true for everyone else. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Come on, Parsec. For instance, listing Corpo Aeronautico Militare under the Air Services column within an inch of "Italy" and an Italian flag is blatant and obvious context. Making it Corpo Aeronautico Militare and Italy only makes it more so.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• The table appears to only include the purple highlighting to indicate KIA/MIA/etc. but the caption says the dagger symbol should be included as well. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Great catch, Mr. Sharpeyes! I have remedied it.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Another question: is it worthwhile to have all of the columns sortable? For instance, the last one is identical, apart from the citation. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I became aware of this sortability feature a couple of hours ago, Parsec. What can I say?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• All of my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction, so I'm ready to support the list for A-class. Great work, George. Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's note I entered this review on the reasonable supposition that since Featured List List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories had worked out all the coding and template kinks during its review, I would be dealing principally with sourcing and text issues during this review. Obviously, this has become not the case. I would beg the indulgence of the other participants while I take the time to try to figure out all the coding and template issues that have been unexpectedly dropped on me.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You may find this discussion useful ?! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Tks MisterBee, good context. George, the thing about the 20 victories list is that its promotion occurred almost four years ago and I gather standards have tightened since then. There's no special urgency with upgrading this article, it's a new nom, plenty of time for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The upside of this situation is that any correction we make on the templates actually corrects nine lists. The downside is that errors are likewise broadcast.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Another upside: Cleaning up the common elements in this list will definitely ease the way for the remaining lists.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's note: I seem to have a consensus that entries on this list that depend solely on The Aerodrome for citing a source should be deleted. This means those six listings should also be listed for deletion. I am posting this in case there are any objections to the procedure.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Followup: Listed as articles for deletion on 26/27 November:

• James Victor Gascoyne (Keep)
• Arthur William Hammond (Keep)
• James McKinley Hargreaves (Keep)
• William Drummond Matheson (Keep)
• John Russell (aviator) (Keep)

Reliable source(s) on Patrick Gordon Taylor may be available from the estimable Ian Rose, so I have held his listing for deletion in abeyance.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that a flying ace itself established some level of notability. Second thought, why do we have a list of 5 victories flying aces if the aces themselves are not notable. A list of not notable items kind of invalidates itself. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think George is listing them for deletion because they're only notable for being aces but because there's some question as to whether or not they can be reliably sourced as aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought I had a mandate from this crew of assessors to post these articles for Afd because they did not belong on this list due to lack of proof of acedom. Otherwise, I would not have posted them. The comments at Afd do mirror MisterBee's definition of notability. I have used a more conservative screening for notability by requiring an ace to win an award or honor per WP:ANYBIO.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that Afds are being settled as "Keep", what shall we do with the articles? Add them back to the list? Put them on the Talk page with a note?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the following be noted at the top of the list: This list may be considered complete. However, please check the list's talk page for details.

On the talk page, I would suggest the following notice: The following aces are not listed due to a paucity of reliable secondary sources per WP:Verifiability#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Such information that does exist about them may be accessed via their biographical links below.

Then, of course, list them there.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's note: I seem to be down to the last obstacle to promotion (I hope). I have begun copying the code into the list, though today I am plagued by WP's server problems. It will take some time to fill in code; this list alone has 399 names.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Posted new listing coded for screen readers and for sortability.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And as an added fillip, the column header software has been transplanted to List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories, where the "sort - row" code was already in place.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's note: With the last of the suggested Afds settled as Keep, it looks to me as though it may be time to close this review. I appended a victory list to each of the five Keep bios, referenced to The Aerodrome, so that readers can see the aces' victory records. I did this in preparation of saving those lists, whether back on the list or on the List's Talk page.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Nominator's last note: Okay, it has become apparent to me that it is useless to continue this review. It is going to fail because I cannot supply nonexistent information to extend the lead. Close it out and be done with it. I am tired of wasting my energies. Sisyphus may not have been bright enough to quit, but I am. I am not only through with this list, but I am giving up working on any lists. In fact, I may be through with Wikipedia entirely. It's becoming an unenjoyable place to write.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support. I've read through the list, and read through all the comments, and it looks like it should go to AList. Although it relies largely on a few sources, these are what is available in English, and it is seemingly well sourced. The nominator has responded as best he could to the comments, the list is sensibly organized, clear, and sources are identified. Nice job to Georg and MrBee for taking on a monumental task, too! auntieruth (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Russian battleship Retvizan

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

One of the few foreign-built battleships of the Imperial Russian Navy, Retvizan was built in America around the turn of the 20th century. She was sent to the Far East in support of Russia's ambitions there and the Japanese did not take kindly to the increasing Russian threat to their own ambitions and mounted a surprise attack in February 1904. Retvizan was torpedoed during that initial attack, but was repaired and participated in several of the early naval battles of the Russo-Japanese War before being sunk by Japanese land-based artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur. She was raised and repaired for service with the Imperial Japanese Navy. The ship participated in the search for the German East Asia Squadron at the beginning of World War I, but otherwise did little of note during the war. Hizen, as she had been renamed, also supported the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918. She was disarmed in 1922 to comply with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty and sunk two years later as a target.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • "...the Japanese after their victory during the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95 as it was apparent that their ambitions were on a collision course because Russia..." - a collision course with what? As it reads now, the second "their" is parallel to the first, which refers only to the Japanese.
  • Any way we can get a higher-quality plan and elevation image? The one from Jane's is pretty rough.
  • I think the "Influence" section should be folded into the "Design and description" section - it's only 1 sentence, which is probably too short to sustain a subsection.
  • Why do we care what the transliterations for Schensnovich's name are? No other Russian names are transliterated.
  • Might be worth noting what country Kaiser Bill ruled.
  • Any details on Retvizan's activities in the earlier phases at the Yellow Sea? If not, can a brief generic account of the battle be added? It seems rather abrupt to end the last section with a lead-up to the battle and then to jump to the final phase.
  • "Afterwards she and Asama headed south in search of the German squadron" - which one? Spee hasn't been introduced in the text.
• Images
  • File:Retvizan.jpg - no date/place of publication, how do we know this is PD-US or PD-Russia?
  • All other images check out copyright-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Very helpful comments, see how my changes work for you. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
      • They all look good, but it appears this article is in AmEng, so why did Cousin Nicky "authorise" the program? Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Because I swiped the paragraph from an article in BritEng? Thanks for catching that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I figured as much. My concerns have been addressed, so moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

One other thing, in the lead:

"She was sent to search for other German ships after the Americans interned the German ship in November, but did not encounter any." - this seems pretty confusing. Might it be better to specify the ship/squadron to avoid the "German ship" repetition? Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "She was refloated, repaired and joined": nonparallel
  • Reworded.
• "During the summer, Retvizan landed two 6-inch, two 47-mm and six 37-mm guns reinforce the landward defenses of the port.": ?
• "During the battle she lacked [25] She was subsequently": ?
  • Two incomplete thoughts that should have been consolidated. Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [11] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [12] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [13] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Image review completed above by another reviewer
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [14] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate link per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • "Retvizan was torpedoed during the Japanese surprise attack on Port Arthur during the night of 8–9 February 1904...", should be "the night of 8/9 February 1904" per WP:DATEFORMAT
  • "...from all of the water she had taken aboard after the torpedo hit...", consider instead: "...from the amount of water she had taken aboard after the torpedo hit..." (suggestion only)
  • "...every 80 or 90 seconds...", perhaps "...every 80 to 90 seconds..." would work better? Although current wording is not wrong (suggestion only).
  • Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Both good ideas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Vitalian (general)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

This is an old article, being created and having passed GA back in 2010. I always intended to nominate it for ACR, but never got around to doing it. It was expanded by a helpful IP editor in 2012 with info on Vitalian's ethnic background, but remains otherwise largely the same, with the exception of some copyediting. It is quite complete in coverage, detailing Vitalian's rebellion, defeat and subsequent fate. Constantine ✍ 11:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Support: sorry it's taken so long for a review. Overall, I found the article well written, well referenced and comprehensive (although I say this purely as someone with no knowledge of the topic). I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• perhaps link "Thrace" in the lead;
• this seems a little awkward: "...members of his family seem to have been related, expressed any kinship, by blood or spiritual...". Perhaps this might work: "...members of his family seem to have been related, expressed any kinship, by blood or spiritually..."?
• "...and marched onto Constantinople..." --> "...and marched on Constantinople..."?
• "...Patricius then invited him and his officers for negotiations in the city itself." --> Patricius then invited him and his officers into the city itself for negotiations."?
• not sure about the language here: "resolved to treat again with Vitalian". (Specifically, "treat" --> this seems a little old fashioned)
• "returned to their sees" (is there a link that could be provided for "sees" to aid reader understanding in this context? Episcopal see seems a possibility?)
• I think you are using British English, if so I believe the word "theater" should be changed to "theatre". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and for the prose suggestions, they have been implemented. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very high quality article, and I have only the following comments:

• "angering the Empire's Chalcedonian population, already alienated by his strict financial policies" - is "alienated" the right word here? - if the strict financial policies weren't applied to only the Chalcedonians it's probably not appropriate and something broader would be better.
• Did Vitalian personally bribe his way into Cyril's camp and kill his opponent? This is a bit unclear at present.
• Who was holding Anastasius's nephew?
• "the old rebel" - given that we don't know when Vitalian was born, is it OK to refer to him as being old in 520? "Former rebel" might work better. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the relevant spots, please let me know if the new versions are clearer. I've also added a list of the primary sources for this article. Though I've used chiefly secondary sources, I've used the primary ones to check the facts, and it should help anyone wanting to consult them. Constantine ✍ 10:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed: great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments (just short of support at this stage)

• "he followed his father into the imperial army" - would be worth saying "into the East Roman imperial army", as its in the lead, and we haven't clarified for a casual reader that there was an empire of any sort yet.
• "to quickly win over large parts of the army and people of Thrace to his cause." - is there an article missing before "people"? It read odd to me without being "and the people of Thrace"?
• " who feared in him a rival for the throne." this felt a little archaic as a construction; "who was concerned he might try to claim the throne"?
• "His sons too became generals" - "His sons also became generals"?
• "He is called a "Goth" or a "Scythian" in the sources." - you say "the sources", but which sources? "contemporary sources"? "Roman sources"? etc.
• "classicizing " - worth linking
• "Anastasius had changed the form of the Trisagion and officially adopted the Miaphysite dogma, angering the Empire's Chalcedonian population, adding to the disaffection caused by his strict financial policies" - without clicking on the link, I'd have no clue what the Trisagion is. Could you add something in to help the average reader? (e.g. "the Trisagion divine liturgy"?)
• "chroniclers" - worth linking
• "Charles, R.H. (1916). The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu. London: Williams & Norgate. pp. 131–134. " - is this used as a source? I can't see it cited anywhere.
• "Jeffreys, Elizabeth; Jeffreys, Michael; Scott, Roger (1986). The Chronicle of John Malalas: A Translation. Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies. pp. 225–227, 231–233." - ditto.
• "Whitby, Michael (2000). Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. pp. 193–194, 200–203." -ditto Hchc2009 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the review and the suggestions. I have emended the problematic points, please have a look. As for the sources, as I said above, most of them were used to double-check the information of the secondary literature, and they have been included as a reference point for any interested reader. Constantine ✍ 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No prob's. My advice would be to either put the uncited primary sources into a further reading section, as per Wikipedia:Further reading, or to separate them out as general references, as per WP:GENREF. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how to implement WP:GENREF. Perhaps if I changed the "Sources" to "Bibliography" it would be clearer? It is a bit like cheating, but I really don't want to separate the handful of primary sources into "cited in this article" and "not-cited" ones. Constantine ✍ 08:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy honors and awards

This is the second of three articles on Audie Murphy. The third is Audie Murphy filmography, which I plan to nominate for GA. I don't see the A-class review here as a venue for the filmography (if I'm wrong, let me know). After the main article passes FA review, I would like to nominate the trio of articles for FT or GT. Towards that end, I have made the referencing style the same on all three articles and have correlated the information from one to the other. Content of the honors and awards consists of what was originally divided off the main article Feb 2013, and other items added by various editors. I recently cleaned up the style, prose and citations, with a detailed explanation on the talk page. I have been somewhat concerned about using information from the Audie L. Murphy Memorial website because of how Wikipedia views sites that are somewhat user-generated. The fact is, that some of those documents that are scanned cannot easily be found elsewhere, so I have tried to label the sourcing from there precisely for what it is.— Maile (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A note on a recent GF edit that changed "Non U.S." and "Non United States" section headings to "foreign". I've changed it back, because "foreign" is subjective to the country of the reader, and it is also inconsistent unless the United States sections were reworded "domestic". — Maile (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Dank, thank you for your support. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, good work. I made a few changes (please check you are happy with those and adjust as you see fit). I also have a few nitpicks (not a full review):

•  Done check for consistency of date format. For example you mainly seem to use "Month, Day, Year", but there also appears to be "Day Month Year", e.g. "October 5, 1944" v "7 December 1941" etc.

I believe I caught all of them, up in the military awards.— Maile (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done currently the article seems to use both {{citation}} and {{cite web}}. This leads to differences (albeit very slight) in presentation, so I'd suggest that where appropriate you adjust (probably to cite web as it is then consistent with the cite book template as well);
•  Done in the Bibliography all works seem not to include locations, except for the Simpson work. Preferably all should have them, I believe, and you could probably find them here, but if you can't find them all, the advice I have seen at FAC is "all or none" (I personally can see arguments for and against this approach, but as you have stated a desire to possibly take this further, I want to try to set you up for success at the next level);
•  Done for FAC, you will need to make sure that all images are correctly licenced, including the award ribbon images. Unfortunately, my internet plan precludes me from checking all of these, but please make sure you are happy you have checked them all

These are all licensed on Commons, either from the copyright holder or (the majority of them) as Public Domain — Maile (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done missing open quotes here: ...a postage stamp of Murphy in uniform as part of a 9-stamp sheet in tribute to World War II on the Silver Screen";
•  Done(in Footnote E): "Murat Shriners of Indianapolis, Indiana, credits their information sources..." --> or should this be "The Murat Shriners of Indianapolis, Indiana, credit their information sources..."? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Nitpick away. The more we catch, the less problems later. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I've reviewed the changes made recently and made a couple of minor tweaks. I'm happy that you have covered off on all issues identified, so I've added my support. Good luck with taking it further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, thank you for your support. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support

Not being American I have no idea what a a CSM is, as in CSM George L. Horvath or a LTG as in LTG Crosbie E. Saint. Are they military ranks is so can they be written in full and linked.

 Done CSM Command Sergeant Major and LTG Lieutenant General - I linked them for you. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And unless I'm missing something there appears to be several references missing for the dates of promotion Staff Sergeant and most of the officer ranks.

 Done Those missing referernces are vexing to me, also. At the moment, I've asked another editor if they can assist with coming up with the sources. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Cites filled in. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There also seem to a slight overcite for the MoH and the DSC do they really need three cites each? Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The MoH cites are the two required eye witness accounts of the action, and the Army's online page that details the verification of the awarding of it. The DSC is one eye witness account, and the other two verify the awarding of it. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney, thank you for your support. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted - Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Tibbets

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

One of the most famous aviators of World War II Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. "claimed" casts doubt, but I don't know if that was the intent. "stores" feels a little jargony to me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [15] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [16] (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text [17] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd information as far as I can tell, captions looks fine (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [18] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • "...and then they moved to Iowa's capital Des Moines where he was raised..." consider more simply (perhaps): "...and then to Iowa's capital Des Moines where he was raised..."
    • Er, that doesn't quite work. Tried a different wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair call, happy with the wording adopted. Anotherclown (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "...In July 1942 the 97th became the first heavy bombardment group to be deployed as part of the Eighth Air Force to England...", consider "...In July 1942 the 97th became the first heavy bombardment group to be deployed to England as part of the Eighth Air Force..."
    • Changes the meaning slightly, but still correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The article jumps from Jan 1945 to Aug 1945 with Tibbetts now on Tinian. Just wonder if you might include a sentence about his squadron's deployment etc, to explain how he got there? Might add context. Anotherclown (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Support: G'day, I reviewed this article for GA. I have checked the changes made since then and am happy that it meets the A-class requirements. I have a few minor comments, though:

• could the citations to the "History of the 509th Composit Group" be converted to the sfn format for consistency of style?
• this seems awkward to me: "Having gained a bit of flight experience and some education at a military school and at college, Tibbets..." Perhaps something like this might work better: "Having been educated at a military school and college, where he had gained some flight experience, Tibbets..." Would that work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  Both done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Johann Mickl

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Johann Mickl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article failed a good article review in 2019 due to alleged POV issues because of unreliable sources. This is a routine A-class review to determine if this article still meets the A-Class criteria. Schierbecker (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. As I mentioned in the MILHIST talk about these articles, my view is that very odd rationales were taken by a group of editors during the GAR, especially about sources, and even extending to generic images used in the article. I acknowledge some flowery language needed trimming, but most of the criticisms were not based on policy but some weird ideology that the man was being glorified because he had an article that mentioned anything other than the war crimes of his division. This was widespread across many articles about the German war effort at the time and coincided with and preceded the ArbCom case. The article needs some work due to the unjustified deletions, but (for example) the idea that a biography co-written by the historian Heinz A. Richter (who was selected to write Mickl's article in the Neue deutsche Biographie) is unreliable, is utter nonsense. Both sources that were challenged as unreliable were listed by Richter as sources he used to write the NdB article on Mickl. If they are good enough for NdB, they are good enough for WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

PM - just one other question on Schraml - does Richter use this source heavily and/or refer to it positively or just use it lightly? As an example of my line of thinking, I've seen a lot of sources, including ones we'd consider highly reliable, cite the works of John Newman Edwards to some extent but I don't think we'd ever want to rely on Edwards on enwiki. I don't see why Richter should be considered unreliable at all and would just like a little more clarification on Schrmal. Hog Farm _Talk 23:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi HF, regarding Schraml. This is an example of a participant-written history, where a source should only be used for what it is reliable for. Franz Schraml headed the Kameradschaft of the German-Croat divisions, i.e. the veteran’s organization of the three divisions that were manned mainly by Croats but had predominantly German cadre (368th, 373rd and 392nd). His book covers these three divisions. Participant-written histories are a valuable source of information of units, for example, Cecil Lock's battalion history of the 10th Battalion (Australia) is used heavily in that article, despite the fact that Lock was a private soldier in the battalion, and a wheelwright by trade. The same applies to Frank Allchin's history of the 2/10th Battalion (Australia), Allchin was the battalion quartermaster and a clerk by trade. Neither was a historian. For plain factual information, such as where the unit deployed and when, which battles it fought and where, how many casualties it suffered in those battles, the names of commanding officers and those who were decorated, both of these books are outstanding sources. For critical analysis of operations those battalions undertook, not so much. For that we go the Charles Bean's official history of Australia in WWI, or Gavin Long's official history of Australia in WWII, or history books about specific battles. So far as Schraml is concerned, it is my view that he is fine to use for the sorts of things that one might use Lock or Allchin for, but not for the sorts of critical analysis that Bean or Long might provide. So to say that he is entirely unreliable and cannot be used for anything at all is just nonsense. Schraml's accounts of the outcomes of battles, especially where we know the Germans often counted civilians murdered in reprisals as enemy casualties, must be clearly attributed and contrasted with accounts from Partisan sources, for example. The same applies to Kobe (who was Mickl's principal operations officer) and although their relationship may have been difficult at times, obviously held him in some regard. My point here is that the labelling of Schraml and Richter & Kobe as entirely unreliable sources is nonsense, and should not be used as a justification for downgrading the article. All that said, this was written fairly early in my WP career (2015) and I have learned a lot since then, and even with some of the deleted material reinstated it needs some considerable work, trimming flowery stuff and attributing Schraml and Kobe where needed. I wouldn't nominate it for GA in its current condition, mainly because it was butchered by an editor who was on a crusade at the time. I'm not against it being downgraded to B, but it should be for the right reasons (probably lack of comprehensiveness, a few areas where better sources are needed, and some balance issues), not some weird ideas about the sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment, strongly leaning towards delisting I know nothing about this person, but it's surprising that the material on his lengthy and fairly senior service in the fighting in Yugoslavia makes little reference to the civilian population of the area: it's like the war was being fought in a desert or similar. Given that civilians are central in all partisan warfare and atrocities against civilians were common in this fighting, this doesn't seem credible unless there are sources explaining the matter. The tone of the article as a whole is similar, and never acknowledges the political and criminal aspects of the war Mickl was involved in. Likewise, there appears to be no material on his views towards the rise of the Nazis and the resulting Nazi-led government. This doesn't reflect the way in which modern biographies of senior(ish) German officers of World War II are written, and I don't think the article would pass an A-class review now in its current form. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear Nick-D, I agree. It isn't A-Class, desperately needs context, and I wouldn't nominate it at GAN as it is now, for that and other reasons. My point is about the identified sources and their uses. ie the reason for delisting, not whether it should be. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I'm not disagreeing with your views above, and I'm not at all competent to comment on the references here. If the sources are reliable but not sufficient for the article meet modern A-class bio standards, then the article likely wouldn't pass a nomination. From looking in Google Books, it seems that the English language literature on Mickl is largely lowish quality works on his role as an armoured commander. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Silverplate

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Modification of aircraft to carry nuclear weapons during World War II Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

• A minor point: the caption on the lead image doesn't give any immediate clue as to its links to Silverplate; I've a habit (and I suspect I'm not alone) of first reading the article title and glancing at the picture, before carrying on through the lead. In this case, it wasn't obvious what the link between the article title and the image was (my first assumption was that it was the name of a famous aircraft, perhaps the one in the picture), and the references to bombers is in the second line of the lead. Is there any way of getting the word Silverplate into the caption? e.g. "Martin-Omaha B-29-36-MO Superfortress 44-27297 Bockscar of the 509th Composite Group, part of the Silverplate project." or something like that? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  Easily done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • One dab link [19]:
    • C-97
      • Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • External links check out [20] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd information as far as I can tell, captions looks fine (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [21] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Think there may be a missing word here: "USAAF sent instructions to its Army Air Forces Materiel Command at Wright Field...", consider instead: "The USAAF sent instructions to its Army Air Forces Materiel Command at Wright Field..."
    • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Pullman B-29 flew in to Muroc on 20 February, and testing began on 28 February..." which year?
    • Y 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • " The Pullman B-29 was flown to Wendover..." suggest wikilinking Wendover here (you do it later on I think).
    • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Typo here I think: "Two were given to the 216th while the remaining six were assigned to the 509th at Wendover as replacements in case of loss of bombers operating from Tinian...", consider "Two were given to the 216th while the remaining six were assigned to the 509th at Wendover as replacements in case of the loss of bombers operating from Tinian..."
    • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this looks like a very good article to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I don't really think that giving the full designation, down to block number, in the caption really does anything for the reader. I'd also suggest simplifying it down to the bare necessities, which doesn't include the manufacturer, but rather the designer, Boeing. I'd suggest something like "The Silverplate Boeing B-29 Superfortress Bockscar that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki"
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Shouldn't Pullman be in quotes in the lede?
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Shouldn't "Twenty four" be hyphenated?
  • Y Per MOS:NUMERAL Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Otherwise looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Asahi

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Asahi was a Japanese pre-dreadnought battleship built in the UK because Japan lacked the ability to build battleships herself and was paid for by the Chinese indemnity from the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95. She participated in every major battle of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, but did nothing of note during World War I. She did support the Japanese intervention in Siberia during the Russian Civil War and was disarmed in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Unlike most of the other Japanese pre-dreadnoughts she was not scrapped or sunk as a target, but converted into a submarine salvage and rescue ship. She was later converted into a repair ship and deployed to Shangai during the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. Asahi was transferred to Singapore in 1942 to repair forward-deployed Japanese ships and was torpedoed and sunk by an American submarine when she was ordered home at the end of the year. I've just updated and expanded the article so I believe that it meets the A-class criteria. This is bound for FAC afterwards, so I'd appreciate it if reviewers could keep that in mind when they make their comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Concerning "the Battles of the Yellow Sea and Tsushima", people haven't settled on a standard meaning or way to say this. As always, I'd prefer an approach that tends to work for everyone. Of the readers who don't already know and don't click to find out, some will understand what you mean, others will take this to mean that there were (plural) battles in the Yellow Sea and also a battle at Tsushima, and others will think that "battles" signifies a multi-part engagement (a la "Battles of Lexington and Concord"). I'd like to suggest "the two biggest naval battles, Yellow Sea and Tsushima", or "The Yellow Sea" if you prefer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion is clearer, but seems awkward to me. Is it just too redundant to say that she participated in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and the Battle of Tsushima? It's just as clear and reads better to me, even with the close repetition of "Battle".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's better; I didn't suggest it because I thought you didn't like it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(snicker) The close repetition of "Battle" is less than ideal, IMO, but it reads better than your suggested alternative. I still prefer the original version in terms of prose, but I do agree that it's a bit ambiguous and could stand to be clarified. Don't ever worry about my opinion regarding your corrections; some days I can tell a hawk from a handsaw, others not so much. I value your counsel too much to want anything less than your best. My sensibilities are not so tender that I can't accept anyone else's ideas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [22] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [23] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
    • Hackett & Kingsepp (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • hk (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • Image appears to be PD (although I wonder if you need to include source information etc), caption looks ok.
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [24] (no action req'd).
  • A couple of duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • battleships
    • torpedo boat
    • muzzle velocity
    • barbettes
    • John Brown & Company
    • 1st Fleet
    • Royal Navy
    • main battery
  • "She was sunk en route by the American submarine USS Seawolf with very little loss of life..." consider instead: "She was sunk en route by the American submarine USS Seawolf; however, most of her crew survived..." or something similar.
  • A little repetitive here: "...turned again to the United Kingdom for the four remaining battleships of the programme.[3] Asahi, the fifth battleship of the naval programme...", perhaps lose one instance of "programme"?
  • Repetition here: "Tōgō had expected the surprise night attack by his destroyers to be much more successful than it actually was and expected..." (expected twice in same sentence)
  • "Tōgō chose to attack the Russian coastal defences with his main armament and engage the Russian ships with his secondary guns." Consider more simply: "Tōgō chose to attack the Russian coastal defences with his main armament and engage the ships with his secondary guns."
  • I might be missing something here but the lead and infobox says the ship was sunk by USS Seawolf but the text of the article says it was sunk by USS Salmon. Think it should be Salmon from one of the sources.
  • Otherwise this looks pretty good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    • All done. Thanks for the valuable suggestions; see how my changes read to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes those changes look good to me, adding my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• "In addition the ships were also fitted with 24-power magnification telescopic gunsights." - I think in this context you want "the ship was also fitted", as the article is about this battleship, not the wider navy.
  • But doesn't the subordinate clause "like all the other Japanese battleships of the time" in the previous sentence mean that this sentence should still be referring to collective ships?
• "the ship began conversion at Kure as a repair ship" - "to a repair ship"?
• ""cwt" is the abbreviation for hundredweight, 12 cwt referring to the weight of the gun." - fn1; should this be "Cwt", as it's beginning the sentence? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Good catches on the others and thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The lead is a bit "wall-o-text"-ish, any way we can split it in half? Perhaps divide it at the end of her service as a BB?
• Is there a line-drawing available from Brassey's or another contemporary naval journal?
• Or anything showing her post-reconstruction appearance?
  • Nothing that was not copyrighted.
• Speaking of images, why isn't File:Japanese battleship Asahi.jpg used in the article? It seems to be a much better lead image, since it's higher resolution and a cleaner photo.
  • Good idea.
• Why no link to Combined Fleet? And according to that article, the fleet was formed in 1894 and reformed before the Russo-Japanese War, not formed initially then.
  • Added.
• Should there be a bit more context in the Russo-Japanese war section? Specifically, it seems as though Tsushima comes out of nowhere - the reader won't know why in the heck the Baltic Fleet is all the way in the Sea of Japan, for instance.
  • Added a sentence, see if it satisfies.
    • Looks good to me.
• First she was to be converted into a submarine depot ship, but she actually became a submarine salvage ship?
  • First she became a depot ship immediately after she was disarmed, etc., then was converted into a salvage/rescue ship.
    • I think you need a topic sentence for that paragraph. It's rather jarring to read that she was reclassified as a submarine depot ship and then suddenly begins conversion into a submarine salvage ship. Something along the lines of "The navy (or whoever made the decision) decided to convert Asahi into a submarine salvage ship in 1925; the work was completed in two phases" would do the trick.
      • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• "She was transferred to Camranh Bay, French Indochina on 15 November and transported the 11th Base Unit from Kure to Camranh Bay 19 November – 7 December 1941" - this line might be a little unclear to readers, who might assume that Asahi actually steamed to Camranh on the 15th (and then, what, doubled back to pick up the 11th Base Unit?), as opposed to have the orders cut on the 15th. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarified this. See what you think. Thanks for looking this over and catching these weaknesses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
    • That is much clearer now - I had mistakenly paired the 15 November date with the 1941 date later in the sentence. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Another question: who rescued the survivors of the ship? Was she being escorted (I assume so, since the vast majority of her crew was rescued)? Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No idea as my sources don't say. I do know that she was in company with the light cruiser Yubari because the same submarine fired on both ships. So I suppose Yubari and their escorts rescued the survivors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. But please add that Yubari and at least the number and type of escorts (if known of course) to that line, since otherwise it reads as if Asahi was steaming independently. Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I misread Rohwer, the sub's skipper misidentified Asahi as Yubari. He did sink a medium-sized freighter as well Asahi in his attack, but Combinedfleet.com gives the escort as a single subchaser. I doubt that it could have accommodated Asahi's crew, so I imagine that some of the other merchant ships in the convoy must have stopped to pluck the survivors from the sea. But I don't know any of that; it's all pure supposition on my part. I'll add the escort if you think it's worthwhile, but not anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh, OK. It might be best to clarify that she sailed as part of a convoy instead of independently - I'll leave it up to you as to how much detail about the convoy specifics to include. Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
          • The combinedfleet.com page on CH-9 says that she rescued all of the survivors so it seems as though there actually wasn't a convoy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Looks like we finally got to the bottom of it. Moving to support now. Parsecboy (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe the it meets the A-class criteria or is sufficiently well developed to meet the criteria during the ACR. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• I tweaked the first sentence to: "The order of battle of the Croatian special police in 1991–95 included up to 30 individual special forces units subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior." I'm assuming here that we're treating "order of battle" as a term that's going to be known to our readership ... otherwise, the term wouldn't be suitable in the article title. I believe that most of our project members think of that term as suitable for the readership they're expecting ... I don't, but I'm happy to go along with the majority. So, under that assumption, the first sentence of this article shouldn't be bolded, per WP:LEAD ... that's an article title that describes this article, and definitely not a proper noun. Also, even if "order of battle" is well-known enough to use in the first sentence, it's definitely not so well-known that we can do without a link ... but we can't link it and bold it at the same time, so the bolding has to go. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• "special force", "special forces": Be careful, and consistent.
  • Fixed.
• "the predominantly Serb-populated areas of the Dalmatian hinterland around Knin, parts of the Lika, Kordun, Banovina and eastern Croatia": ?

  I made an attempt to clarify that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oops ... I just saw the conversation where this article is described as a list. I'm not up on various requirements for lists, so I'll stop here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, sorry I also don't know much about lists and might miss something in terms of preparing for FLC if that is where you are going. I will have a quick look, though, to help out:

• the second sentence in the lead is quite long, I wonder if it could be split: "The special police was created around the existing airborne special forces unit of the Ministry of the Interior following an open revolt of the Croatian Serbs in August 1990, and increasing involvement of the Yugoslav People's Army in the conflict that escalated into the Croatian War of Independence in 1991, when the special police took part in the first clashes of the war in Pakrac and at the Plitvice Lakes. "
  • Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• To be honest, I'm not sure that the infobox is wholely appropriate given that it seems to relate to the Special police then and now (given the Active dates of 17 August 1990 - present). Not sure, though, but I'd possibly consider removing it altogether or removing the "Active" field to remove the contradiction...(probably best to get a few opinions on this, though, rather than just listening to me);
  • Since dates= parameter cannot be omitted altogether, I used start_date= instead changing "Active" field to "Founded". I'm not bent on having an infobox, but I thought one should be provided. If this is not a satisfactory solution, I'd be quite alright with removing it altogether.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, I'm happy with your change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about the licencing on "File:Croatian Special Police Logo.svg". I understand that you created the image, but is there residual copyright on the logo itself? Not sure really, but I think that this is the sort of question that might be raised at FLC;
  • The logo is published as a part of Croatian legislation, specifically "Regulation on uniform and insignia of members of the special police of the Ministry of the interior of the Republic of Croatia" ([25] here is its 1995 version). According to Croatian Copyright Act ([26]), specifically its Article 8, Paragraph 1, Section 1, legislation is exempt from copyright and may be freely used. Commons PD notice amended accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • That seems fair enough to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• "File:20 godina osnivanja specijalne jedinice policije Alfa 03092011 11.jpg": I think this might also need a freedom of panorama licence?
  • Why? The FOP is required for say photos of copyrighted works of art displayed in public areas and similar. Article 91 of the Croatian Copyright Act contains FOP provisions, but I don't think the photo contains anything copyrightable. If needed I could add the FOP per Article 91, but right now I see no justification for that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, I'll leave it up to you to decide. According to this it also applies to architecture, so it might be applicable to the building...I don't know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm aware the FOP applies to architecture too, but I'm not quite sure the structure in the photo is a building (permanent structure) at all.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure, I'll leave it up to you to decide. It's not a warstoper for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• in the lead, "By then, the 3,000-strong special forces became..." --> possibly try "The 3,000-strong special forces then became..."?
  • Rephrased per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• in the lead, "During the war, the special police units sustained a loss of 179 killed, 790 wounded and 14 missing troops..." --> "During the war, the special police units lost 179 troops killed, 790 wounded and 14 missing"?
• "During the war, Sisak SPU sustained loss of five killed and one missing in action..." --> "During the war, the Sisak SPU lost five killed and one missing in action"?
• "The unit was deployed to the eastern Slavonia in September 1991..." ---> "The unit was deployed to eastern Slavonia in September 1991..."
• Stopping there, but I will come back tomorrow (sorry its late here and I have to be up at 4am for work). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• "The Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska narodna armija – JNA) confiscated Croatia's Territorial Defence (Teritorijalna obrana – TO) weapons to minimize resistance..." --> "The Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska narodna armija – JNA) confiscated the Croatian Territorial Defence Force's (Teritorijalna obrana – TO) weapons to minimize resistance..."?
• "The most effective part of the force was 3,000-strong special police deployed..." --> "The most effective part of the force was the 3,000-strong special police deployed..."
• "Special Police Airborne Unit was already in existence since 1968. " --> "The Special Police Airborne Unit had been in established in 1968."?
• "On 17 August 1990, the unit was deployed to quell Croatian Serb insurrection in and around Knin using three helicopters as the single combat capable unit of Croatian military..." ---> "On 17 August 1990, as the only combat capable unit of Croatian military, the unit was deployed to quell Croatian Serb insurrection in and around Knin using three helicopters..."
• The above suggestions are just a few examples of sentences that need a little work. If you wouldn't mind covering off on these, and looking through the rest for similar issues, I will come back later and take another look. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Addressed prose issues raised above. I'll review the rest as suggested later (hopefully today).--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I went through the article a bit earlier and made a few tweaks, and I see you've made a couple more tweaks also. I'm happy with that. I'm not up on the requirements of featured lists (sorry), but I'm happy you have addressed my points, so I have added my support. I think Peacemaker has recent FLC experience, so you might ask him for his opinion. Good luck. Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Croatia doubled police personnel to about 20,000 I think that this could be improved by adding either "its" or "the number of" immediately after personnel.
  • Added "its".
• of police officers trained Zagreb "in" Zagreb
  • Oops. Added.
• capable unit of Croatian military "the" Croatian
  • Fixed.
• Put refs in numerical order: this looks odd [19][6]
  • Reordered.
• So should we assume that a unit is still in existence if there's no mention of disbanding or reorganization into another unit? I ask because of the Lovinac SPU.
  • Actually no. Virtually none of those are still in existence. Most of the units directly subordinated to the Ministry of the Interior were disbanded in May 1991 when their personnel was transferred to the Croatian National Guard, Lučko remaining in existence though throughout the war. The regional units existed throughout the war and were disbanded in 2000s. Regarding Lovinac, I assume the unit was attached to something else (maybe even disbanded, but I doubt that) since the police station and AOR it was assigned to was lost. There simply is no info on that, except it was established. It is not entirely impossible that the Lovinac unit was subsequently (formally) subordinated to another unit similar to the Našice–Orahovica SPU - but again, there's no reliable (or otherwise) info on that unit beyond establishment. I clarified the fate of the first group of (directly subordinated) units.
    • For Lovinac specifically I'd say that the fate of the unit is unknown, but you need to add a statement about the fate of the regional units as I'd presumed that they were still in existence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Clarfication re fate of the regional units added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
        • OK, but which 4 survived? It's not clear from the table. And don't forget Lovinac.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Right. All four are now indicated. I searched a bit different string and came up with some info on Lovinac! The unit was kept in existence throughout the war after all, relocated to Velebit. Info on that is added as well now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• The unit sustained a loss of 20 killed troops Probably better rephrased as "the unit lost 20 troops killed during"
  • Rephrased.
• sustaining a loss of 11 killed, 39 wounded and two captured troops "sustaining losses of 11 killed, 39 wounded and two captured"
  • Rephrased.
• Before sending this to FLC, carefully review the FLC criteria. Table formatting is very tricky because they enforce compliance with WP:Access.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for the review and the pointers regarding the FLC. Could you please comment on the Lovinac issue above and perhaps suggest a course of action.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: Interesting article, only a few points that need to be addressed.

• In 1990, following the electoral defeat of the government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, ethnic tensions worsened. Clarify: ethnic tensions between whom?
  • Clarification added.
• The Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska narodna armija – JNA) confiscated the Croatian Territorial Defence Force's (Teritorijalna obrana – TO) weapons to minimize resistance. Clarify: resistance against what?
  • Clarification added. Could you please review the change?
• Ogulin is overlinked and so is Dalmatia.
  • I found no repetition of the links except in places where WP:REPEATLINK permits so. Could you point out the excessive use please?

Otherwise, great article. Best of luck, 23 editor (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I made changes to address your concerns, but could not find the instances of overlinking.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, links follow rules set out by the manual of style. 23 editor (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of Petén

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've done a lot of work on this lengthy article since it passed GA; looking forward I want to take it to FAC but it needs some fresh pairs of eyes - I've been staring at it for too long. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• Hi Simon, good to see you back.
• "east-west": Not an issue for A-class, but at FAC you'll need a dash, here and throughout.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "decimated": This means reduced by a tenth, reduced by a lot, or annihilated, depending on who you ask ... so, not the most useful word.

• Replaced throughout. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "This was a part of a three-pronged attack against the independent inhabitants of Petén and neighbouring Chiapas, a second group joined up with Barrios Leal having departed from Huehuetenango.": I'm not sure what that means.

• A coordinated attack was launched from three points of departure, which I've attempted to summarise here. I've tweaked the sentence but I'm not if I've clarified it sufficiently. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "the Petén" (x2), "the south-western Petén": Did you mean to include the "the"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• That's an artefact of translation from Spanish - the definite article is usually dropped, I'll remove all instances. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• " Again Kan Ek' welcomed them in a friendly manner; however the Maya priesthood were hostile": I'd prefer "... manner, but this time the Maya ...", but if you want to keep "however", it needs a comma after. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this... Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sure thing. "Itza-Kowoj": dash

• Done. Also Itza-Yalain. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "president Jacinto de Barrios Leal": President (usually, when it comes before the name)

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The Dominicans took advantage of the delay in order to proselytise": ... ... delay to proselytise

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "6,000 Maya": Reviewers may ask you at FAC to be consistent in using or dropping the comma.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Díaz agreed with the Dominicans, two muleteers have already died from sickness and recongnising that the size of his expedition was not sufficient for a full confrontation with the Itza nation.": ?

• I must have been very tired when I wrote that! Fixed. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "considered a considerable": reword

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Bonifacio Us was captain of the Tek'ax company, Diego Uk was that of the Oxk'utzkab' company.": comma splice

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• FAC reviewers sometimes criticize paragraphs for being as long as some of the ones in this article.

• Noted - I'll have a proper read and break up unduly long paragraphs. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've dropped in paragraph breaks throughout. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Avendaño continued south along the course of the new road, finding increasing evidence of Spanish military activity, with the rounding up of local inhabitants and raiding of fields and orchards for provisions.": Who's doing the rounding up and raiding?

• The Spanish troops - I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The Franciscan": The Franciscans, maybe

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The Franciscan set upon a different plan; they would follow the road back north to Jop'elch'en near Campeche city and attempt to reach the Itza via Tipuj; in the event the secular clergy prevented the Franciscans from attempting the latter route.": Rewrite without "in the event", which means "in case" (or sometimes "during the event") in AmEng. Also, it forces readers to backtrack if you lay out a plan, then later say that they didn't follow it after all; it's better to say that they were prevented right up front.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "to the provincial": to the provincial superior?

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Pak'ek'em was sufficiently far from the new Spanish road that it was free from military interference and the friars oversaw the building of a church in what was the largest mission town in Kejache territory and a second church was built at B'atkab' to attend to over 100 K'ejache refugees who had been gathered there under the stewardship of friar Diego de Echevarría; a further church was established at Tzuktok', overseen by Diego de Salas.": long, winding sentence

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "December 1695-January 1696": needs a spaced dash

• Done in all the section headings with date ranges. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "friars Antonio Pérez de San Román, Joseph de Jesús María, Deigo de Echevarría and lay brother Lucas de San Francisco": nonparallel series; expands to "friars ... lay brother Lucas de San Francisco"

• Done, I think. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "[W, X, Y, and Z,] various of whom he collected on his journey ...": "... some of whom" (if the sources don't know which ones), or "W, X, and Y, whom he collected on his journey ..., and Z" (if the sources know this applies to W, X and Y).

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "exposed deep divisions among the Itza and the apparent treachery of the Itza king": It's too easy to read that as ... what it sounds like, then the readers have to backtrack.

• Added an ndash before the "and". Simon Burchell (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "rumours of battle and Spanish advance": rumours of battle and a Spanish advance

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "a path theat lead": a path that led?

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "García despatched two Kejache scouts to the lakeshore to discover Avendaño's whereabouts, at the same time Avendaño's Kejache guides were returning to Chuntuki from Nojpetén with news of Avendaño's flight." comma splice, unless you mean an "as" after "time".

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "without success - most of the natives had fled": dash

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "first came AjChan who had already met him in Mérida, he was followed by Chamach Xulu, the ruler of the Yalain.": comma splice

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• "a large amount of canoes": a large number of canoes

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Again, many thanks for the review, the article sorely needed it. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [27] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [28] (no action req'd).
  • Most of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [29] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • Alt text added to all images. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Impressive. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images appear to either be PD or licenced and seem to have the req'd information. Captions look ok to me.
  • The Earwig Tool didn't work so accepting on good faith that there are no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [30] (no action req'd).
  • A few links per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Hernán Cortés
    • Oxk'utzkab'
    • cacique
    • Rabinal
      • All done, plus a few more. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you considered adding an infobox? It might assist the readers to understand key facts about the events (suggestion only).
    • Infobox added. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead looks a little unbalanced, with two smallish paragraphs and the third one being quite large. Suggest splitting the last para (seems a natural break at the sentence beginning: "In 1628 the Manche Ch'ol of the south..."
    • Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue of long paragraphs is replicated throughout the article, so recommend splitting these at natural points.
    • I've added paragraph breaks throughout. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally don't need to have cites in the lead of an article, as that information should appear in the body of the text (where it is already cited) - see WP:LEADCITE. If this is the case then you may be able to ditch the citation here.
    • The info wasn't included in the text body, but it is now and I've removed the cite. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Article has a lot of headings / sections, some of which are really short. Wonder if some could be merged (for instance the two on weaponry - one Spanish and one native, could easily become one 2nd level heading with 3rd level subheadings, perhaps also geography and climate)
    • I've dropped the Climate section to a subsection of Geography and Native Weaponry to a subsection of Weaponry. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Q'eqchi' of Verapaz had long had close ties...", consider more simply "The Q'eqchi' of Verapaz long had close ties..."
    • Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing word here I think: "AjChan left Mérida with his companions and a Spanish escort the middle of January 1696...", consider "AjChan left Mérida with his companions and a Spanish escort in the middle of January 1696..."
    • Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Figures here: "...consisted of 2 Spanish soldiers, 2 archers and 2 muleteers from Verapaz, with 2 Ch'ol-speaking native interpreters...", 2 should be presented as "two" per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Repetitive language here: "On 11 May Ursúa ordered García to begin a second expedition southwards and allotted him 100 salaried Maya to accompany him." (him twice) Consider instead: "On 11 May Ursúa ordered García to begin a second expedition southwards and was allotted 100 salaried Maya to accompany him."
    • Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems like a tautology: "On 5 January they caught up with and passed the main bulk of the army at B'atkab'..." ("main bulk"). Perhaps reword?
    • Switched "bulk" for "contingent". Simon Burchell (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "The battered expedition set up a base camp 9 leagues north of Mopan." 9 → nine per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Itza killed a total of 87 expedition members, including 50 soldiers, 2 Dominicans..." 2 → two per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "The encampment at Ch'ich' was left defended by 25 Spanish soldiers, 3 Maya musketeers..." 3 → three per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of the works listed in the reference section need to use title case.
    • I believe that in all cases I followed the case as published. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
      • As a style guide I'm almost certain the MOS has precedence over the case adopted by a publisher (although don't seem to be able to find a policy link for that). Examples of works needing title case as fol:
        • Coe, Michael D. (1999). The Maya. Ancient peoples and places series
        • Hofling, Charles Andrew (2009). "The Linguistic Context of the Kowoj". In Prudence M. Rice and Don S. Rice (eds.). The Kowoj: identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén
        • Jones, Grant D. (2009). "The Kowoj in Ethnohistorical Perspective". In Prudence M. Rice and Don S. Rice (eds.). The Kowoj: identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén, Guatemala
        • Pugh, Timothy W. (2009). "Residential and Domestic Contexts at Zacpetén". In Prudence M. Rice and Don S. Rice (eds.). The Kowoj: identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén, Guatemala
        • There are others (mostly those using the Rice and Rice book).
    • I've done these, but it occurs to me that in "The Kowoj: identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén, Guatemala" the title of the book is The Kowoj - the rest is a subtitle identity, migration, and geopolitics in late postclassic Petén, Guatemala and subtitles don't usually use title case. Note that Spanish obeys different rules for capitalisation - first word and proper nouns only. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree that title case is not required for the Spanish titles - don't think I suggested it did though did I? Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Overall this is quite a well written article in my opinion. I'm well and truly out of my depth in reviewing an article about this period in history but I think this is fairly close to meeting the ACR criteria if the issues listed above can be worked through. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review - I'll work through this list over the next few days. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Changes made so far look quite good, will check back a bit later to see how you go with the rest. Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Further note on ref format. Generally constructions like "Ltd" shouldn't be used per Template:Cite book. Suggest removal here:

• ITMB Publishing Ltd. (1998). Guatemala (Map). 1:500000. International Travel Maps (3rd ed.). ISBN 0-921463-64-2. OCLC 421536238.
• ITMB Publishing Ltd. (2000). México South East (Map). 1:1000000. International Travel Maps (2nd ed.). ISBN 0921463227. OCLC 46660694. Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've done these two. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ok I have had a look over it and made a few changes (mainly to prevent the infobox from "stretching" to be too big as it shouldn't be any wider than the campaign box AFAIK). Also sorted your reference list alphabetically. Of cse pls revert if you disagree with these changes although I think they are improvements at least. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• I hope I'm not sounding too picking but I ran the citation check tool over the article and have found a few recently introduced errors with reference consolidation:
  • Jones 2000, p. 364. (Multiple references contain the same content)
  • Jones 2009, p. 60. (Multiple references contain the same content)
  • Jones 2009, p. 59. (Multiple references contain the same content)
  • Jones00p364 (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • Jones09p60 (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • Jones09p59 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • I've fixed these. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• A few of the references lack either an ISBN or OCLC - as you provide these for the rest can they be added for consistency (also of considerable benefit to readers doing their own research).
  • Hardy, Jorge E. - only OCLC is vailable. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Means, Philip Ainsworth likewise. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Villagutierre likewise. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• If these can be fixed I think those are the last of my points. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all of this. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • No problems, thanks for your patience. This is a very good article in my opinion and clearly a large amount of work (not to mention expertise) has gone into it. I've added my support now and wish you all the best with taking it further. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for a detailed review. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim I don't know anything about this, so don't give too much weight to my minor nitpicks. It's an impressive article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't think we linked countries now. Even if we do, it's inconsistent here— Guatemala is linked, Spain isn't, which seems to suggest a Eurocentric view of the world

• While the modern countries aren't precisely equivalent to the places discussed in the article, geographic context helps so I've linked Spain. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks to their padded cotton armour, the Spanish party received no injuries from the skirmish—I though the locals wore cotton armour and the Spaniards had steel?

• The Spanish found that steel was extremely uncomfortable in the tropics, and the indigenous armour was more comfortable while still giving reasonable protection against native weapons, being cotton packed with salt. I know I covered this in Spanish conquest of Guatemala so I'll adapt it and drop it in the Spanish weaponry section. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've dropped in a bit about the Spanish adapting Maya armour - in the Weaponry section. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is the full capitalisation of authors MoS? I really don't like this, but I don't know that it's actually wrong.

• Author capitalisation has been used for a long time in WikiProject Mesoamerica articles, and I think it makes the name of the author stand out amongst all the other stuff in the references. I've had a number of FAs pass without this having to be pulled but I'm not wedded to it. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Jared Diamond thought the constant pre-conquest warfare in this region was due to the fact that food supply problems meant that no leader could establish supremacy in the way that the Incas or Aztecs had done, making tribal conflict endemic. He also thought that deforestation had exacerbated the food problems, so the numbers in lowland areas, even before smallpox, were only 1% of those in the eighth century. Worth mentioning?

• The classic Maya collapse was complex, and its causes are disputed and ultimately beyond the scope of this article - I've linked to Classic Maya collapse already and, while I'm not happy with that article, it would be the correct place to discuss this. You're right, of course, that the Contact Period population was much less than the Classic Period population, and I'll see if I can find a source that mentions this. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm happy with your responses, so I've changed to support above. I'll leave the population with you, I don't imagine that success at FAC will depend on that! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Jim. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments - This is really a magisterial work on the subject, and I am entirely impressed by the effort that's gone into it. I just have a few comments, below. Cdtew (talk)

• The lede is well done, but the sentences describing geography in the first paragraph ("Petén is a wide lowland plain...") seem to clutter that paragraph up. Understanding the geography is obviously important, but I feel like that could wait until the body.

• I've re-ordered that paragraph, moving all the geography right to the beginning. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the lede seems out of order. 1628, then 1633, then 1622, then 1695? I think, since there appears to be no thematic ordering, simple chronological order would help.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• The section on "Historical sources" seems a little premature. I feel like it disrupts the flow of the article. You've just introduced the setting, are about to introduce the native actors, and betwixt is a wide-ranging summary of mostly Spanish sources. Perhaps moving it to the end of the article would re-establish the flow.

• I was trying to maintain consistency with the Spanish conquest of Guatemala article. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see the rationale for it, I just think it's a little out of place in both. Think of it this way - you're telling the story, but before you tell the story, you tell where the story came from. It seems to me that it would improve readability to tell the 200 year story, and then tell how the story is preserved. I's sort of like how sections concerning "depictions in pop culture" would generally appear after the article itself. This is just a preference thing, so it's up to you. Cdtew (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• "The second polity in importance was that of their hostile neighbors" -> perhaps "was that of the Kowoj, hostile neighbors to the Itza", or something in that fashion. "their" is a little vague.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• You list Lakandon Ch'ol before Manche Ch'ol, yet only "Ch'ol" in the latter is wikilinked. Is there a reason for that? Shouldn't the first mention of the Ch'ol be wikilinked?

• You're right - I've moved it. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• You added some about the Spanish use of cotton armor, but in the "Weaponry and armour" segment, you say "Quilted cotton armour, although still uncomfortably hot, was flexible and weighed much less." without describing what the Spanish were discarding in favor of cotton armor. You may as well go and discuss the morion, rodela, breastplate, etc.

• It seems redundant to discuss equipment that wasn't used in any detail, and the mention of it replacing steel armour gives a general idea. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK, let me address it this way - a reader who is unaware of conquistadors may not know that the archetypical one wore a steel breastplate, morion, etc.; in reading the article, the first mention of it they'll see is that in Peten they preferred the cotton/salt armor over steel. Maybe just rephrasing it to make it clear that they typically used steel, but in this instance preferred the cotton/salt armor. Cdtew (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• "The Spanish were aware that the Itza Maya had become the centre of anti-Spanish resistance and engaged in a policy" - the Spanish may have been aware of it, but the reader isn't until now. Is there any way to shoehorn in statements about Itza resistance to the Spanish?
• In fact, the "Strategies and tactics" section doesn't sit well with me; in reality, you're not discussing strategies as much as you're discussing various plans and schemes put into action at different points in time. It seems these facts would be better slotted in chronologically throughout the article, but that may be me thinking too linearly. It's just sort of disorienting -- you've set up the prologue, and we expect to be led into first contact, but instead have a section that takes us 170 years into the future, and then back to Cortes.

• This section gives a background to the various expeditions launched over the course of almost two centuries. I think this is an important section, because it covers points that don't apply to individual expeditions, as well explaining the role of the church etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• "His aim was to subdue the rebellious Cristóbal de Olid, whom he had sent to conquer Honduras, but Cristóbal de Olid had set himself up independently on his arrival in that territory" - perhaps clearer as "whom he had sent to conquer Honduras; de Olid had, however, set himself up..."

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• "with Francisco Morán as their ecclesiastical head." - who was Moran? A friar? A Dominican? A bishop?

• Clarified. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• "may have instigated the Manche rebellion of Lent 1633" - what was that? Not being familiar with this story, most readers (myself included) will scratch their heads at this one. If it's not a particularly important rebellion, just say "may have instigated a Manche rebellion during Lent in 1633"

  Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• "President Jacinto de Barrios Leal" - it seems like President here could be confused for the modern-day President of Guatemala. I don't know how much of the Real Audiencia structure you need to get into, but if there's a way to distinguish this, it could be helpful.

• I don't have much information upon the administrative structure of colonial guatemala, but I've rephrased the sentence to make clear that Barrios was president of the Audiencia. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm stopping at "Avendaño's entry from Yucatán, June 1695" to get some sleep, but will pick up where I left off tomorrow. Cdtew (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for looking at this, I hope to work through this over the next few days. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Back to more comments:

• "Avendaño returned to Tzuktok' and reconsidered his plans; the Franciscans were short of supplies, the forcefully congregated Maya that they were charged with converting were disappearing back into the forest daily, the Spanish officers ignored the concerns of the friars and García was abducting local Maya women and children to be taken back to his encomienda for forced labour." - this sentence is really long and convoluted, and is a bit of a run-on. Perhaps breaking it up would improve readability.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• You use leagues a lot as forms of measurement; I understand this was a common form of distance measurement at the time and in Central America in general, but is there any way you could approximate some of these distances based on your sources? If not, that's understandable, based on my knowledge of Spanish expedition sources.

• As I understand it, a league was how far could be travelled in an hour - so the actual linear distance of a league varied enormously depending upon the difficulty of the local terrain. This makes it very difficult to convert to linear measurements, based upon approximate locations reported in Spanish expedition reports. However, I will see what I can do... Simon Burchell (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• In Aftermath, "and delegated its control to military officers who he did very little to support" - shouldn't this be "whom"? Or it may be clearer as "to whom he gave very little support". Also, what sort of support? Did he not help them with supplies/munitions/etc.? Or did he not care for them and didn't support them in the sense that he later turned lukewarm on them?

• Clarified. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've read through the remainder of the article, and can find nothing of substance that I think would bar this from A-Class. After you've addressed the above, I'm happy to support! Cdtew (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Henry III of England

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently passed GA, and I'd like to take it to FA in due course. Henry III was not the most successful military commander in the 13th century - he lost most of his campaigns, and was almost killed by his own men in one battle - but he was a significant historical figure, and shaped the later medieval English state. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, impressive. I took a quick look and will try to get back to it for a more thorough look on the weekend. Here are a couple of minor things I saw :

• US or British English: "instructions from the center" --> "centre"?
• punctuation/typo: "England. and a sequence"
• "those lessor barons" --> "those lesser barons"?
• "once both the center of the" --> "centre"?
• "Eleanor quarreled" --> "quarrelled"?
• typo: "with the bodies of the his Angevin family "
• "to his naivity" --? "naivety"?
• "theater or television" -> "theatre"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Changes made - thanks Rupert. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• No worries, continuing my review below (focusing just on the images):

• "File:Westminster.abbey.tombofhenry.london.arp.jpg": might need a freedom of panorama licence as well? Perhaps "FoP-UK";
• "File:Henry III funeral head.jpg": as above;
• "File:Montfort Evesham.jpg": should have a US licence as well: "PD-Art" with the "PD-old-100" param would probably be sufficient, I think;
• "File:Louis9+Henri3+StDenis.jpg": as above;
• "File:Louis9 Innocentius4 Cluny.jpg": as above;
• "File:Paris.elefant.jpg": as above;
• "File:Gal nations edward i - trimmed.jpg": the PD-Art template should specify a parameter, for instance "PD-old-100" or something else;
• "File:Lodka2.jpg": as above ;
• "File:Jindra3doBrt1230.jpg": as above;
• "File:Jindra3.jpg": as above;
• "File:EustaceTheMonk.jpg": as above. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Images should all be done now. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "a charter later termed the Magna Carta.": In your opinion, does "Magna Carta" usually mean just the 1215 document, or can it also mean one or all of the other Great Charters? If the term has become ambiguous, a note to that effect would help.

• It gets used both ways; I've simplified the sentence a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The final Treaty of Lambeth, also known as the Treaty of Kingston, was agreed on the 12 and 13 September between Henry, Isabella, Louis, Guala and William.": "agreeing a treaty" is still informal in Britain, and often isn't understood outside Britain ... also, readers might think this means they signed on those dates, when they actually signed on the 20th. I'd go with: Henry, Isabella, Louis, Guala and William came to agreement on the final Treaty of Lambeth, also known as the Treaty of Kingston, on the 12 and 13 September. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Search for and fix "agreed" throughout.

• Think I've caught most of these now. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• " and a sequence of revolts broke out. In late 1228, a group of potential Norman and Angevin rebels called upon Henry to invade and reclaim his inheritance, and Peter de Dreux, the Duke of Brittany, openly revolted against Louis and gave his homage to Henry." Rupert mentions this above, and I've got another concern: is this revolt part of the "sequence of revolts", or did it come after? - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• There were earlier revolts across France, which led up to this one; I've tried to clarify further in the text. Thanks Dank! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• "he appeared almost over-eager to take part": What's the appearance of being "almost over-eager"? I can't pull up an image in my head for that.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [31] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [32] (no action req'd).
  • Most of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [33] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images review has been completed above.
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [34] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Probably showing my ignorance here but what is a justicar? Might be a good idea to wikilink it in the body of the text rather than a note to explain it to readers like me.
  • Is there a missing word here: "...sometimes action would be taken against to support a baron's case..." specifically against what?
  • missing word here: "...and, after Louis's defeat at Battle of Al Mansurah in 1250...", consider instead: "...and, after Louis's defeat at the Battle of Al Mansurah in 1250..."
  • missing word here: "... however, there was a renewed interest in 13th English history..." missing "century"
  • Minor points aside this is a high qlty article in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks AnotherClown - should be all done now, will add Alt text shortly. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Adding my spt now, well done FWIW. Anotherclown (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne Castle

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk)

OK, my first full-blown Milhist article. Melbourne Castle was built in the early 14th century, but never completed despite being in the hands of the crown and the House of Lancaster for three centuries. John of Gaunt, a great improver of castles, did his bit, but by the end of the reign of Elizabeth I, the castle was in disrepair. The death knell was the purchase in 1604 by the Hastings family, who had their own castle just a few miles away. The Melbourne building was used as a quarry, and little is now visible. Sic transit gloria mundi. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments Great to see a castle article coming up for review! (NB:I'll work through the text bit by bit)

• "It is not as ancient as nearby Kings Newton" - because you don't say how old Kings Newton is, this doesn't give a clear sense of the date involved. I'm not certain you necessarily need the comparison.

• Comparison removed since date for Kings Newton uncertain beyond Anglo-Saxon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "It is unknown when the manor house on the site of the later castle was constructed" - you haven't mentioned a manor house yet, so the "the manor house" breaks the flow slightly. I'd suggest "Melbourne Castle was constructed on the site of an earlier manor house of unknown date." or something like that.

• As suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The medieval village at this time was centred around the church, castle and High Street" - the paragraph has got up to 1156 - was there actually a castle in the village in 1156?

• Moved to later section, misplaced there, and made less specific since it covers most of the period prior to the 18th century enclosures Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "royal hunting park " - if its a genuine park, I'd link to "medieval deer park" rather than to the royal forest articles.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• " the king" - MOS would have this as "the King"

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "the king's son" -ditto

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "King's chamber" - should chamber be capitalised as well here? (alternatively, "king's chamber")

• Done (full caps) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Robert obtained a licence from Edward II to fortify the manor house with crenellations" - I'd link to licence to crenellate here; it's a specialist term, and (confusingly) a license to crenellate didn't necessarily mean that battlements were the main focus of the permission.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• " and had him killed" - I think, since they did it themselves, "and killed him" would be cleaner

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "the king " - capitalisation (and later examples)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The still-unfinished castle " - the previous section hadn't noted that it was unfinished (unless I've missed something)

• Rephrased to make it clear that Thomas hadn't completed it (beheading presumably didn't help) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• " £1,313 " - any comparison figure you could give here? (e.g. how does this compare to the costs of other castles etc.? Was it a lot of money or a small amount?)

• I've no access to proper historical sources beyond what I've acquired for this article and what's on the Internet. I made a quick search but the few 14th century costings I found were clearly not comparable (the massive Welsh fortresses or parts of castles). Shall I just remove the costings, which as far as I can see are only available for the one year? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would leave the figure in. In time, someone else may be able to come up with a figure for comparison and in the meantime people might find it useful. Nev1 (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd agree with Nev - definitely don't remove it. My advice would to use Pounds, p.147, where he notes that the average annual baronial income - for the top 27 barons - of the period was £668. You could add this as a footnote, and it would give a context for the cost of the castle. Pounds uses it as a comparison himself, so its a reasonably safe figure. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done as suggested, thanks for that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• using lead acquired as a forfeit" - for non-specialists, probably worth explaining what forfeiture means here.

• Added a link, the source doesn't explain why forfeit was payable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• "It has been claimed" - by who? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for review so far Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• " but with outbuildings, orchards and other ancillary constructions" - I'm not sure that an orchard is an ancillary construction...
• Personally, I found the very short picture titles (e.g. "In ca. 1580") a little jarring, and might have preferred a little bit more explanation (e.g. "The castle depicted in 1580, in an 18th century reproduction." Worth noting that this image still has a copyright label on the actual image itself.
• Is the 1602 image a contemporary image, or a later depiction of the castle in 1602? Would be worth explaining in the caption.
• Support - a difficult castle to write about, but its a decent article nonetheless. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I completely overlooked the above. Captions expanded and sentence re-ordered. thanks for review comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Sometimes the article switches between styles when it comes to describing centuries, so the second paragraph of the lead says “From the early 14th century, Melbourne Castle was … the building was in generally good condition throughout the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries”. Either 14th century or fourteenth century is fine, but it’s handy to stick with one or the other for consistency.

• All spelt out now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• For the image caption “John of Gaunt made significant improvements to the castle” would it be worth mentioning roughly when?

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• If it is covered by the source material, it would be interesting to note which part of the castle John I, Duke of Bourbon, was held in. Being confined in a cell paints a very different picture to being held in the great hall, or the constable’s chambers. But in my experience this particular detail isn’t always covered, so never mind if you can’t find it.

• I've added a footnote, this wasn't dungeon stuff. Not relevant to this article, but Orleans in particular had at least two English aristocratic mistresses Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I like the quote from Leland. I think M W Thompson in The Decline of the Castle discusses Leland’s descriptions of castles. If you haven’t got the book I can look up the relevant part if you like as it may be interesting background. It might be useful to add something along the lines of “This contrasted with the general state of castles Leland which were often described as in a ruinous state”.

• Do you have a ref I could use for that? Done in footnote.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Would it be worth changing “In 1545, John Leland reported” to “In 1545, antiquarian John Leland reported”?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• The bit about the stone being reused in the weir is really interesting.

• I thought so too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think it would be useful to swap around the illustrations in the ‘decline’ and ‘description’ sections as one of the engravings of the castle still standing would strongly complement the description of the actual pictures.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I’m only passingly familiar with Melbourne Castle, but I’m certainly glad to have learned more (and will at some point be looking for more information on the looters of 1322). This is an excellent article, and I’ve only been able to suggest minor improvements. Looking at the online bibliography there are a few sources which might further enhance the article a little. Cox’s part in the Victoria County History might be worth looking up, while you’ve already included Emery and Salter and Pettifer are unlikely to be as detailed as your article. I suspect you’ve also covered all the stuff in Colvin and Brown. Perhaps Fane’s 1889 journal article might have something interesting. Nev1 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I had alook at another bibiography, but that had little to add. I'll see what I can find Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for review, comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. If you're taking this to FAC, "east-west" will need a dash. - Dank (push to talk) 00:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for tweaks and support, changed hyphen to ndash now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • A couple of quick cmts about sources, will do a full review tomorrow when I'm more alert:
    • ISBNs (or OCLCs if ISBNs are not available) are missing from a number of works.
      • AFAIK, those without ISBNs are old books, pre-dating ISBN, or local authority or similar reports that don't have them. I don't know what an OCLC is, but in 50+ FAs I've never been asked to give one, so I doubt that it's an MoS stipulation either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
        • OCLCs can be found at Worldcat. Comes up all the time at ACR and GA. Anotherclown (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Pls add place of publication.
      • FA only requires consistency for publisher locations (all or none). You are correct that I had a mixture, the Cambridge locations now removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Whatever - seems a strange choice to remove bibliographic information rather than add it. Place of publication is standard req'd information for any academic work I've ever submitted. Anotherclown (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Presentation of some of the works is incorrect, will need to use title case (see Curry and Stroud).
      • Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for comments so far Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
        • And thanks to you for ignoring most of them. Clearly you are more experienced at FA than I, so perhaps you might consider reviewing your own article? Out to you. Anotherclown (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Writers are free to disagree with reviewers, and Jimfbleak has quite reasonably explained his reasons when he has opted not to follow your suggestions. Your comments come across to me as a bit hostile. Nev1 (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the cmt Nev but Jim and I can work this out ourselves. I will probably have another look over this article later on. Anotherclown (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
              • Jim and Nev, I'm not the best person to ask, but I believe we need ISBN or OCLC for A-class (especially if there's no place of publication listed ... and don't let the name fool you, Anotherclown knows whereof he speaks). - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• As you know, I'm likely to thank all reviewers and head straight to FAC now my last nom has been promoted. I don't doubt Anotherclown's competence, and I said to him that I'm a new boy here, and I wasn't aware that A-class requirements differed from FA. I always put ISBNs for publications that have them, and in view of Anotherclown's comments, I'll probably revert to my normal practice wrt to publisher locations. I'm unconvinced about OCLC. I've never given these for FA, and I'm a bit concerned that it's the perennial FA/GA/A-c problem of instruction creep. I'll have a look to see if they actually exist for, say, the South Derbyshire District Council publications before deciding on this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just butting in here, given my (unique!) circumstance of being both a MilHist and a FAC coordinator... To clarify, Jim, ACR wasn't set up to have different criteria to FAC but in fact to follow similar style guidelines. My favourite capsule comparison of the two processes is (hat tip to Grandiose for this) ACR is like FAC, but more forgiving. If it doesn't always appear that way, it's probably more down to the focus of individual reviewers, and their knowledge that the ultimate target for many ACRs is FAC (as is obviously the case here) rather than deliberate policy. Anyway, allowing for Anotherclown's final comments, it looks like this is well on the way to promotion...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Gday all. I've been meaning to come back for days but things are getting a bit busy on cse (now playing silly buggers at night - yawn). Firstly apologies for my previous remarks - I often take myself way too seriously. Clearly we are all volunteers here and are just trying to improve the encyclopedia which is a good thing. I agree that OCLCs and place of publication are not strictly req'd under the criteria, MOS or the template docs (AFAIK) but I think they would definitely help to make the article the best it can be (not to mention helping our readers do their own research). So pls consider my cmts suggestions for improvement only. If you are interested in including them they can usually be found on Worldcat.org. By way of continuing the review, some technical cmts:

• No dab links [35] (no action req'd).
• External links check out [36] (no action req'd).
• Most of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [37] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
• The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Images appear to either be PD or licenced and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
  • Captions look ok to me (although the first one might be expanded to "Melbourne Castle in 1602" or something like that).
• The Earwig Tool didn't work so accepting on good faith that there are no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [38] (no action req'd).
• No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
• More to follow. Will review prose today or tomorrow, although it looks quite good so far. Anotherclown (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the checks. I've added alt text to images and publisher locations to books and reports (I can't even remember why I originally decided against for this article). Changed lead caption to "1602 drawing", since MoS suggests not repeating the article title in captions. As I suspected, the council reports don't appear to have OCLCs, so I think I'll leave them out rather than a mishmash of ISBN/OCLC/neither. Thanks for returning to this, and I look forward to your prose comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Good point about the caption - I'll try and remember that. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Continuing review:
        • " It was built on the site of an earlier royal manor house that in the reign of King John had provided accommodation for noblemen hunting in a nearby royal park." Suggest rewording to something like: "It was built on the site of an earlier royal manor house that had provided accommodation for noblemen hunting in a nearby royal park in the reign of King John." (suggestion only)
          • Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • "Melbourne is a town in South Derbyshire close to the River Trent." Melbourne should probably be wikilinked at first use in the body of the text.
          • Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Suggest joining these two sentences: "Melbourne is a town in South Derbyshire close to the River Trent. It may have originated as buildings associated with the royal manor to the south of the nearby settlement at Kings Newton...", consider instead: "Melbourne is a town in South Derbyshire close to the River Trent, which may have originated as buildings associated with the royal manor to the south of the nearby settlement at Kings Newton."
          • Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Missing paired comma here I think: "The castle, still unfinished at the time of Thomas' execution, and its land remained as crown property until it was bestowed on Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster, Earl Thomas' brother, in 1327." consider perhaps: "The castle, still unfinished at the time of Thomas' execution, and its land, remained as crown property until it was bestowed on Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster, Earl Thomas' brother, in 1327."
          • Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Is this quote correct: "praty and yn meately good reparation"... particular "yn", or should it by "in"? (I'm assuming that the text is actually correct and that it is old English, but just want to check it isn't a typo - probably showing my ignorance here).
          • Quoted exactly like this by Emery as well as Usher Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
            • No worries, just wanted to confirm that. Anotherclown (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Typo here: "...the total areas has been estimated to be at least..." → "...the total area has..."
          • Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • "Some of the stone taken from the castle was used to construct the grade II-listed buildings at 43 and 45 Castle Street..." do we know when this occurred? Might add context to provide a date for this if it is available.
          • Added "mid-eighteenth-century" We obviously don't know if this was the first use of the ashlar Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Usher, Howard (1991). "Melbourne Castle". Derbyshire Miscellany, the Local History Bulletin of the Derbyshire Archaeological Society 12 (5): 126–133. Any reason why you haven't used short cites here, and included the full citation in the "Cited texts" section? I'm probably missing something really obvious but it seems inconsistent.
          • I normally have journals in the refs and use "short form plus cited text" just for books and reports. Unusually (compared to my bird articles) there is only one journal ref here, which looks a bit odd. I've therefore moved it to book-style Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Thompson, M W (2008). The Decline of the Castle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521083974. Should authors full name be used here (for consistency with the rest of your citations)?
          • Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Inconsistency in presentation of ISBNs - one has hyphens, the rest do not. Don't think there is a preferred style just suggest you adopt a consistent format.
          • Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Wonder if the description of the castle would work better earlier in the article (for instance as section just after the background)? For instance Kenilworth Castle, which is one of our A class articles, has an extensive section on Architecture and landscape as its first section (suggestion only - I believe the article structure is acceptable as it is currently)
          • I had wondered about this but followed the layout of another castle article (can't remember which now) Moved as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Article is currently only in one category - wonder if it should be added to a few more? Again Kenilworth Castle is in the following cats:
          • Castles in Warwickshire
          • History of Warwickshire
          • Gardens in Warwickshire
          • English Heritage sites in Warwickshire
          • Ruins in Warwickshire
          • Kenilworth
          • Visitor attractions in Warwickshire
          • Grade I listed buildings in Warwickshire
          • Historic house museums in Warwickshire
            • Added three more Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Will have a look again once these have been dealt with. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for comments and your edits to the text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Ok that's it for my cmts, I've just made a couple of edits to the headings and added some bibliographic info that seemed to be missing. Although I have no background in castles I have added my spt now as I believe the article does a good job covering the topic and meets the A class criteria. I encourage you to take it to FAC to get a broader range of opinions (hopefully from someone with more subject knowledge than I). Anotherclown (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your help and support, I'm definitely going to take it to FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Cer

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently passed GAN and was extensively copy-edited by User:HueSatLum of the Guild of Copy Editors not too long after. I believe it meets all A-Class criteria. It covers an interesting battle which took place in August 1914, and was the first Allied victory of the First World War. It also ended the first Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia. 23 editor (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "The Battle of Cer ... was a military engagement fought": The Battle of Cer ... was fought
• This one would benefit from re-reading. For instance: "killed killed", "killed soldiers killed", "rejected.[9]."
• "The number of Austro-Hungarian troops assigned to the invasion of Serbia was far smaller than the originally intended 308,000–strong force,[when?] because a large portion of the Austro-Hungarian 2nd Army moved to the Russian Front, reducing the number of troops involved in the initial stages of the invasion of Serbia to approximately 200,000.": hyphen not dash, repetition, "when" tag, "had moved" - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dank! I've addressed your comments and made some changes . 23 editor (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I just came back to this; much better. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day. Good work, I took a quick look at the article and have the following suggestions/comments:

• "File:Potiorek oskar fzm 1853 1933 photo2.jpg": needs a US licence as well as the one that is already on the image description page. PD-US-1923 is probably sufficient;

Done.

G'day, thanks, but I'm not sure that "PD-old-100" is the correct licence here. It is only appropriate if the author is known to have died more than 100 years ago, but currently the image description page does not seem to identify the author. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.

• "File:Spomenik palim junacima Cerske Bitke.JPG": does Serbia have freedom of panorama? If so, please add a FoP licence to the image description page;

Done.

• in the infobox, can the units be linked?

Unfortunately, they'd all some will end up being redlinks. How do you think I should proceed?

I'd suggest linking them, but only once. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Done.

• links for 13th Army Corps, 4th Army Corps?

Added.

These would also be redlinks. Is this alright?

Yes, per WP:REDLINK. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• "encountered the Serbian 1st, 2nd and 3rd Armies". The link here for the Second Army should be moved to it first mention;

Done.

• "General Stepa Stepanović, was promoted to the rank of Field Marshal" --> "General Stepa Stepanović, was promoted to the rank of field marshal"(per WP:MILTERMS);

Fixed.

• inconsistent presentation: "machine-guns" v. "machine guns";

Fixed.

• "forty-six cannon, thirty machine guns" --> the link here for "machine guns" should be moved to its first mention earlier in the article;

Done.

• in the References, inconsistent presentation: for instance, "Bloomington, Indiana" v. "Cambridge, Mass." (one uses abbreviation, the other doesn't);

Fixed.

• in the References, is there a place of publication for the Horne work?

Added.

• based on experience at FAC, I don't think it is necessary to include things like "Inc" and "Ltd" in the publisher names. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed. I've addressed most of your comments with this edit . I have also fixed the licences on the photos you mentioned. Thanks for your comments. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• G'day, I've done a little copy editing on the article. Before I go further, could you please take a look at my changes and check that I haven't changed your meaning too much? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The changes look good. Thank you very much for taking the time to go through with the copy-edits. 23 editor (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, continuing my review below. Happy to discuss anything you don't agree with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Rifles were also in critically short supply because Serbia could not produce any domestically, nor could it import them from abroad." Could you please clarify this? Surely the Serbs were either able to locally-produce or import at some stage (otherwise they'd have had no rifles whatsoever), so had the situation changed for some reason, e.g. had an international treaty banned them from importing etc?
• "...Serbian General Staff could do was wait until the enemy's invasion plan materialized" --> this is a very Serbian narrative voice, and while I understand that this is sometimes avoidable, is it possible to balance it somehow? For instance, perhaps replace "enemy's" with "the Austro-Hungarian"
• is there anything that can be said about the Austro-Hungarian commanders' response to the set backs in the Battle section?
• in the Aftermath, you mention that the Serbian commander was promoted, were any repercussions for the Austro-Hungarian commander?
• in the Aftermath section, "that certain cultural groups in Italy" --> is it possible to provide some examples of which cultural groups did this?
• in the Casualties section, is there anything that can be said from the Austro-Hungarian point of view about the atrocities? If nothing has been written, that's fine, but currently the article seems very much as if it is written from a Serbian point of view and I think it might need to be balanced a bit more;
• in the first paragraph of the Casualties section, I would suggest moving the citations to the end of the sentences to which they relate. For instance, "Jordan[5] states that the Austro-Hungarians suffered a total of 37,000 casualties in the battle, of whom 7,000 were fatalities." --> Jordan states that the Austro-Hungarians suffered a total of 37,000 casualties in the battle, of whom 7,000 were fatalities.[5]" (and the other examples in the paragraph as well). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AR. I've addressed most of your comments: I've removed the bit about Serbia not being able to produce or import rifles because the source isn't precise, so I figure it's better off removed. I've made the wording more neutral (enemy's>Austro-Hungarian), added that both sides committed atrocities during the campaign (couldn't find any specifics regarding Serb atrocities), and added Potiorek's response to defeat in the battle. I've also addressed your last point. As for the bit about "Italian cultural groups", the source doesn't go into specifics. Would it be better off removed? 23 editor (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• G'day, thanks for making those changes. A couple of follow-on points:
  • "Atrocities were committed by both the Austro-Hungarians and Serbs, with the Austro-Hungarians committing more only because they had more opportunities to do so." --> I'm not sure about this wording. Given what you are talking about, I think it might be best to attribute the statement in text by mentioning who is stating this. For instance, "Atrocities were committed by both the Austro-Hungarians and Serbs, although according to author Lawrence Sondhaus, the majority were committed by Austro-Hungarians because..."
  • "held in such high esteem that certain cultural groups in Italy advocated..." --> perhaps if you use direct quotes from the source (using the source's words), it would deal with the issue about the lack of specifics. For example "held in such high esteem that, according to Mitrovic, in Italy "certain cultural groups advocated entering the war on the Allied side"..." (replacing the quoted words here with those used in the source"
  • "...citing Serbia and Montenegro as examples" --> Examples of what? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Done . 23 editor (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Cheers, I've added my support above as you have addressed all of my points. Apologies if I missed anything (the topic isn't something I know much/anything about). Hopefully a few more reviewers will come along and give it the once over also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers and thank you. 23 editor (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [39] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [40] (no action req'd).
  • All images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [41] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Image review completed above (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [42] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • There seems to be an illogical progression b/n the first paragraph and the second paragraph of the background. The first paragraph ends with the war beginning, while the 2nd para starts by talking about the number of Austro-Hungarian troops assigned to the first invasion of Serbia. Issue is here that you need to introduce the fact that such an invasion was planned / commenced etc (all it needs is a sentence stating this).
  • Typo here: "resulted in heavy Austro-Hungarians losses...", should be: "...resulted in heavy Austro-Hungarian losses."
  • Perhaps add links to Serbian 1st Combined Division, 1st Šumadija Division, 1st Morava Division, 21st Landwehr Division, 42nd Mountain Division, 36th Infantry Division and a number of other presumably notable Serbian and Austro-Hungarian formations that don't seem to be linked.
  • Reports from the front announced that "the enemy is withdrawing in the greatest disorder." - whose reports? Presumably Serbian from the language. Should be clarified I think.
  • Popular culture sections need to be treated with care. Per WP:MILPOP such sections "...should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic. Items meeting these requirements should typically be worked into the text of the article; a separate section for popular culture items, and in particular the following, should be avoided..."
  • Placement of the commonscat box is incorrect. See Template: Commons category which states: "Do not place this template in a section containing columns without floating left. In articles, this template should be placed at the top of the ==External links== section, or at the top of the last section on the page, if no external links section exists."
  • Otherwise this article is looking in very good shape to me. Anotherclown (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, A.C. I've addressed all of your comments with this edit . Regards, 23 editor (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Gday. Good work - happy to spt. Anotherclown (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! Thanks for the review. 23 editor (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• suggest you make the redlinks for the Austria-Hungary armies and divisions consistent (including in the infobox), and consistent with MOS. Recommend Second Army (Austria-Hungary), using (Austria-Hungary) as the standard disambiguation. Done

Done.

• suggestion only: add alt text to all images for accessibility reasons Done

Done.

• suggest "308,000-strong force intended in July" be "308,000-strong force intended when war was declared" Done

Done.

• suggest "replenish its shell stocks" be "replenish its ammunition stocks" Done

Done.

• a quick Google Books search indicates that Šajkača should not have an initial capital. Done

Done.

• They also had better stocks of munitions, as well as a much better transport and industrial infrastructure behind them Done

Fixed.

• Hence is pretty archaic, suggest "As a result" or "Putnik therefore" Done

Done.

• suggest you review each use of "however", IMO it is rarely needed if the preceding and following text is clear. For example, "The Serbian General Staff knew, however, that the bulk of the Austro-Hungarian forces were stationed in Bosnia and refused to be misled by these feints on the Danube" could be rendered as "The bulk of the Austro-Hungarian forces were stationed in Bosnia, and the Serbian General Staff refused to be misled by these feints on the Danube" Done

Done.

• The "Despite the fact that many went to the front wielding pitchforks and axes brought from their farms, most Serb soldiers were highly motivated, which compensated in part for their lack of weaponry" sentence, regardless of sourcing, is highly romanticised. Pitchforks have a poor record against Mausers. I suggest removing it. No doubt they were highly motivated to defend their country, and that aspect should be retained IMO, but the "pitchfork and axe" bit is too much. Done

Altered.

• Probably worth pointing out that Kosanin grad was the site of a medieval fortress, puts Cer's importance as a defensive position in context. Done

Source please?

• • Fair point. I only know because I've been there. And despite this, the only ref to the fortress I could find with a quick search is this, which probably not a good enough source. Forgettaboutit...
• there is a fair amount of "crushing", "conquering" (of villages), and "annihilation" going on, suggest either detail actual losses or look for alternate wording. Reliance on Glenny (a journalist), may be contributing to this. Done

Changed.

• Atrocities by Serb forces are mentioned, but the remainder of space is focussed on A-H atrocities, including a long quote. Are there no sources on the details of Serb atrocities committed? Sondhaus has a bit more to say about the motives behind the atrocities and arrests for treason etc, which I think should be added to maintain neutrality and provide the full picture, including the Austrians hatred towards Serbs for starting the war. Sondhaus also mentions Muslims fleeing Serbia at the start of the war, which provides some context. Done

Added how civilians mutilated A-H soldiers and the Austrian hatred of Serbs because of the war. The bit about Muslims doesn't necessarily relate to the Battle of Cer, does it?

• • No, on reflection it doesn't directly relate to this battle, more the war in general.
• "By then, no Austro-Hungarian soldiers remained free on Serbian soil." is a little romantic too, suggest toning it down with neutral language. Done

Removed.

• I'm not sure that Glenny is countering Jordan, Perhaps "in contrast" would be a better formulation? Done

Fixed.

• The figure on Serb wounded is consistent across all three sources used, no need to contrast there. Done

Removed.

• Why did A-H forces in Montenegro have to withdraw? Needs greater explanation. Done

Done.

• need to chop the ref field from the Further reading text. Done

Please clarify what you mean.

• • Did it myself.
• no mention of one of the "firsts" of WWI, the dogfight between the Serbian and Austrian aircraft during the battle (the Austrian armed with a revolver)?
  • Glenny p.316 is the reference for the dogfight.
• this source provides some information about ammo expenditure and another version of the casrep. Done

Added. The bit about casualties includes both killed and wounded (casrep?), in which case the sources already present are sufficient to paint a picture of what casualties were. 23 editor (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Where would you suggest I add the info about the dogfight since Glenny doesn't mention which date it occurred on? 23 editor (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The Aftermath section, I reckon. Along the lines of "The first ever aerial dogfight occurred during the battle, when..."  Done

---

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

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

---

Promoted Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because. It is an interesting article worth improving further. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, (sometimes Okay Hot-Shot or Okay, Hot-Shot) is": The tradeoff in listing every possible name is that we may lose the reader's interest before they even get past the subject of the first sentence. There are judgment calls, but I don't recall a case where someone repeated the same name with and without a comma, and I recommend against it. I don't see a problem with putting that information in the body of the article, at the first place that alternate name appears.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• "wartime armed forces depictions": Would it work to substitute "battle depictions" or "combat depictions"?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The plane, the pilot, the text balloon and the graphic onomatopoeia each comes from a panel from a different comic book.": Subject/verb agreement problem. Suggestions: "Each of ... comes from ..."; "The plane, the pilot, the text balloon and the graphic onomatopoeia all come from panels from different comic books."; "Panels from four different comic books provided the plane, the pilot, the text balloon and the graphic onomatopoeia." - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Lichtenstein was a trained United States Army pilot, draftsman and artist": This is ambiguous; it might mean that he was a draftsman, or a trained draftsman, or a trained United States Army draftsman. If the former, then: "Lichtenstein was a draftsman, an artist, and a trained United States Army pilot".
  • He was a trained as a draftsman and artist both during and prior to his army service. I think trained and US Army apply to all the three nouns. How should the sentence be restructured in this case?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'll make an edit. If you got training as, say, a chef, and then you got additional training as a chef in the army, you wouldn't want people describing you as an "army chef", they might think you were less trained or less serious than you really are. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Also, to my mind, this sentence doesn't fit in this paragraph; the first paragraph of the section would be my choice.
  • If I just move this sentence, then we have a stub paragraph remaining.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
    • With the tweak, it's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "aeronautical themed": aeronautically themed
  • Done--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• "His list of aeronautical themed works is extensive. Within that genre, Lichtenstein has produced": His aeronautically themed works are extensive, including
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• "several works featuring pilots situated in cockpits during air combat such as Jet Pilot (1962), Brattata (1962), Bratatat! (1963), and Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! (1963).": several others featuring ... and Bratatat! (1963).
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "most well-known": best-known (occurs twice)
  • I only see this once. I even searched on the word "well".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The work also is related to Lichtenstein's theme": I'm not sure what "also" means here ... in addition to what? - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Some sources list this": Some sources list Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "World War II Navajo U.S. Air Force fighter pilot Johnny Cloud": Different people have different tolerances for stringing lots of nouns together, but this is probably too many. You could drop "Navajo" if that's not an essential piece of information. Also, the U.S. Air Force didn't properly exist until after WWII.
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The narrative content, "Okay, hot-shot, okay! I'm pouring!" is said to have a dual meaning that alludes to the painting style being made famous at the time by Jackson Pollock of poured painting, while simultaneously presenting its primary meaning of pouring ammunition at the enemy.": The word "pouring" in the narrative is generally taken to allude as well to the style of poured painting being made famous at the time by Jackson Pollock.
  • I don't understand what you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • That's because my suggestion wasn't very good, I'll look at this again after I get some sleep. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, see what you think of my edit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Four one-sentence paragraphs in a row is too many. It's not just that the sentences need to be combined; the result needs to feel like coherent paragraphs, which may require filling in some details.
  • Reworked.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• "after Lichtenstein was famous, Irv Novick said that he had met Lichtenstein ... had responded to Lichtenstein's": ... had met him ... had responded to his - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Some of the paragraphs don't hang together as well as I'd like, but this meets A-class standards, and I appreciate how attentive you've been and how much work you've put into this. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I endorse the edits that you have made.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Andy Warhol produced his earliest paintings in the style in 1960", suggest "Andy Warhol produced his earliest paintings using this style in 1960"
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• suggest some explanation in the text of what the onomatopoeia that is involved is ie "VOOMP!"
  • Not exactly sure what is the best way to address this, but keep in mind the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the article. The greater detail is suppose to be in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    • summarising and using a term you have to click on the link to get any understanding of are two different things. No reason you couldn't just added "VOOMP!" after "onomatopoeia" in the lead. Any layperson reading this is going to think, "what the hell is onomatopoeia?", if you add "VOOMP!" then they look at the painting and go, "oh, that's what it is!". That is what I am getting at.
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• there is a lot of overlinking, World War II, Jet Pilot x 3, DC Comics, Bratatat!, Irv Novick, Whaam!
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• no locations in the citations.
  • I am fairly certain these are optional because I have over 20 WP:FAs and don't recall including locations in any of them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    • You may be right!
• Lichtenstein Foundation is cited for Jet Pilot, so no need to include in External links.
  • I relabeled the link. I think you may have misunderstood it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yep, I misunderstood.

Support Image comment: G'day, I had a quick look at the images. I'm not sure about the fair use rationale for the source, source2, source3, and source4 images:

• "The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use in Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! as:This is the source of the main image in Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, which is an article that entirely consists of analysis, commentary and criticism of Drowning Girl." (specifically, the mention of "Drowning Girl". Should this be "Okay Hot-Shot Okay"?) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. That was sloppy work. I will fix this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I fixed what I think was a typo "Pollack" --> "Pollock", but being uncultured I'm not really sure. Please check I got it right. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by Piotrus: please expand the lead with a second paragraph summarizing the appraisal section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Prior nomination here and Prior nomination here

This is the third A-class review after the first two that happened in quick succession in 2011. I have lately taken a look at the issues raised during these two nominations, and have tried to addressed them all – the lead has been rewritten and clarifications have been added to explain military jargons. I believe the article just about meets all the MHACR criteria; all comments are welcomed --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • One dab link [43]:
  • B61
  • External links check reveals a couple of dead links [44]:
    • Italy Pressuring U.S., Lockheed Over JSF Work (info) [aviationweek.com]
      • Removed URL. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    • AV-8B Harrier II Plus (info) [boeing.com]
  • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [45] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images are all either PD / licensed and seem appropriate as far as I can see.
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [46] (no action req'd).
  • A few duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Hawker Siddeley Harrier
    • Rolls-Royce Pegasus
    • leading-edge root extension
    • hardpoints
    • Operation Desert Storm
    • LITENING II targeting pod
    • USS Kearsarge
    • Douglas A-4 Skyhawk
    • Naval Air Systems Command
    • no-fly zone
    • Alenia Aeronautica
    • MCAS Cherry Point
    • AIM-120 AMRAAMs
    • 2011 military intervention in Libya
    • F/A-18 Hornet
    • hardpoint
      • Since this is a long article, I thought it'd be good for the reader to have more than one link to the same page. I've removed all the links, however, except for, Hawker Jump Jet (it serves two purposes) and LITENING II targetting pod (LITENING II and LITENING are talked about in the same article). --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Abbrev needs to be correctly introduced here: "Capable of vertical or short takeoff and landing, the aircraft was designed in the 1980s as an Anglo-American development of the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier, the first operational V/STOL aircraft." Consider instead: "Capable of vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL), the aircraft was designed in the 1980s as an Anglo-American development of the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier, the first operational V/STOL aircraft."
  • "The AV-8A, the American designation for the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, in STOL..." abbreviation needs to be introduced here (abbrevs used in the lead don't count).
  • Missing word here perhaps: "The Advanced Harrier was intended to replace original RAF and USMC Harriers...", consider instead: "The Advanced Harrier was intended to replace the original RAF and USMC Harriers..."
  • A bit informal here: " In 1984, money for eight AV-8Bs was diverted...", consider instead: " In 1984, funding for eight AV-8Bs was diverted..."
  • Punctuation here seems a little complicated: "The Defense Acquisition Board, on 11 March 1994, approved the program, which initially involved 70 aircraft, with four converted in financial year 1994." Perhaps consider more simply: On 11 March 1994, the Defense Acquisition Board approved the program, which initially involved 70 aircraft, with four converted in financial year 1994."
  • Redundancy here: "...was delivered to Spain in December 2003, ending the Harrier production line." (you already mentioned the end of the production line in the para above). Suggest removing second instance.
  • Contradictory: "The Marines Corps Harrier fleet is to remain operational until 2027..." previously you said 2030.
    • This one is still outstanding. Are you pls able to respond to this? Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "unlike earlier ejection seats that required the aircraft to move forward at a particular height for them to work." Is there a citation available for this?
    • No. It says it all in the name really. There's a Flight International article that says. "Capability is zero-zero and the seat has been designed to operate over the entire flight envelope of the TSR.2." From here I can infer that the operating envelope of ejection seats was previously more limited than the updated zero-zero ejection seats. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Not sure this is really sufficient. It will need a reference or may need to be removed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "The AV-8B cockpit was also used for the early trialling of Direct Voice Input (DVI), which allows the pilot to use voice commands to issue instructions to the aircraft, using a system developed by Smiths Aerospace." Remove wikilink here to Smiths Aerospace and wikilink earlier at first use.
    • Smiths Aerospace used to belong to Smiths Industries until it was sold to General Electric. I've linked both. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tense here: "The carrier, which replaces the World War II-era Dédalo...", consider instead: "The carrier, which replaced the World War II-era Dédalo..."
  • "...on the Marina Militare (Italian Navy) helicopter carrier Andrea Doria...", wikilink Andrea Doria.
  • "...worked alongside Italian Eurofighters and the aircraft...", perhaps wikilink Eurofighter.
  • "Italian Air Force Tornados and AMX fighter bombers..." perhaps wikilink Tornado and AMX here.
  • Some of the titles of references in the bibliography are incorrectly presented and need to use title case.
  • Mainly prose and some technical issues which should be easily fixed, otherwise looking in fairly good shape. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I have addressed all of your concerns, unless stated otherwise. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Looking good so far, pls see my cmts above re the outstanding points. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I've removed the unsourced claim and corrected the year. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I reworded this further. On second thought it seemed repetitive to mention the retirement twice in the same paragraph. Pls revert if you disagree. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm fine with the changes. Thank you for the support. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments:
  • the citation style seems a little inconsistent: for instance # 52 has the full bibliographic details instead of a short citation (compare it to 56 which is also a Flight International article). Same for # 38 and possibly others;
  • in the Bibliography, capitalisation: "The Iraq War: strategy, tactics, and military lessons" --> " The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons"
  • as above: "NATO air power" --> "NATO Air Power";
  • "The Naval Institute guide to the ships and aircraft of the U.S. fleet" --> "The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet"
  • in the Bibliography, can ISSNs be found for Popular Science and Flight International? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I've addressed everything, and added issue numbers, volume numbers, locations and publishers to the Flight International sources. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review and support! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

This ship was one of the first Japanese light aircraft carriers and was a textbook example of the Japanese habit of trying to cram a quart into a pint pot. In service she proved top-heavy and unstable and had to be refitted to ameliorate those issues. She spent the first part of the Pacific War supporting Japanese troops during the Malayan and Philippines Campaigns. During the Indian Ocean raid she operated separately from the Kido Butai, supporting Japanese cruisers attacking British shipping in the Bay of Bengal. The carrier participated in the attack on Dutch Harbor in June 1942 and was sunk during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons later that year.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox
  • Cited length figure is different than infobox figure
    • Good catch.
  • Probably more accurate that the ship had virtually no armor, maybe specify it did not have an armored flight deck, hangar deck or belt (that's what I read that meant...).
    • I think that the current language is good enough. I'm not even sure if the Japanese even considered protective plating as armor as opposed to simply doubling structural steel or whatever they actually did.
• Add the Hiryū language for naming somewhere.
  • Done.
• "The ships were bombed several times by B-17s without effect..." - maybe reword this that multiple B-17s dropped bombs that missed the ship. Kirk (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarified. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)\
    • I don't understand why you are using the phrase 'without effect' -is this technical jargon? What would 'with effect' mean? I would switch this to plain english. Kirk (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
      • With effect would mean that they caused some damage either by splinters/shock from near-misses or actual hits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Support with minor points:

• "and was back in the shipyard for modifications to address those issues within a year" - hard to tell which year this was, as the lead talks about her being built "in the 1930s"
  • The details are in the main body, but the emphasis here is how quickly she needed to be modified so I'm not sure that the exact year is important.
• "Because of the need to keep Ryūjō's weight to 8,000 metric tons, no armor could be provided," > "No armor could be provided because of the need to keep Ryūjō's weight to 8,000 metric tons," would make the sentence more direct, and avoid starting with a "because"
  • Good idea.
• "She was also designed with only a single hangar, which would have left her with an extremely low profile (there being just 4.6 meters (15 ft 1 in) of freeboard amidships and 3.0 meters (9 ft 10 in) aft)." - I couldn't visualise/understand this on first reading, possibly because I'm not familiar with hangars being stacked, or what freeboard meant!
  • I'm not sure how to respond to this since freeboard is linked.
• "Her air group now consisted of a mixture of B3Y1 torpedo bombers, D1A1 dive bombers and A2N fighters, but her torpedo bombers were transferred after fleet maneuvers in October demonstrated effective dive bombing tactics." - I wasn't clear why the dive bombers being successful would mean that the torpedo bombers needed to be removed.
  • My source isn't clear why the torpedo bombers were transferred, just that they were.
• "The disabled Ryujo (just right of center)..." I couldn't make out the ships on this until I blew it up somewhat larger. Is it worth circling or highlighting the ships in some way on an amended image? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Uploaded cropped version. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed at GA in September and have had a look of the revisions that have been made since them and believe it also meets the A class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Mutsu

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Mutsu had a surprisingly uneventful history. She was a minor cause célèbre during the negotiations for the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 as the Japanese lied about having claimed to complete her before the start of the conference, otherwise would have had to scrap the brand new ship. Even so a compromise was reached where Japan was allowed to retain her, while sacrificing one of her earliest dreadnoughts and the UK and US were allowed to build/finish some 16-inch-armed dreadnoughts. The ship was generally kept in home waters during the Pacific War. Her magazines exploded in early 1943 for an unknown reason and her wreck was salvaged after the war.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, looks quite good, but I only took a quick look:

• "totalled" --> shouldn't this be "totaled" if it it is US spelling?
  • To tell the truth, I always get mixed up on doubling the "l" or not, but my dictionary agrees with you.
• punctuation: "superstructure. six-meter";
• "rumours" --> "rumors" (US spelling);
• "Parshall & Tully" appears in the Footnotes seciton, but not in the Bibliography;
• in the Bibliography, capitalisation: "Scraps of Paper: The Disarmament Treaties between the World Wars" --> ""Scraps of Paper: The Disarmament Treaties Between the World Wars"?
• as above, "Mutsu – An Exploration of the Circumstances Surrounding her Loss" --> "Mutsu – An Exploration of the Circumstances Surrounding Her Loss"?
• isbn or oclc for the Hyde work?
• "File:Fusō-class battleship.jpg": probably needs a US licence. I think PD-US-1996 would probably work;
• "File:Mutsu20.jpg": is missing date and source information on hte description page; it probably also needs a US licence;
• "File:Japanese battleship Mutsu.jpg": US licence and link (if available) to the archive. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching all these little niggles. Added US licenses for all the pics. Sources are not available, although exceedingly unlikely to be non-Japanese as she never made a port visit outside Japan that I'm aware of.
    • No worries, I had a look too, but couldn't find anything unfortunately. I'm happy that its PD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm very fortunate that the Japanese PD law is so broad, makes just about everything I can find PD. I wish other nations would follow suit!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox
  • Add o/a
  • Shouldn't the armament have english units?
    • The IJN went metric in 1917.
      • I meant a conversion in parens, like Yamato-class battleship.
  • The barbettes and turret numbers don't match the prose. Kirk (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Good catch.

• A 'mixture of coal and oil' probably should describe the mixture - is that oil sprayed on coal?
  • Probably, but my sources don't specify. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • What does it literally say in the sources? I'm pretty sure they meant the low-quality coal sprayed with diesel option. Kirk (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Support - looks good to me! Minor comments:

• "four Gihon geared steam turbines" - I wasn't quite sure whether these were "Gihon-geared steam turbines" or "geared Gihon steam turbines" (i.e. what the Gihon adjective was applying to)
  • Gihon was the manufacturer. I'm not sure how to fix this. Geared and steam aren't a compound adjective so a hyphen is out.
• " the gun's maximum range from " - the rest of the paragraph would have this as "guns'"
  • Good catch.
• "Mutsu had an additional boom added" - worth linking boom?
  • Sure, more links is good.
• "Mutsu, named for Mutsu Province, and for the Meiji Emperor's personal name, Mutsuhito" - the lead only mentions the first of these, btw.
  • True, my early research didn't discover the other reason for the name. Somebody pointed it out to me later so I'm not sure that it was a cause for the name rather than happy coincidence.
• "she sortied for the Bonin Islands," - I'd have gone for "sortied to the Bonin Islands" Hchc2009 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This may be one of those things relating to how we use collective nouns. "For" is fine for a collective destination like an island group, but "to" is better for a specific place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [47] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [48] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [49] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
    • "Whitley, p. 200" (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • "w0" (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • Images are all either PD / licensed and seem appropriate as far as I can see.
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [50] (no action req'd).
  • A few duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • crane (see "...and a collapsible crane was installed in a portside sponson the following year...)
      • Crane and boom both link back to crane (mechanical)
    • light cruiser (see "... the light cruiser Sendai, nine destroyers and four auxiliary ships...")
    • Saipan (see "...were sent to Saipan in the Mariana Islands where most were killed...")
    • shrapnel shells (see "...incendiary shrapnel shells, which had caused a fire at the Sagami arsenal several years earlier..."
    • brigade (see "...long section running from the bridge structure forward to the vicinity of No. 1 turret...")
  • Prose a little repetitive here: "...immediate suspicion focused on the Type 3 anti-aircraft shell as it had been suspected of causing a fire before the war ...", specifically "suspicion" and "suspected" in the same sentence. Consider something like: " ...immediate suspicion focused on the Type 3 anti-aircraft shell as it had been believed to have caused a fire before the war..." (suggestion only - minor nitpick really).
  • Otherwise very good. Anotherclown (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • All done, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Belatedly adding my support. For some reason I thought I'd already done this. Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

List of light cruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another in the list of warships series, this one covers all of the light cruisers built or projected by the German navies. It also caps this project which is almost complete (Emden is the only remaining article that needs to be rewritten). Thanks to all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. "The two cruisers ordered in the 1905–1906 represented" needs something. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Ahh, yes, there's a "program" missing there. Thanks for catching it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Some sources have Köningsberg (1927) as the K-Class,
  • Added a note on this.
• Section-wise I think it would be helpful to organize the list with a pre-WWI section and post-WWI section since its otherwise a long list. I thought maybe with CLs they would have a name for newer cruisers like other ships but I couldn't find any. Kirk (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I read 'modern light cruiser' a couple of times, which I don't recommend!
    • Hmm, the only problem with splitting it at WWI/WWII ships is it doesn't do much to break up the list, since only the last 4 entries will be split. I'll add it anyway and see what you think.
• Similarly, Leipzig and Nuremberg are unique ships in Conway. Kirk (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And a note on this as well. Thanks for your review, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments: looks quite good to me, but I'm out of my depth with lists, so I only had a quick look, sorry. I have the following observations/suggestions:

• the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following as possibly being overlinked: Battle of Heligoland Bight (1914); Battlecruiser; World War II; Reichsmarine;
  • All fixed, thanks for catching these.
• wording: "All four ships were employed with the High Seas Fleet after their commissionings..." --> "All four ships were employed with the High Seas Fleet after they were commissioned..."?
  • Sounds fine to me.
• in the References, there is some inconsistency in terms of location presentation. For instance compare "London" with "London, UK"; "New York, NY" with "New York"; "Annapolis, MD" and "Annapolis";
  • Should all be cleaned up.
• in the References, can a location be added for the Osborne book?
  • Added.
• in the References, is there an ISSN or OCLC number that could be added for the Forstmeier, Novik and Whitley works? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I can get OCLC numbers for Warship International but nothing on the specific volumes for Novik and Whitley. Forstmeier has its only OCLC entry though. Thanks for your review, AR.

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Initial run through:

• overlinking of Battle of Heligoland Bight (1914), Battlecruiser (Goeben), World War II, Reichsmarine (under Emden).
  • All fixed (see above)
• location field for Novik, Whitley, Osborne
  • Also see above.
• consistency re: location fields (London, UK or just London, for example)
  • And again.
• some citations need to be combined (Gardiner & Gray, p. 143; and Herwig, p. 28 for example)
  • Both fixed.
• suggest you use refbegin and refend templates to reduce the font size in References
  • Ok
• Is there a Commons link that should be added?
  • Not really - there's World War I cruisers of Germany (and a WWII equivalent) but they include all types, not just the light cruisers.
• consider adding alt text to all images for accessibility reasons (not an ACR requirement)
• no issues detected by dab checker, EL checker, redir checker or earwig (no action required)

*will go through prose tomorrow or the next day.

• Byron Farwell and James P. Delgado in refs should be authorlinked.
  • Both added.
• Suggest the individual citations in many of the tables could be replaced with a single citation against the column heading.
• In the Kolberg class table, 10.5 cm/45 should probably be rendered as 10.5 cm SK L/45 for consistency, ditto 15 cm SK L/45. Also, I suggest you use a consistent way of referring to each gun, in the latter tables, you reduce it to "15 cm guns", then use "15 cm C/25" omitting the SK. Suggest you use the full version throughout with all guns.
  • Should all be standardized now.
• It is not clear why you use a conversion for the guns in the Pillau class table, but not elsewhere. I suggest the approach should be consistent.
  • Generally, you only need to use a conversion at the first use, so it's in the Pillau class since they were the first to use the larger gun.
• No power conversion in the Graudenz class table.
  • Same as above.
• No speed conversion in the Pillau class table.
  • Ditto.
• Regensburg was present for the battle, however, where she led the torpedo boat flotillas screening the I Scouting Group battlecruisers
  • Done.
• Armor thickness conversion in some tables, but not others.
  • Same as above.

That's it for me. Great work putting this together! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Great work. Two minor points below:
• "several intermediate designs of unprotected cruisers, such as the Bussard class, and avisos like SMS Hela" - it's wikilinked, but is there anyway of explaining what an aviso is in the lead? (e.g. "...and aviso despatch boats like SMS Hela"?) Would be gentler on the non-specialist. :)
  • See what I added and let me know what you think.
• she was ultimately surrendered to the United States and expended as a target in 1921" - the phrase "expended as a target" wasn't one I was familiar with, and it felt a bit odd (I might have expected to expend ammunition or money, but not a ship). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's used fairly commonly with ships (see for instance here, [51], and here). Would you prefer something different (say, "sunk as a target")? Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

15th Battalion (Australia)

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

The 15th Battalion was a Queensland/Tasmanian infantry battalion that fought during the First and Second World Wars. The article is currently a GA and I would like to take it a bit further with your help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed for GA and have checked the recent changes and am satisfied it meets the ACR criteria too.
  • No dab links [81] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [82] (no action req'd).
  • All images have Alt Text [83] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [84] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd). Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I added some missing bibliographic details from Worldcat for the Richardson ref, and made a couple of minor presentation tweaks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very strong article, and I hope that it's heading to a FAC. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• I really like the lead photo being of veterans, but is it appropriate to call them "Retired members" of the unit? These men were largely citizen soldiers, with most only joining up for the duration of the world wars so they probably didn't consider themselves to have "retired" from the Army.
  • Good point. Changed to "15th Battalion veterans". AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "The majority of the 15th Battalion's recruits had no previous military experience" - is this correct? Modern scholarship on the AIF often notes that many of its members had been conscripted into part-time training in one of the various schemes implemented before the war.
  • Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Upon arrival, the battalion was reorganised from eight companies into four" - did this involve posting men out of the unit, or were small companies merged into larger ones?
  • Good point. The 100 odd strong companies became 200 odd strong. I have reworded this. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "As poor decision making stalled the advance inland" - this might be a bit simplistic: Turkish resistance and the general chaos at all levels of the Australian force contributed to this
  • Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Russel's Top" should be "Russell's Top". I'd also suggest linking the main positions, as they're notable.
  • Fixed typo and added a link to Quinn's Post; I wasn't able to find any other links, though, except "Pope's Hill" but that doesn't relate to Gallipoli. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Are there any figures for the number of soldiers who had to be evacuated from Gallipoli due to sickness or wounds, or point-in-time figures on the strength of the unit?
  • The War Diaries have some, but they are very hard to read due to being handwritten. The article currently mentions that by September the battalion was down to "11 officers and 136 other ranks", which shows a pretty high wastage, but I will have to see if Chataway has anything further for an earlier month. The book is currently in transit, though, but hopefully it will be here next week some time. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added a bit more on this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• "the 15th Battalion was committed to fighting for the first time" - needs an "in France" qualifier
  • Added "on the Western Front". AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Assigned a support role, the 15th Battalion" - this sentence is a bit over-complex - I'd suggest splitting it into two
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "which had been merged into the Australian Corps" - given that the Australians always fought in their own corps (I and II ANZAC), I'd suggest tweaking this to avoid the suggestion that the divisions had been dispersed previously.
  • Simplified. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "peace penetrations" - should this be "peaceful penetrations"?
  • Yes, indeed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "That month, a number of American troops were assigned to the battalion" - this sentence is a bit fragmented. I'd suggest simplifying it or splitting it.
• "form-up point" - should this be "forming-up point"? (I'm not sure which is correct)
  • Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "decimated" - use of this term in a non-literal senses always attracts complaints, so I'd suggest tweaking it to something else
  • Changed to "depleted". AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• On what date in 1918 or 1919 was the battalion disbanded? You might also want to note that the men returned to Australia on an individual basis rather than as a formed unit. (edit - according to the battalion's war diary, it "ceased to be administered as such" on 27 March 1919 when it was reduced to a company)
  • Added. I believe that the company was amalgamated with others to form a brigade composite battalion, which would then have been disbanded probably a couple of months later, but the source doesn't say this explicitly unfortunately. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think that was the standard way the AIF units were handled as the force disbanded. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• "As a result, the 15th Battalion was re-raised" - also a few too many commas in this sentence, I think
  • Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "the Great Depression, which made it difficult for part-time soldiers to maintain their livelihoods while continuing their training commitments" - would it not have also encouraged recruitment by providing an accessible source of work and income for the unemployed? I thought that the issue was that the government cut back funding for the Militia during this period, though I could be totally mistaken.
  • Added a bit about funding being cut, but unfortunately I haven't come across anything that mentions militia service as being billed as income for the unemployed. Training was so limited by lack of funds, that it wouldn't have paid much anyway - six full days in camp and six days of parades throughout the year. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• "As the remainder of the 5th Division was rested, the 15th Battalion was committed to pursuing the withdrawing Japanese" - do we know why the 15th was selected for this role? (presumably it was the least worn out of the division's battalions).
  • Yes, that's right. I've tried to clarify this. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• As extra sources to consult if you're interested in taking this to FAC, I'd suggest consulting Karl James' recent book on Bougainville The Hard Slog (or the PhD thesis on which it's based, which is available here), Phillip Bradley's To Salamaua and Garth Pratten's book Australian Battalion Commanders in the Second World War (which has some gossip about a couple of the COs of the unit - I can add this if it would help). Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I probably won't take it to FAC as I have a lot going on at the moment in real life, but I will eventually look at those sources. Please feel free to add from Pratten's book if there is something you think important. Thanks for the review, I appreciate your comments. Please let me know if I've missed the point with any of your concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments are now all addressed. I'll add some extra material later this week. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Support with rationales/caveats/suggestions:

• Prose: I copyedited a fairly large chunk of the article pre-ACR (picking up where Dank left off) but I hope not so much that I can't be dispassionate when I say that I think it reads quite well.
• Structure: I'd have thought an article of this length would justify at least a two-paragraph lead. On the other hand, what you have there does flow nicely so perhaps you could even leave that as is and add second and third paras summarising the formation's activities in each war (just a thought).
• Coverage: Level of detail seems quite reasonable; obviously I'm not an expert on the content but if AC and Nick are satisfied with it that counts for quite a bit.
• Referencing: Nothing leapt out at me as suspect in either the reliability or the formatting of the refs, though that doesn't mean that Nikki might not spot something... ;-)
• Supporting materials: All images Australian PD; the first one might cause concern in some quarters given it's post-1945 but the PD status is clearly spelt out at the (government) source and I think we've established precedent for that being satisfactory, even to the deletion brigade... ;-) Re. the infobox, I think it's superfluous to link WWI/WWII when subordinate campaigns are linked, and I'd like to think we're getting out of the habit of putting little flags next to country names (which also don't really need to be linked).

All up, nice work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I copyedited before the ACR, and got down to Inter-war years. Reading quickly, I don't see any problems in the rest of it. You may want to link "gazetted". - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

James Hogun

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk)

Ah, the last of this series (of which I'm sure everyone is tired by now) that will be passing through A-Class. I have sincerely appreciated everyone's helpful critiques and thoughtful reviews, and will appreciate help again on this general. Virtually unknown before the revolution, James Hogun rose to become a (Revolutionary War-era) "community organizer" to a general in a very short time. Not too aristocratic or distant from his (presumed) roots, Hogun refused to be paroled after being captured at Charleston in 1780, and died in a prison camp set up in the salt marshes around Charleston Harbor. Not much is known of his early life, and though his service during the war was commendable, his writings in the main don't survive. Very few modern sources discuss Hogun with any real seriousness, but several older ones have put together probably as much as we can possibly know about his life. I feel that I've put together those sources and brought this article to the highest level of detail I can. I look forward to your comments. Cdtew (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I made a couple of minor tweaks, but not a lot stood out for me. I only have a couple of comments:

• "The journey was arduous, and endured one of the coldest, harshest winters in recent memory." Who endured this?
• "File:Thomas Burke of North Carolina.jpg": as it is relying on age to prove it is PD, the image description page probably should provide some detail about the date it was created. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick Comment Just to reiterate Rupert's image check and to say that "met his demise" is surely an unwelcome euphemism, either "was interned" and/or "died" would be preferable I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your short comments guys. My responses are below:

• @AustralianRupert: Changed the wording to "and Hogun's brigade endured"
• The file is a tricky one. The page at the source says that the date and author are unknown. I'm in a pickle about this one. I've called the State archives, and they're unsure of its exact provenance. I suppose my best course of action is removal - which sucks, because this article is already devoid of useful images.

• Yes, that's unfortunate, but I think it for the best. I've got no concerns about it being added again if something can be found about its publication. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Grandiose: I've changed it to the simpler "died". Cdtew (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Commentary:

Early life: Link to American Revolution instead of American Revolutionary War makes it seem he stayed obscure even unto death. His early death, before the full effects of the Revolution were recognized, makes the linkage to the war a more relevant one.

Initial command: Link to "additional regiments" could be useful if it could be more exactly targeted. A #Third establishment, 1777-1784 addition to the cite would take the reader to the right spot. As it now stands, the reader is left to sift through a 4,000 word article to find the term. That rather defeats the easy reference attributes of linkage.

In interests of increased clarity, suggest "sufficient weapons" in place of "sufficient armaments." The simpler word gives a more pointed meaning to the phrase.

Promotion and Philadelphia: The article to which Commandant links does not seem to offer an explanation of Arnold's function in Philadelphia. None of the U.S. academies yet existed, and I see no evidence that Philly was either a military training establishment or a prison camp. Perhaps a sentence or two explaining the Commandant's function could be added.

Southern campaign: The sentence "The journey was arduous, and Hogun's brigade endured one of the coldest, harshest winters in recent memory." would probably be more effective if rephrased. I can only assume they marched, as their method of movement was not specified, so "march" would add the unconscious connotations of wearisome walking. "memory" seems an inadequate referent here; perhaps "years", instead?

Support Having picked some mighty fine nits above, I end by saying, Good show. The cites are all good. I made one minor change to eliminate a typo, but the text is well-written. Coverage seems as complete as the resources allow. I see it as A Class even without my suggested changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I will address all of your comments shortly. Thanks for your support! Cdtew (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: I've made your changes here. Let me know if you see anything else. Also, I added a signature line for you, which was likely inadvertently left off. Cdtew (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [85] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [86] (no action req'd).
  • All images have Alt Text [87] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Image review completed above (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [88] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • In the lead this seems needlessly long: "Hogun then advanced in rank again when he was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1779. The matter of Hogun's promotion caused a controversy in the Continental Congress due to the fact that several congressmen and the North Carolina General Assembly wished to see Thomas Clark of North Carolina promoted instead of Hogun." Consider instead something like: "Hogun was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1779; however, this caused a controversy in the Continental Congress due to the fact that several congressmen and the North Carolina General Assembly wished to see Thomas Clark of North Carolina promoted instead of Hogun."
  • This is a little repetitive: "Hogun was in command of North Carolina's line brigade during the Siege of Charleston in the spring of 1780, which ended in the surrender of all but one of North Carolina's regiments of regular infantry, and the surrender of more than 5,000 Patriot soldiers under Major General Benjamin Lincoln." Surrender twice in the same sentence, perhaps reword?
  • I accept that little is known about Hogun's early life and that due to this the "early life" section is pretty short. I notice though that you list Ireland as his place of birth in the infobox, but it isn't mentioned in the article. Might this be added here with a reference?
  • " Initially, the regiment had some difficulty organizing after several of that unit's officers delayed their military work in order to take care of their personal affairs." Consider more simply: " Initially, the regiment had some difficulty organizing after several officers delayed their military work in order to take care of their personal affairs." (you repeat this phrase a few times)
  • "While commanding the regiment, Hogun participated in the battles of Brandywine and Germantown, and was present at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777–78." Who was he fighting (some of our readers might not know)?
  • "Hogun found the task to be distasteful, but his men totally lacked sufficient weapons to allow them to serve as a combat unit until approximately 400 muskets were requisitioned for them.", consider more simply: "Hogun found the task distasteful, but his men lacked sufficient weapons to allow them to serve as a combat unit until approximately 400 muskets were requisitioned for them." ("to be" and "totally" are redundant).
  • "His promotion came in part as a result of the "distinguished intrepidity" that he had exhibited at Germantown..." the word "that" is redundant also. Consider more simply: "His promotion came in part as a result of the "distinguished intrepidity" he had exhibited at Germantown..." (minor nitpick)
  • "That surrender led to the loss of all but one of the regiments of the North Carolina Line then in existence, entirely depriving that state of regular, non-militia soldiers." Redundant language here too. Consider more simply: "That surrender led to the loss of all but one of the regiments of the North Carolina Line then in existence, depriving that state of regular, non-militia soldiers."
  • "Rather than allowing himself to be paroled, Hogun requested that he be interned at the British prison camp at Haddrel's Point on Point Pleasant..." redundant "that".
  • "Soldiers at Haddrel's Point were subjected to harsh conditions, were denied permission to fish for much-needed food, and were threatened with deportation from South Carolina." Consider more simply: "Soldiers at Haddrel's Point were subjected to harsh conditions, denied permission to fish for much-needed food, and threatened with deportation from South Carolina."
  • Do we know what Hogun died of? Anotherclown (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Anotherclown: I have addressed all of your comments here, and will be happy to address any further comments you may have. A couple of specific things for you, and a few questions:

• Hogun's cause of death and burial place are unknown; the sources state merely that his "health declined" during that winter; I imagine it was disease or malnutrition; Clark speculated way back in 1906 that Hogun may have been about 58-60 years old when he died (in a round-about way, by stating that he believed Hogun was "past the middle of life" when he got married in 1751, ie: 1781-1751= 30 x 2 = 60 OR 1780-1751= 29 x 2 = 58), so I could throw that in as added speculation about the cause of death. Let me know your thoughts on that, since some of it is arguably OR (although math-based OR, so easily traceable).
• What are your thoughts about whether this article is even worth nominating at FAC? I can see how if I were to nominate it, at ~9 sources and 16-17 footnotes and 12 short paragraphs long, there would be an argument that it's a subject that just won't ever be FAC-worthy because of lack of sources. On the other hand, I figure if I've written a comprehensive article about his life including every encyclopedic piece of information I can find, that sounds FAC-worthy.
• As an addendum to that question, do you think if I beefed the article up with contextual facts it would be more FAC-worthy? Like, if I discussed what was happening and why at certain points where information is lacking? Again, I could see FAC reviewers pooh-poohing the use of contextual facts that aren't substantially describing the life and actions of the article's subject.

Thanks again for your help! Cdtew (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gday. Changes look fine so I've added my support. Happy to accept that we just don't know when he was born and leave it at that. In response to your questions: 1) I think probably best to stay away from anything that might be considered OR. 2) I actually don't have much experience at FAC (never nominated an article there actually and only reviewed twice) so I'm afraid I really couldn't give you any meaningful advice. Perhaps approach one of our other editors with a bit more knowledge in this area? Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just some comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

• "and did encroach": and encroached
• "Nine transverse arrestor wires were installed on the flight deck and could stop a 13,000 lb (6,000 kg) aircraft.": Nine transverse arrestor wires that could stop a 13,000 lb (6,000 kg) aircraft were installed on the flight deck.
• "Two of triple mounts": Two of the triple mounts
• "Second Carrier Division,Brown": ?
• "Sōryū and the other five carriers, launched two waves": no comma
• "the defenders of Wake Island which": the defenders of Wake Island, who
• "The four carriers launched an airstrike of 180 aircraft against Tjilatjep on 5 March, sinking five small ships, damaging an additional nine badly enough that they had to be scuttled, and set the town on fire": I take it "set" is parallel to "launched", but they're too far apart for readers to easily parse this.
• "Hiryū contributed 18 B3Ns and nine Zeros to the force, the latter encountered a flight of six Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers from 788 Naval Air Squadron en route, shooting them all down without loss.": Something's missing ... maybe "and".
• "Hawker Hurricane fighters from 30 and 258 Squadrons RAF": one option is: ... Nos. 30 and 258 Squadrons RAF
• "to bring the aircraft up to the flight deck, warm up and launch the strike group": nonparallel. It needs: "... and to warm up ..."
• "they executed a fruitless glide bombing attack on Hiryū in return the gunner": ?
• "Yamaguchi radioed Nagumo at 16:30 his intention": Yamaguchi radioed his intention to Nagumo at 16:30
• " One torpedo missed and the other struck near the bow without the typical plume of water, the detonation was quite visible.": Maybe: ..., although the detonation ... - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All done, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: just a few nitpicks from me:

• "draught" (infobox) v "draft" (body of article);
• "Flight Deck and Hangars" --> "Flight deck and hangars"?
• the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following as potentially overlinked: "Hull (watercraft)"; "Flight deck", "Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi", "Cruiser", "Combined Fleet", "Midway Atoll", "United States Army Air Corps", "Magazine (artillery)", "Japanese battleship Haruna", "VT-8", "USS Enterprise (CV-6)",
• is it possible to get the Japanese on the image description page for "File:Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryu 1939.jpg" translated into English? (Some of it is, but some isn't at the moment.) Please note, if this is not possible, it is not a warstoper for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Nitpicks dealt with. The description was simply Hiryu in Yokosuka after completion in 1939. I've added it to the image's page on Commons. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• G'day, I've made a couple of tweaks and have a few more comments (otherwise it looks good to me): AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "On 26 April, the five carriers of the First Air Fleet departed from Staring Bay..." This date doesn't seem right, given that later you mention "4 April". Do you mean 26 March?
    • Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "force the US Navy into a showdown to eliminate the American carrier threat. He decided to invade and occupy Midway Atoll, which he was sure would draw out the American carrier forces to battle..." (the last part seems redundant, perhaps you could just say this: "force the US Navy into a showdown to eliminate the American carrier threat. He decided to invade and occupy Midway Atoll.)"
    • I'm not sure that I agree. Yamamoto wanted to get rid of the US carriers; Midway was the bait that would draw them out. I think that both sentences are needed to express that although I've tweaked it a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, it's not a war stoper for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • this sentence might be better if it was moved to an earlier part of the paragraph: "Unknown to the Japanese, the US Navy had divined the Japanese MI plan from signals intelligence and had prepared an ambush using its three available carriers, positioned northeast of Midway". (Perhaps it might be smoother if it appeared before "The air group suffered..."
    • Moved it into the first para and reworked the first two paras. How do they read?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "At 07:15 Admiral Nagumo ordered " --> "At 07:15 Nagumo ordered"?
    • This Wiki policy conflicts with everything I'm used in referring to military men.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Agreed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • repetition (knocked & knocked): "that knocked three boilers off-line and knocked out all electrical power" --> "that damaged three boilers and knocked out all electrical power"?
    • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "remained on board as Hiryū was torpedoed at 05:10 by Makigumo..." perhaps it could be made clearer here that this was done deliberately to scuttle the ship? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I'll review this more next week
  • The top heavy and structurally weak links to other articles probably should mention those articles and add citations.
    • Rewritten more explicitly; the cite to Chesneau suffices, I think.
  • I thought when we had a one ship class we mentioned it as 'unique' in the British carrier series?
    • I've never used that terminology, but others may have or might have added it to my singleton articles like HMS Argus. I've added a phrase that she was the only ship of her class to the lede.
  • I don't know anything about Japanese ship naming but my guess is that isn't a traditional name, means something other than the literal meaning and was chosen for a reason so the namesake probably should be cited.Kirk (talk)
    • Nope, no namesake. Much like the USN of the time, the IJN had rigid naming conventions for their ships and carriers were named after flying creatures, both real and mythological. Akagi and Kaga, converted from a BC and BB, respectively, retained their traditional names upon their conversion. Look forward to your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Interesting - that's what I meant & that should be in the article w/a citation. Kirk (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• 40% of the citations are from a single source (Parshall & Tully), which is probably too high unfortunately.
  • They're the single best source for the Battle of Midway.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• The historian opinion about the AA guns could be cut since it doesn't seem to really come up as any kind of issue later.
  • While not explicitly mentioned, those problems might have contributed to the failure to shoot down more of the attacking American aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Sprinkle in a few more 'Admiral' and 'Captain' in the service history instead of just a surname of an officer.
  • MOS is rank only on first appearance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• 1st Air Fleet or First Air Fleet?
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• It seems to me there's some non-flag officers who are USN personnel but their equivalents in the IJN are missing, and I assume the loss of the First Air Fleet had some notable junior/staff officers. Kirk (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The notable staff officers of the Kido Butai generally survived; the critical losses were among the aviators, carrier captains and carrier division commanders and are discussed on their individual ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• this note does not mention the other ship - you and I know it's Soryu, but most will not.
  • Good idea.
• On that note, it might be worth mentioning in the lead that the ship was built to a modified-Soryu design.
  • Probably a good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• "ship's air group was transferred at Hainan Island" - should be "transferred to"
  • Good catch.
• Is it likely that Tomeo Kaku will get an en.wiki article? If so, it would be better to redlink his name, especially since few English-speakers can read Japanese.
  • He later made flag rank and there is a book on IJN admirals in English if anyone is actually interested in writing them up.
• The first sentence in the Pearl Harbor section is a bit too complex, I think. According to Yamaguchi's article, he commanded the 2nd Division since 1940, so that bit can be moved earlier to cut down on this sentence.
  • Done.
• "That battleship" - Which battleship? "That" requires an antecedent, which is not currently in the article.
  • Good catch
• "Later that day they sank the oil tanker USS Pecos." - Who's they? The cruisers? Hiryu's aircraft? I assume the latter, but right now, it implies the former.
  • Clarified.
• "Two days later they attacked Christmas Island and Hiryū's aircraft sank the Dutch freighter Poelau Bras before returning to Staring Bay on 11 March[18] to resupply and train for the impending Indian Ocean raid that was intended to secure newly conquered Burma, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies against any Allied attack by destroying base facilities and forces in the eastern Indian Ocean.[31]" - this is a massive sentence; split it please.
  • Done, how does it read now?
    • Much better, thanks.
• "the US Navy had divined the Japanese plan from signals intelligence" - might it better to be more specific and note that the USN had broken JN-25?
  • Good idea.
• Hide the dab for Ballard
  • Done.
• Do either of the external links actually add anything to the article? If not, toss them. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • My concerns have been addressed, moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [89] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [90] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text [91] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD/free or licensed and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [92] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • I'm no ship expert but have read through it to check for prose issues / any glaring mistakes and have made a couple of MOS tweaks myself.
  • Minor prose nitpick here: "...but their sustained rate of fire was around eight rounds per minute...". Use of "around" and "rounds" together sounds a little strange. Consider instead: "but their sustained rate of fire was approximately eight rounds per minute..." (suggestion only).
    • It's a good suggestion.
  • "Now the flagship of the Second Carrier Division, Hiryū, commanded by Captain Tomeo Kaku, was one of six carriers comprising the Kido Butai..." A few issues here. Firstly it seems to lack context to me. Could a sentence be added to place it in time and to explain how and why this occurred (maybe something to do with the situation in 1941 that lead to the Pearl Harbor attack etc)? Also not sure if use of the term "now" is the correct tense (given you are writing 70 odd years after the fact).
    • The "now" is used because Hiryu was the divisional flagship during Pearl Harbor, but I have no idea when that happened as none of my sources provide a date after Soryu became flagship on 26 October. Added a paragraph to better explain the context. Does this work for you?
  • "While returning to Japan, Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo, commander of the First Air Fleet, ordered that Sōryū and Hiryū be detached on 16 December..." I think this also needs some context. For instance: "While returning to Japan after the attack, Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo, commander of the First Air Fleet, ordered that Sōryū and Hiryū be detached on 16 December.."
    • Done.
  • "...who had already defeated the first Japanese attack..." which attack was this?
    • Clarified.
  • Repetitive language here: "This process was limited by the number of ordnance carts used to handle the bombs and torpedoes and the limited number of ordnance elevators." Specifically "limited" used twice. Consider: "This process was slowed by the number of ordnance carts used to handle the bombs and torpedoes and the limited number of ordnance elevators." (suggestion only)
    • Good idea. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this looks quite good to me. Happy to discuss any points you don't agree with. Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Those changes work well for me. Happy to spt. Anotherclown (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it underwent significant work in user space before being assessed as meeting BL criteria, and has now been improved further. It details the German, Italian and Hungarian forces involved in the April 1941 invasion of Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "bomber/naval bomber": See WP:SLASH.
• "{Hungarian:": (Hungarian:
• "locally-made": locally made, per WP:HYPHEN
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Dan, all done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Support: looks excellent. I only have a few minor presentation comments:

• "Bulgarian-Greek border": this should probably take an endash per WP:DASH;
• seems inconsistent: "The VIII Air Corps" v "Eighth Air Corps";
• as above: "X Air Corps" v "10th Air Corps";
• "File:Reggiane2000 San Diego Air Space Museum 2.jpg": probably needs a US licence (possibly US-PD-1996 or similar);
• in the References, you currently use a mixture of {{cite book}} and {{citation}}. The advice I've seen at FAC is not to mix these as they have slight variations. For instance, notice that those that use cite book have a full stop after the year, while those that use citation have a comma
• in the References, is there an issn that could be provided for The Journal of Slavic Military Studies? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks AR, all done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [93] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [94] (no action req'd).
  • A couple of images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [95] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD/free and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [96] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Read through it and can find no issues, looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    • alt text added, thanks Ac! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Add the Invasion of Yugoslavia Infobox or something similar.

• Not sure that is necessary, I have the campaign box there, and I think that is appropriate.

• Are there any order of battle articles at A/FA? I couldn't find one but its pretty rare for A MilHist article to not have an infobox these days. Kirk (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I get what you're saying, but there are six MILHIST FL ORBAT articles listed here, and none of them have an infobox, only a couple have a campaignbox. There are currently no MILHIST AL-Class ORBATs. I just don't see it as necessary or even very helpful. The parent Invasion of Yugoslavia article has an infobox, of course.

• I see them now; hopefully one of the admins will chime in since a lot of those are older (and more list-like); one recently promoted list I reviewed List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) has an infobox. Kirk (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Cite or link to the Why We Fight series.

• Done, in the caption.

• Add citations to the tables and leave out the lead-in phrases w/citations

• I think I understand what you are saying. My view is that where we can avoid placing citations inside tables, we should, especially if they are repetitions of the same citation. IMO it creates table clutter and is less elegant than the lead-in phrase approach I have used.

• Unless you cite which facts in the table come from which source it implies all the facts are in both sources, which isn't true for the first couple tables. The various FA ship lists use the format of having each fact cited, which I think is best, e.g. List of battleships of Germany. Kirk (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I see what you're getting at. I'll take a look and follow your suggestion where necessary. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done.

• The images format kind of strangely - maybe use a gallery for the commander portraits & mix up images a bit on either side of the page. Kirk (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't noticed the strange formatting (I edit on two different sized screens, an iPad and iPhone). They are aligned with the relevant sections, eg commanders opposite their armies/corps, aircraft opposite their sections. I think they are better off in context than in a gallery. Thanks for your comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Try changing your screen resolution to some different sizes; there's more pictures than prose so I see a big stack of images which don't align with their subjects, which is why I recommended a gallery. You could also just delete a bunch since you only need a few key images for A. Kirk (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I'm going to move the images into galleries, per your suggestion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it underwent significant work in user space before being assessed as meeting BL criteria, and has now been improved further. It details the Yugoslav forces that were ranged against the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment: this looks pretty good to me. The only question I have is about the heading levels. You have Royal Yugoslav Air Force and Royal Yugoslav Navy as subheadings of Royal Yugoslav Army. Is this correct? Perhaps, they should be equal in level (level two) to the Royal Yugoslav Army? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. No idea what happened there. Fixed now. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I have the same comments here as the Axis article

• infobox

• per my response there, none of the current FL ORBATs have an infobox, I don't think it is necessary or helpful.

• citations

• will get to work checking them. Done.

• Why We Fight link

• Done.

• Image issues.

• Again, they are aligned with the relevant sections. A gallery would break the association between the images and the relevant section.

• Thanks, Kirk (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Have taken your suggestion and moved the equipment, aircraft and ships into galleries in the respective sections.
• Thanks for your comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Addressed these points, thanks Kirk. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [97] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [98] (no action req'd).
  • A couple of images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [99] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD/free/licensed and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [100] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • You mention the issue of the lack of modern tanks in a couple of places, and this seems a little repetitive to me. Perhaps bin one? (suggestion only)
    • I've left it in there so that the lead reflects the body.
  • Is the place of publishing available for this ref: "U.S. Army (1986) [1953]. The German Campaigns in the Balkans (Spring 1941). United States Army Center of Military History. OCLC 16940402. CMH Pub 104-4." I'm assuming its Washington, D.C. from other CMH publications I own in my library.
    • Added.
  • Overall, this is another sophisticated ORBAT in my opinion. Only a couple of minor points to address. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Ac. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Casimir Pulaski

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

As the review on Kościuszko is wrapping up, here's the other article I'd appreciate your input before a future FA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: I'll be happy to review. I'll get some comments together in the next few days. Cdtew (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did some cleanup of the lead; let me know if you object to any of my changes -- which were mostly for clarity.
• As an initial note, I see in certain places you've used the "ł" character for his name (as in "Pułaski"), which I understand has a different sound from the "l" character in both Polish and English. Given that it appears he may have used the "l" character in signing his name (see [101] for example), my suggestion would be to use the spelling "Pulaski" consistently throughout the article, and use the spelling "Pułaski" only in the first, bold "birth name" instance (unless it's part of a wikilink to another article that uses "ł").

• I've fixed a single caption; I think in all other instances the article adherers to your comments (with regards to the subject of the article; when mentioning his relatives or family, the correct Polish ł variant is used, as their names have not been Anglicized - the case of Casimiar is a very rare exception where we use the "translated" name, rather than his original). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• The lead says "of Ślepowron coat of arms" - is that supposed to be just "of Ślepowron"? If so, pipe the "coat of arms" portion away.

• I think the full version is more common with regards to bio articles of Polish nobility. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I still think this "sounds funny" as we might say (in other words, seems odd), but it may be something that specifically applies to Polish nobility and heraldry, so I won't object. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Remove "(the date and place have been erroneously reported in some older sources)" - your endnote says the same thing with more information.

• Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "a well-known lawyer – the Advocatus at Crown Tribunal and the Starosta of Warka and one of the town most notable inhabitants" - Since these appear to be three different things, just make this in list form, like "a well-known lawyer, the (an?) Advocatus at Crown Tribunal, the Starosta of Warka, and one of the town's most notable inhabitants" - note also the copy editing in that sentence.
• As an additional note, was "Advocatus" a title in Poland, or do you just mean he was able to appear as a lawyer before the Crown Tribunal? If it's the latter, change it to "advocatus", and you might even be able to take out the word "lawyer" in the preceding phrase.

• Done, through I added the in front of Crown Tribunal, please correct me if I was wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "His family coat of arms was Ślepowron." - This is an odd structure in English. When we discuss coats of arms, we usually say "he bore the coat of arms of the X family." or something of the sort. How about trying "His family bore the coat of arms of the Ślepowron family (clan?)"?

• Changed to "His family bore the Ślepowron coat of arms". Is it better? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "attended the elite college of Theatines" - "attended an elite college run by the Theatines," -- but can you put the name in there? Like this: attended X College, an elite institution run by the Theatines,"

• Changed, but the sources don't specify the name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "was a member of the Masonic Order." - this sounds a little misleading. How about "was a Freemason"? Especially since Poland's masonic institution would have been separate from the one in England or North America. Full disclosure: I'm a freemason (although not an active one).

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "When the corner stone was laid in 1824, by Lafayette, in a monument erected in his honor in Savannah," - try "When Lafayette laid the cornerstone of the monument erected in Pulaski's honor in Savannah in 1824,"

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Other sources claim he was a member" -- "Other sources claim Pulaski was a member" for clarity's sake

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "while another Masonic Lodge in Chicago is named Casimir Pulaski Lodge, No.1167." - since certainly no one's claiming he was a member of a lodge in Chicago, which was founded some 50 years after his death, make this it's own sentence.

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the masonic paragraph should be moved to it's own subsection at the end, perhaps titled ==Masonic connections==

• Perhaps, but wouldn't it be too short? (This paragraph was not added by me, and I have doubts whether this topic is notable for the inclusion of the article at all). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't bother me where it is, but if you go up to FAC that section might be moved to a different heading. I've had short subsections before, and haven't gotten much opposition on that. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "starost of Zezulińce" - since you're referring to the title as a proper noun, I think you can capitalize "Starost" in much the same way we would say "he took assumed the title of 'King of England'"

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "take up arms with Confederates" - "with the Confederates"

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "However, after a brave defense," seems to violate NPOV - perhaps "after a staunch defense,"?

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "he received the position of the regimentarz (of the Kraków Voivodeship)" - perhaps "he was made regimentarz of the Kraków Voivodeship"

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He gained the reputation of the "best military leader of the Bar Confederation."" - this needs to be directly cited, as it is likely to raise questions such as "Who said that?" and "what are they basing that opinion on?" Perhaps rephrase it to "he gained a reputation as the most effective military leader in the Bar Confederation"?

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "American War of Independence" - I'm making it my personal mission to standardize the name on Wikipedia to American Revolutionary War. I think that's a preferable name, and it's the one the main article on the conflict uses, so feel free to join my crusade.

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Franklin's first quote doesn't need to be italicized per WP:QUOTE

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "American cavalry" - should be Continental Army cavalry, as there were "American" cavalry regiments fighting for the British as well.

• Done, although I hope that Continental Army cavalry is not a WP:EGG. Perhaps you could stub Continental Army cavalry? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have put this on my to-do list for today, so hopefully I can do so within a short time. It won't hold up this review, though. I may do a general "Cavalry in the American Revolutionary War" article, and link to that. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Because Washington was unable to grant him an officer rank" - you may want to explain that only Congress could give general officer ranks, and only states could give lower officer ranks -- if that's in your sources. If not, I may have one.

• It's not in my sources, but would make a good note. If you would be so kind as to add the note, I am sure it would be of use to the readers (I found it helpful). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is also on my list. I'll try to get to it soon. Won't hold this review up. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• " saved the life of Washington" - I mean, Pulaski didn't stop a bullet from hitting Washington, so this is a bit of hyperbole. How about "saved Washington from being captured or perhaps even injured or killed by British soldiers"

• Hmmm, even that is a speculation, I just removed this claim. Sources are clear "His subsequent charge averted a disastrous defeat of the Continental Army cavalry", this should be enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea to remove it. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "moving toward the Continental position" - Where was the Continental position?

• I am afraid I don't have access to the source used by another editor to add this claim (presumably McGuire 2006), and my sources are not giving any detail on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "from a foreigner who could scarcely speak English" - do your sources ever discuss the exact nature of his English proficiency? I've seen some of his letters from near his death, and he seemed to have proficient English skills.

• Hmmm. PSB on p.392 briefly mentions "lack of [English] language comprehension" in reference to the Polish soldiers under his command; there's nothing about his language. This sentence seems to be primarily based on the 1900s source ([102]). AnnMarie Francis Kajencki (2005). Count Casimir Pulaski: From Poland to America, a Hero's Fight for Liberty. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-1-4042-2646-3. Retrieved 15 July 2013. suggests he did not know (or new little) English by 1777; this is elaborated in our context on AnnMarie Francis Kajencki (2005). Count Casimir Pulaski: From Poland to America, a Hero's Fight for Liberty. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 47–. ISBN 978-1-4042-2646-3. Retrieved 15 July 2013.. I've added those cites to the section. I hope this is sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this. For all I know he may have dictated his letters. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Henry Wadsworth Longfellow commemorated in verse the consecration of the Legion's banner" - Since Longfellow wasn't born until 1807, perhaps this should go in the "Legacy" section, and include the date of Longfellow's poem.

• I am unable to find the date or the name of his poem; for now I've added "would later" to the sentence. Perhaps the sentence would be better of moved to the Legion's article alltogether? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "(despite ongoing negotiations of a possible surrender of the city)" - needs to be clear that you're referring to Charleston, and not Savannah.

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "(One early historian criticized Pulaski's action as "ill-judged, ill-conducted, disgraceful and disastrous")." - this is out of place - is it referring to the charge on Prevost's forces? If so, take it out of parentheses, and move it up to just after the discussion of the charge and the massive casualties the Legion suffered.

• This was added by another editor and I don't have access to his sources. The quoted sentence seems to come from William Johnson (1825). Remarks, Critical and Historical, on an Article in the Forty-seventh Number of the North American Review, Relating to Count Pulaski: Addressed to the Readers of the North American Review. C.C. Sebring. pp. 30–. Retrieved 15 July 2013.. How would you suggest we rewrite the section? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have made a suggestion. Let me know if you think it works, if not, feel free to revert. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Pulaski frequently suffered from malaria while stationed in Charleston" - I don't think one suffers with malaria "frequently", so perhaps just "suffered from malaria"?

• From [103]: "he had frequent attacks of malarial fever". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Before the enemy was aware of his presence, Pulaski captured a British outpost" - a reader who doesn't know about this campaign will ask "where was his presence? and where was the outpost he captured?"

• Found and added that detail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "privateer Wasp" - I have seen other articles redlink to South Carolina privateer brig Wasp; you may choose to do that if you'd like.

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "His heroic death further boosted his reputation in America" - NPOV; perhaps "His death was perceived by Patriot supporters as heroic, and further boosted his reputation in America"

• Done with minor c/e.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "See also: Casimir Pulaski Monument in Savannah" - This needs to either be in the see also section, or you can do the following: "General Lafayette personally laid the cornerstone for the [[Casimir Pulaski Monument in Savannah|Casimir Pulaski Monument]] in Savannah, Georgia.

• Done with minor c/e.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Monterey Square" - should be wikilinked as [[Squares of Savannah, Georgia|Monterey Square]]

• Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Pulaski is one of the most honored persons in American history, in terms of places and events named in his honor." This is likely to be challenged, and needs a citation directly to a source for this statement. For instance, Lafayette and Washington (and almost every one of the first five presidents) are far more honored, and so this is a somewhat bold claim.

• Fair enough, removed as unreferenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The first monument to him was however built over half a century later (the Casimir Pulaski Monument in Savannah was finally completed in 1854)" should be "The first monument to him was however built over half a century later in 1854"

• Done with minor c/e.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "obtained a cancellation of his brother's sentence" - sentence for what?

• Clarified (the 1773 sentence discussed earlier in the article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "There is also a number of institutions named after him" such as?

• I added "educational, academic, and Polish-American"; this is what PSB states, without giving a single example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• "as was a 19th-century Revenue Marine (Coast Guard) cutter" should be "as was a 19th century [[United States Revenue Cutter Service]] [[Cutter (boat)|Cutter]]"

• Done, but cutter, not Cutter, right?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Right, sorry. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the See Also section, you should add other foreign nationals who fought in the American service - Baron von Steuben, Johann de Kalb, and Lafayette (who was a general in the Continental service). You might even throw in Charles Lee, who was an Englishman and who also served in Poland under King Stanislaus II before moving to America.

• Since I know next to nothing about them, could you add those who seem most appropriate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done, let me know what you think. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Citations - You repeat a lot of your citations over and over. Could I suggest transitioning to Harvard style? See the article Robert Howe (Continental Army officer) for what I mean.

• I dislike them, primarily as they remove Google Book page links. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Image review -

• "File:Kazimierz Pułaski pod Częstochową.PNG" needs a valid US PD tag
• "File:Kazimierz Pułaski at Częstochowa's walls.PNG" needs a valid PD-Art tag
• "File:Kazimierz Pułaski.PNG" needs a valid US PD tag

• All images (now) use a PD-art with parameters like {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1899}}, which I think counts as a valid US PD tag? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some alt text for each of your photos would be nice, although this is not a requirement for FAC or ACR; if your caption is descriptive enough, then just add "alt=See caption" as the alt text for the image.

• Final Note: Your hatnote reads "For things named to honor Casimir Pulaski, see Pulaski (disambiguation).", but that disambiguation page doesn't only discuss things that honor him. It also discusses wholly unrelated topics like Ed Pulaski and Star Trek's Katherine Pulaski. Perhaps use a different hatnote that says "For things named to honor Casimir Pulaski, see [[Commemoration of Casimir Pulaski]]. For other uses, see [[Pulaski (disambiguation)]] Perhaps this would work - {{Two other uses|Polish military leader Casimir Pulaski|places and things named after him|Commemoration of Casimir Pulaski|other uses|Pulaski (disambiguation)}}, which should show as "This page is about Polish military leader Casimir Pulaski. For places and things named after him, see Commemoration of Casimir Pulaski. For other uses, see Pulaski (disambiguation)."

• That sounds good, could you implement the variant you like best? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very good article, and I am continually impressed by your English drafting abilities. The only other suggestion I might make is to break the Bar Confederation section into two or more subsections just to improve readability. With a little polish and some clarifications, I would be happy to support this article for A-Class. Cdtew (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm traveling out of town at the moment in remote areas with limited Internet access, should be able to address above in a few days. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I will actually be out of town with limited Internet access between July 12 and July 19, so I may delayed in getting back to you until the 20th. Cdtew (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(@Cdtew): ok, I am done fixing/replying, please let me know what remains. Thanks for your extensive review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am happy to add my support. Good work! Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: I made a few minor tweaks, but looked mainly at the image licencing:

• "File:Kazimierz Pułaski.PNG": currently the source listed for this on the image description page is simply "Web". I think a more descriptive source should be added;
• "File:ChelmonskiJozef.1875.KazimierzPulaskiPodCzestochowa.jpg": source information for the photo?
• "File:Kazimierz Pułaski pod Częstochową.PNG": needs a US licence also. I think {{PD-US-1923}} would probably work;
• "File:Anthony Wayne.jpg": as above, needs a US licence also. Again, {{PD-US-1923}} would probably work;
• "File:Kazimierz Pulaski museum statue.jpg": has Poland got freedom of panorama? If so, there is probably a Commons licence for this which should be added to the image description page. I think you can find information here: [104]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I may have a very busy two weeks, so I may be delayed in getting back to this - but as always, I will! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I am unable to find any reliable source for File:Kazimierz Pułaski.PNG. It is widely used on the Internet, for what it's worth.
      • Hmm, I think it needs to be sourced. Are you sure that one of the web sources can't be used? What makes you think that they are unreliable? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
        • @User:AustralianRupert. Most of them looked like they probably used us as a source. Limiting search in time did produce one source that may be valid, [105], which google image search suggest dates to 2001. I guess might as well go with it; it is clear the image is PD, but the original source is probably lost beyond recovery in some 90s long offline site. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • File:ChelmonskiJozef.1875.KazimierzPulaskiPodCzestochowa.jpg reliable source added
      • Looks good. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • File:Kazimierz Pułaski pod Częstochową.PNG as far as I can tell already has a valid US license (PD-100 specifically refers to US)
      • Yes, that's fine now, although it previously was not. Apparently it was fixed with this edit: [106] AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • File:Anthony Wayne.jpg {{PD-US-1923}} added
      • Looks good, thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "has Poland got freedom of panorama?" yes, see commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Poland. No CC license needed as the photo uploader released the rights to PD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but I think a FOP licence is still necessary in that situation so I've added it for you: [107]. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
        • And here I thought I knew enough about Commons and Poland copyright to write a guide. Should teach me to keep humble. Forgot about that template's existence, thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [108] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [109] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [110] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals one minor issue with reference consolidation:
    • Szymański301 (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • Images review completed above.
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [111] (no action req'd).
  • A few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Warsaw
    • Starost
    • Zamość
    • Warka
  • in the lead: "military commander who has been called "the father of American cavalry"." Or is it "the father of the American cavalry."? (which is how you present it further down in the article).
  • "...When Lafayette laid the cornerstone of the monument...", Lafayette's full name and title should be used at first instance per WP:SURNAME.
  • Possible missing word here: "...which he defended a siege by royalist forces for over two...", consider instead: "...which he defended during a siege by royalist forces for over two..."
  • Should use past tense here I feel: "... he declared he would from now on loyally follow orders from the Confederacy that up till now he habitually disregarded....", consider instead: "... he declared he would from then on loyally follow orders from the Confederacy that he had previously habitually disregarded...."
  • Repetitive wording: " In October his responsibilities in the War Council were increased. In October that year, he became involved with the plan to kidnap King Poniatowski...", consider: " In October his responsibilities in the War Council were increased, while the same month he became involved with the plan to kidnap King Poniatowski..." or something similar.
  • Repetitive wording: "Because Washington was unable to grant him an officer rank, Pulaski spent the next few months traveling between Washington and the US Congress in Philadelphia, waiting for the officer appointment...", consider instead: "Because Washington was unable to grant him an officer rank, Pulaski spent the next few months traveling between Washington and the US Congress in Philadelphia, waiting for his appointment."
  • "...At the beginning of September General Lincoln...", should just be "...At the beginning of September Lincoln...", removing rank following formal introduction at first use per WP:SURNAME
  • Typo here: "The grape shot is still on display today...", should be "grapeshot".
  • "In March 1825, during his grand tour of the United States, General Lafayette...", should just be "Lafayette" as above.
  • Some of the works in the "further reading" section lack a place of publishing. Can this be added? Anotherclown (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    • @User:Anotherclown: All done, save for one where I cannot find publication place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Bobby Gibbes

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

This article has grown slowly in detail and quality since I launched it in 2007, a couple of months after the death of its subject, and I think it's now ready for A-Class and, perhaps, FA. I've made use of a great many sources to try and tell Gibbes' story in context, and to get behind the usual facade of the fearless fighter pilot and crack shot, neither of which he claimed to be. That said, "irrepressible" is the word I'd use to describe him: a dual ace who flew combat in a cast when he broke his ankle; risked his life to rescue one of his fellows who crashed in the desert; participated in the "Morotai Mutiny" of 1945; pioneered air transport in New Guinea; and built and flew his own light plane in his 60s and 70s. There should be something in his story for everyone... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• Not sure about the cquotes.
  • You reckon bquotes?
    • Sure, that works. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• "As a former jackaroo, one sortie that involved attacking cattle especially upset him": As a former jackaroo, he was especially upset about one sortie that involved attacking cattle
  • Okay.
• "No--not the Japs": No—not the Japs
  • I thought I used the dash style from the source but I think you're right.
• "ABC": Quite likely to be misread by American readers as ABC
  • Well it was linked, and I don't know why we should pander to US parochialism, but okay... ;-)
• "He died of a stroke ... on 11 April 2007. Aged 90, he was survived by his wife and two daughters.": I'd be just a bit more comfortable with: He died of a stroke ... in Sydney on 11 April 2007, aged 90, survived by his wife and two daughters.
  • Okay (with slight variation).
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Many tks as usual Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • One dab link [112]:
    • Battle of El Alamein
      • Heh, the perils of editing without an internet connection to check links -- I know damn well there were two battles but didn't think... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • External links check out [113] (no action req'd).
  • One of the images lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [114] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • Tks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD/free or licensed and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [115] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • I reviewed at GA (in 2010) and have read through the article again and can find nothing to fault it other than a dash correction which I made and a few minor technical points I made above. Anotherclown (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Tks again, AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Great work Ian - this is a very well written and comprehensive article. While I'm pleased to support now, I do have the following comments/suggestions:

• "although his score is often reported as 12, including two shared.[3][4][5][6]" - are four citations needed in the lead? (while this demonstrates the "often reported" statement, I'd suggest moving the refs and the discussion of his total kills into the body of the article)
  • Normally I mention score in the lead w/o citation and then reiterate with citation(s) in the main body but because of the discrepancy I mentioned both and decided to source them then and there. OTOH I guess there's no reason I can't leave the expression (and two scores) as is in the lead and then repeat with citations in the main body.
• "He shared in its destruction with John Jackson, after which the pair tossed a coin to take full credit for it, and Gibbes won" - this is a bit unclear: did Gibbes and Jackson have to record the kill as being attributed to one of them for official purposes, but informally shared it?
  • Hmm, was the expression I used in Jackson's A/FA and reviewers seemed okay with it. They downed the plane together, tossed a coin to see who'd take sole credit, and Gibbes won, so got the credit. The source doesn't say "offically", I just think we can assume that, as other sources give Gibbes credit w/o mentioning Jackson.
• Do we know why Gibbs was posted back to Australia in 1943?
  • Not off the top of my head -- I'll check his interviews and see if he says why.
• You might want to note that Gibbs was No. 80 Wing's wing leader from November 1944, and acted as CO for a few days while Caldwell was travelling (see the No. 80 Wing article for the refs) Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tks for pointing that out, mate. Oddly enough, I did check an electronic copy of that source (Alexander's Clive Caldwell: Air Ace for others' benefit) for refs to Gibbes but realise now I didn't get all the way through it. This helps as I did have a source that said he went to 80WG in October (it is October, not November, in Alexander BTW, and I corrected the 80 Wing article accordingly) but that it was in Morotai then and I knew that couldn't be correct as Gibbes was injured in Darwin towards the end of the year and married in January. Will add a few snippets from the book now I've gone through it entirely. Tks again, cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, changes made; sources don't say explicitly why he never commanded 464SQN but added a bit about his trip home from England. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently successfully underwent GA review and I consider it meets the A-Class criteria. A division in name only, the 24th was formed with a cadre of officers consisting of SS geologists and engineers, as it was raised to fight in the ravines, caves and rugged terrain of the Karst areas on the borders between Italy, Yugoslavia and Austria. One of the last German units to surrender. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "The remnants of the unit finally surrendered to the British 6th Armoured Division on 9 May 1945, one of the last German formations to lay down its arms.": I recommend "The remnants of the unit became one of the last German formations to lay down its arms when it surrendered to the British 6th Armoured Division on 9 May 1945."

• addressed, thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Your new version is much better than mine. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [116] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [117] (no action req'd).
  • Image has Alt Text [118] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD/free or licensed and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [119] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Title case should probably be used in the refs here: "Development of military geology in the German Wehrmacht 1939–45"
    • done.
  • The article is fairly concise, just wondering if there is anymore information available about it? If not, and the article reflects the sources available, then that's fine. In particular I wonder if the number of casualties it sustained is available?
    • I went through Kaltenegger, while he does mention casualties from a couple of minor operations, there are no overall casualty figures I am aware of.
      • No worries, happy with that. I guess I'm used to most Australian bns/bdes/divs which often have extensive coverage in secondary sources (in relative comparison to formations and units from other countries). Anotherclown (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Read through it in full and the prose looks fine to me. No obvious MOS issues either. Anotherclown (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Comments: I couldn't see much of concern with this article. Overall it seems like it meets the criteria to me and only have a couple of comments:
  • the term "Nazi Germany" is possibly overlinked in the infobox;
  • in the lead and body, Austria links to "Nazi Germany": this isn't my area of expertise, but I wonder if there might be a more specific link?
  • the sourcing for "File:24divss.gif" might be problematic. Currently the image description page states: "Originally from it.wikipedia; description page is/was here." But if you following the link through to it.wikipedia, it appears to be a self ref there (the source on it.wikipedia says the same thing, e.g. "Originally from it.wikipedia; description page is/was here"). To be honest, I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, so I'd be more than happy to strike this if others disagree. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed the first two, will look into the image file. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Have posted a message to uploader (who is a current user) on it WP here. No response as yet. Have also asked Nikkimaria to take a look. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
        • It wasn't originally a self-ref - the page on it.wiki is, like the one here, transcluded from Commons. The original version appears to be deleted, so you'd need an it.wiki admin (or the uploader) to figure out the original source. Even without one of those, it probably wouldn't be too hard to find, since it's PD and we just need to confirm accuracy. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks Nikki. AR, the citation already in the article is from p139 of Keegan, I have checked my copy and the insignia in this image is identical with the one for this division in Keegan's book. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
            • No worries, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Jethro Sumner

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk)

This is my penultimate article concerning an American Revolutionary War general from North Carolina. This one is short and sweet, as Sumner was frequently ill, bad-tempered, and subjected to administrative tasks more than combat. Let me know your thoughts - and thanks for reviewing! Cdtew (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

COMMENTS ON NARRATIVE

• Ambiguity in 3rd sentence under Valley Forge: Are the "poor guns" light artillery, or are they muskets for infantrymen? Both usages were prevalent in the era.

• Guns meaning long arms. Sorry for the ambiguous language.

• Promotion and campaigning in the Carolinas: Who is this mysterious Lincoln who pops out of the woodwork in June 1779?

• Sorry, that was a slip of the mind while writing. Gates wasn't in command at the time, it was Lincoln - so I changed the Horatio Gates wikilink to Benjamin Lincoln.

This from a quick first reading. More later.

• Thanks for the review so far. I look forward to any comments you may have! Cdtew (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

---

To resume review:

I took the time to check all links; there are no ambiguities needing disambiguation.

Similarly, I checked cites and found none that could be improved or multi-reffed.

I can pick some minor nits with the writing. In the lead, the phrase "most well known" might more felicitously be rewritten as "best known". Also, in the first paragraph of the postwar section, the second sentence would be clearer if it read, "It appears that Sumner's wife died at some point between 1781 and 1784." The unwary reader might think the present death that of Mrs. Warren.

These are minor quibbles. The article is distinctly an A Class effort.

SUPPORT A Class.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

George, thanks for the comments - I've addressed the quibbles you presented, hopefully to your satisfaction. Cdtew (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "many of the North Carolinians had such poor muskets that many were discarded": In general, don't use the same pronoun in one sentence to refer to two different things.
• In the "After the death" paragraph, there are 3 althoughs ... vary the wording and structure.
• "North Carolina ... was in theory owed two additional brigadier generals ... North Carolina was due the appointment of additional brigadier generals": I'm not sure if there's a way to remove the repetition, but give it a shot.
• "Although North Carolina was due the appointment of additional brigadier generals, conflicts between members of the North Carolina General Assembly over who was to be considered for the positions, and the apparent disinterest of Thomas Burke, one of North Carolina's leading delegates to the Continental Congress, in any of the suggested candidates.": no verb
• "wasn't": contraction
• "state-wide": statewide
• "desertions. These desertions eventually elicited his personal apology to Greene, as Sumner felt unable to control the ebb of desertions": Repetition. Also, it doesn't sound like desertions were ebbing, it sounds like they were growing.

• Sorry, meant to say "ebb of men in camp" or something to that effect. Got tripped up when writing it, I suppose.

• "never visited the county during his life": never visited the county

• Ah, but what if I told you that legend has it he visited after his death, and on a dark winter's night, some say you can still hear him wheezing and coughing and complaining of his gout...

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Dank:: Thanks for your comments! I've made all the changes suggested, and once again I owe you a debt. Cdtew (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No debt at all. My goals are to have a hand in writing the best military history encyclopedia ever, and to search for consensus on language. Thanks for helping me with those jobs. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: only a couple of minor points from me:

• date format inconsistency: "18 March 1785" v. "November 25, 1758"
• "File:Sumner monument.jpg": do we have any idea about the date this was taken? The image description page currently doesn't have a date;
• typo: "recruit further Contintental soldiers" --> "recruit further Continental soldiers";
• typo: "Post-war activites, death, and legacy" --> "Post-war activities, death, and legacy";
• is there a page range that could be added to the Bibliography for the Rankin work in Powell? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• @AustralianRupert:: Many thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed almost all of your concerns at this juncture. See these edits. As for the date the Sumner Monument photo was taken, I haven't a clue. I pulled it from the National Park Service website, assuming that it was a photograph taken during an inventory (thus making it the product of a US Employee). I would guess that it may have been taken between the late 1930's and the mid-1970's. The photo is too small for me to guess any more precisely than that. Let me know if you think that will be an issue. Cdtew (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• G'day, I'm not too concerned about the image/date issue, but it might be asked at FAC. Ultimately, though, it seems pretty clear that it is PD. I've added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [120] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [121] (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text [122] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD/free or licensed and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [123] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Possibly redundant language here in the lead: "...but recurring bouts of illness and poor health..." isn't illness and poor health the same thing?
  • Made a couple of copyedits, otherwise this is very good. Should be ready for promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

AC, thanks for your comments and support; I've addressed the redundant language, and agree with the copyedits. Thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Operation Copperhead

Nominator(s): Errant ^(chat!)

Yet another article in the field of military deception, another of the Bodyguard sub-operations. Actually, one of my favourite deceptions if nothing else for how esoteric it was. A drunk Australian actor parades through Gibraltar and North Africa pretending to be Montgomery. All inspired by a movie! Errant ^(chat!) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very interesting article. I have the following comments:

• Monty should be linked in the first paragraph of the lead
  •  Done
• The article doesn't seem to have a link to M. E. Clifton James, who's clearly notable
  •  Done I was going to say "how ridiculous". But he is linked in the first section via his full name ;) moved it to the lead anyway.
• "German high command expected Montgomery, one of the more well-known Allied commanders, to play a key role in a cross-channel bridgehead " - am I right in thinking that Monty's role in the operation had been publicly announced prior to the invasion? Also, this sentence should start with a 'The'.
  • Nope. At least the sources don't say so, and I doubt they would have announced it. What the sources suggest is that it was assumed by the allies, that the germans would assume that Monty would be part of any invasion :)
• Operation Vendetta links to the Vietnam War article Battle of Long Tan - is this meant to point to a fictional invasion plan?
  •  Done fixed. Still need to write that article.
• "Finally, there was the problem of alcohol, for which James had a particular liking" - was he an alcoholic as this suggests? If so, say it. If not, I'd suggest tweaking the wording to remove this implication.
  • Yes, according to the source anyway. Although they are a bit coy about it (IIRC). I'll check
• "As it was, the Bodyguard deception worked well and Hitler, along with his staff, had a clear opinion of the imminent invasion" - this sentence contradicts itself: the Allies were successful in deceiving most of the relevant German headquarters in regards to the location of the invasion.
  • Yeh, it's a bit hammy. I removed it and put some more detail in from Holt instead.
• What other preparations were the Allies conducting to try to convince the Germans that a landing was planned for southern France instead of northern France? Given that the emphasis was very much on on northern France, there seems to be little reason for the Germans to have taken the bait here.
  • Op. Vendetta was the main mover here - basically a fake invasion against the south. Copperhead was a last minute idea to support is. However, I haven't written the vendetta article yet :P
• "Following Montgomery's public appearance on the Western Front" - "western front" isn't commonly applied to the Allied position at this time. Something like "in the Normandy beahhead" would work better.
  •  Done
• "Dennis Wheatley, in his memoirs, commented that he felt James had been treated "shabbily" for his efforts" - why? All James had to do was to pretend to by Monty for a few days, and then he was - quite rightly - sworn to secrecy about it (presumably to protect the credibility of the sources the Allies were hoping would pass on the information and to allow the tactic to be used again).
  • Wheatley doesn't elaborate, but I'll try and put some more detail in. Betty Crichton mentions how he 'always had a bad press'. Sources are very coy on this point but basically I think it was considered within the establishment that he was a bit of a drama queen who was disappointed his role was over and he'd have to go back to his dull official job. Wheatley didn't agree and thought that the deceivers could have treated him a bit better after the effort. I'm not sure how much of that I can put in though because sources only touch on it.
• Can anything more be said about the book and movie in the context of the operation? (was James authorised to write about his mission after the war?). Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • • I've put a little more in from a new source :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review!! :) Ive fixed some of the simpler issues you mentioned and I'll look into the rest maybe tomorrow. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Brief but enjoyable, and I couldn't spot any obvious omissions. Aside from what I've copyedited, no issues with the prose, and structure, references and images seem okay. You've not included a shot of James though? I note there's none in his own article either but this one is a duplicate of one I have in a book on WWII that is supposed to be him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There was one but it was deleted for not having source info. :) I agree it would be excellent to have on in the infobox or something. If you have the source (which book is it from??) of that image any chance you could upload it? Plus, thanks for your CE and support, fantastic :D --Errant ^(chat!) 10:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh, of course I can't lay my hands on the book right now -- probably in a box in the garage somewhere -- but I'll have a look for it some time this week and should be able to upload the image then. Even if the copyright status is unclear from the book it'd be a clear case of fair use in both this article and his bio. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks! I'll take a look too, always good to know the source :D --Errant ^(chat!) 12:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "in the event": Please keep an eye out for and avoid this phrase; it isn't understood in the sense you're using it here by most English-speakers.
  • This was my substitute for "indeed", which I think is a 'word to watch' -- hopefully we can find something we all agree on (not a big fan of "as it happened" but if there's nothing else...) ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not overly important in the lead, so I removed it. Couldn't find a wording that I liked ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Operation Neptune": the Normandy landings, codenamed Operation Neptune
•  Done
• "one of the most famous Allied commanders": a prominent Allied commander (or, be specific)
  • I had tweaked this sentence earlier from "most well-known" but I like "prominent". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • me too.  Done --Errant ^(chat!) 15:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• "was teetotal": was a teetotaller
  •  Done
• "deceivers" (several places): not an apt synonym for "people involved in deception operations"
  • All of the sources use this terminology, without exception. It seems widely accepted parlance.
• "not the discuss": not to discuss
  •  Done
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Cheers!! --Errant ^(chat!) 15:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Operation Copperhead (originally codenamed "Telescope") was a small British-run military deception operation run during the Second World War.
    • Is "originally codenamed Telescope" really needed (aka would it be widely known under this name)? Can we reword the end to "... small military deception operation run by the British during the Second World War"?
      •  Done Removed & reworded
  • The overall aim of the plan was to confuse the enemy as to the exact location and timing of the invasion. and various other uses of "enemy" in the text.
    • "Germans" may be better than "the enemy" here. That makes it sound too much like a British-written history of the event.
      •  Done All changed; I try to mix it up because otherwise the prose ends up littered with Germans. (err :S). But in this case it wasn't a problem
  • ... 'A' Force's Rex Hamer.
    • Who? This probably needs a little more context. Otherwise this article looks great! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      •  Done I added 'A' Force context in the first section, hopefully that resolves this problem :D Thanks for the review. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm now supporting. Great work! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No dab links [124] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [125] (no action req'd)
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it - [126] (not an ACR criteria - no action req'd, suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • Images appear to PD/free or and are appropriate for the article. One issue:
    • File:Bernard Law Montgomery.jpg lacks author information and the link to Maxwell AFB site is dead. Fairly sure it is a PD file but impossible to be sure ATM. Can this information be sourced? Suggest using the Google Image search function.
      • •  Doing... I'm looking into this now. Any help anyone can give in locating the source of this (almost certainly crown copyright) image would be fantastic!!
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [127] (no action req'd).
  • A couple of duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • 'A' Force
    • I Was Monty's Double
      •  Done
  • Can an issn be added to ref from Spokesman Magazine (have a look for it on Worldcat.org)?
    • It doesn't have an ISSN :S So not sure what to do there. I added a link to Highbeam, that any use?
      • G'day, I found an OCLC for it, which I think should suffice. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Can an isbn or oclc be added for Howard's ref?
    •  Done
  • Otherwise I read over the prose and it seems fine, no MOS issues other than those I fixed myself. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review! --Errant ^(chat!) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments (not a full review): It looks like you have plenty of support, so I only looked at presentation nitpicks:
  • the link here "the book was adapted into a film of the same name" should probably point to I Was Monty's Double (film) rather than the book;
    •  Done That was a fail moment :) good catch.
  • page numbers for the Casey work in Spokesman Magazine?
    • No idea. I can only find the online version (which is HTML format) on Way Back, no PDF of the printed version. Perhaps it's not an acceptable source? I linked to the Highbeam citation, does that help?
      • That's fine. I will try to drag myself into the 21st century... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • the Howard work seems to be presented differently to the other sources; this is probably because it is the only one not using {{cite book}} or another of the same series. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done I've updated this citation :)
  • Thanks for the review. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries. Good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the reviews. I've just got back from a weeks camping so will run through them all tomorrow some time :D --Errant ^(chat!) 12:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Francis Nash

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk)

My third request for A-Class review in the series of North Carolina's Continental Army generals with which I'm currently preoccupied, Nash was a relatively obscure gentleman who became most notable for holding the distinction of being the highest-ranking (American) officer to die at (or because of wounds received in) the Battle of Germantown (A British brigadier - James Agnew - also lost his life there). Several North Carolina locations and (most notably) Nashville, TN are named in his honor. Thanks for taking a look! Cdtew (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: I made a few minor tweaks, but it generally looks good to me. I have the following observations:

• "colonial Assembly" or "Colonial Assembly"?

• I've chosen to use "colonial Assembly" because "colonial" is just an adjective that's not part of the name of that body. Most RS decide to use the term "Assembly" or "General Assembly", and the body's official name was the "North Carolina General Assembly", which is coincidentally the same name that body had post-1776, and still retains. So, in order to keep clarity, I insert the modifier "colonial" to distinguish between the pre-1776 and post-1776 General Assemblies.

• this seems a little awkward: "prevented him from being ordered to join the main Continental Army";

• Done. - Reworded to be less awkward

• inconsistent: "North Carolina Brigade" and "North Carolina brigade";

• Done. - Given that there was no unit called the "North Carolina Brigade" (there were only units usually grouped under the same commander which all belonged to the North Carolina Line), I've uncapitalized brigade.

• image licencing and referencing seemed fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your review! I sincerely appreciate your input. Cdtew (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "Nash was made a brigadier general in 1777 upon Moore's death, and commanding the North Carolina brigade of the Continental Army under General George Washington.": and given command of?
• "These attempts failed due to sympathy for the rioters among the mustered militiamen": Maybe: but the mustered militiamen were sympathetic towards the rioters and refused
• "again in 1773–1775, he served again": repetition
• "convened several hours before the Assembly ... This triumph for the nascent Patriots resulted in Martin dissolving the Assembly.": ... After this triumph for the nascent Patriots, Martin dissolved the Assembly. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• "In 1938, a historical marker was placed near Nash's home in Hillsborough commemorating his life and service. Nash's home in Hillsborough is now commemorated as the Nash-Hooper House, as it was purchased by William Hooper, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, after Nash's death.": Repetition. I'd go with: Nash's home in Hillsborough is now known as the Nash-Hooper House, as it was purchased by William Hooper, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, after Nash's death. In 1938, a historical marker was placed near the house commemorating his life and service.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review! I have made the changes you have suggested above. Cdtew (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment - I reviewed this article for GA, and having looked at the article again with "fresh eyes" and checked the changes made since the GA review, I have just one observation to make:

• The sentence: "In April 1776, Nash and Alexander Martin were promoted to colonel to replace Moore and Robert Howe, who had each received a promotion to brigadier general." It may help to have an explicit sentence stating Nash took over Moore's command, which I assume is the case. I also don't think it is necessary to mention Martin and Howe here, as it may be considered confusing? For example, what unit was Martin in and was Howe commanding? That said, the "Philadelphia campaign" section mentions Howe, so if you opt to delete the reference to Howe in the sentence I have mentioned, you may need to clarify Howe's rank/position when he is first mentioned.

Other than that, I am generally happy that this meets A-class criteria. Zawed (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Zawed:: Thanks for your review! I've removed the references to the two unrelated officers from that first para, and moved the Howe wikilink to the first next mention, as well as clarified rank. Let me know if you see anything else I need to take a look at! Cdtew (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No. 33 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

The RAAF's sole air-to-air refuelling squadron, which operated Boeing 707s for many years and has just finished re-equipping with aircraft from the other big commercial jet stable, Airbus. The article employs the same structure as my last unit ACR, No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit, and of course I'm happy to take any comments on layout as well as coverage, referencing and so on. I think this may be worth a shot at FAC depending on how it goes here, so any thoughts on that are also very welcome. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is an impressive article Ian. I have the following comments:

• "Its twin delivery systems—probe-and-drogue and boom—allow it to refuel the RAAF's McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet multi-role fighters, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III heavy airlifters, Boeing E-7 Wedgetail early warning aircraft, or other KC-30s." - the booms still aren't certified for use, and are expected to be ready in 2014: [128]
  • Tks for that, mate. I thought they were only waiting on certification for the boom system, will tweak wording and employ this ref.
• "It is also capable of refuelling the proposed Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter." - I'd suggest tweaking the final words here as 'proposed' isn't accurate (the aircraft are close to entering operational service with the US Military, and the Australian Government has committed to purchase at least some F-35s)
  • I wasn't really happy with "proposed" either but didn't want to get into delivery schedules and so on, but on reflection I think we can just drop "proposed"...
• "It was equipped with four Short Empire flying boats transferred from No. 11 Squadron" - am I right in thinking that these were ex-civil (Qantas?) aircraft?
  • Not sure Eather or Units mentioned this explicitly otherwise I think I'd have said so. Could I trouble you to check Eather at least?
    • Eather p. 68 states that all the Empires were "impressed". The caption to a photo of an Empire on p. 69 states that "Former Qantas Empire flying boats were operated by 33 Squadron in the transport role." Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• "the Royal New Zealand Air Force's McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawks," - do you mean "Douglas A-4K Skyhawks" here? (which, as a hint, may be worth red linking)
  • Heh, I think I originally just had "A-4 Skyhawks" with a piped link to the article, then decided to spell out McDonnell Douglas so lost the more generalist pipe wording. Might go back to how I had it to avoid a red link...
    • That seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• "On 5 March, one of the 707s undertook the first operational aerial tanker mission since the squadron's re-formation in 1983" - should the date of the tanker conversion be referenced here rather than the date the squadron re-formed in the transport role only?
  • Probably it should but the ref employs the 1983 date...
• "the 707s were running afoul of foreign noise and emission regulations when carrying Australian VIPs" - I think I've read that Australian diplomats often obtained exemptions to these regulations when carrying VIPs, so this might not be strictly accurate Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The version of the article I began with a while back said so but it wasn't sourced and I couldn't locate anything reliable that said it either. The closet I could get was my old Air Force Today mag that supported what we have in the article now. I don't think "running afoul" precludes waivers but my source doesn't state that explicitly. Many tks for review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • How about "the 707s were not in accordance with..."? "running afoul" suggests that they were violating the regulations, which wasn't technically the case. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Altered things in various ways that I think should cover the above points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Cool -- FTR, I'd forgotten that the RNZAF had its own A-4K Skyhawks before it picked up the RAN's old G models (must've thought all NZ's were redesignated Gs) so tks for fixing that up! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "By the mid-1990s, the age of the aircraft and its power plant meant that the 707s carrying Australian VIPs were no longer compliant with foreign noise and emission regulations.": I suggest: By the mid-1990s, the ageing 707s carrying Australian VIPs were no longer compliant with foreign noise and emission regulations.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I made a minor tweak; please check you are happy with that. Otherwise, it looks good to me. Images seem appropriately licenced, referencing and coverage are fine, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Tks mate, appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [129] (no action req'd).
  • External links check reveals a few dead links [130]:
    • Australian Defence Force contingent deployment to the Gulf to continue (info) [defence.gov.au]
    • Farewell of 84 WG Detachment (info) [defence.gov.au]
      • Updated with archived URLs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Images all have Alt Text - [131] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • Images are all PD/free or have a valid fair use rationale and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [132] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Prose looks fine, no MOS issues I could see.
  • Other than the minor technical issue with the dead links this article looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)

Nominator(s): 23 editor and Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

We are nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently listed at GAN and has subsequently been improved significantly. Another short-lived non-German Waffen-SS division, this time recruited from mainly Kosovar Albanians. Not considered a success, the division mainly slaughtered local Serbs and deserted, taking their weapons with them. The division was disbanded and the German cadre then formed a kampfgruppe which fought well during the withdrawal of German troops from the the Balkans. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "invaded the Albania": invaded Albania
• "Increasing difficulties and support from the Albanian government meant that Himmler soon changed his mind,": In general, avoid "meant" in this sense. "But the Albanian government supported the idea; Himmler soon changed his mind,"
• "were not fulfilled. However, in": were not fulfilled, but in
• "Photographs exist ... , however this was awarded": ... but this was awarded
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dan, all your comments are now addressed [133]. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: I believe that this meets the criteria. I have a few suggestions, though:

• "The division never reached divisional strength" --> "The unit never reached divisional strength"?
• this seemed a bit passive: "Based in the Albanian capital of Tirana were a Wehrmacht plenipotentiary general and a special representative of Heinrich Himmler, SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS und Polizei Josef Fitzthum". Perhaps if the names were placed at the start it might seem a bit more punchy;
• "In February 1944, Adolf Hitler approved" (I suggest moving the link for Hitler from here to the earlier mention in the paragraph above);
• "Most[13] or all of the" --> I wonder if a comma shouldn't be inserted after "Most";
• "Most of the Muslim Albanian members of the division..." --> "Most of the division's Muslim Albanian members..."?
• there is a slight mixture of US English and British English variation. For example, "maneuvers" (US) but also "coloured" (British)
• "In mid-October the division was engaged in heavy fighting around Đakovica". Can we say how they acquitted themselves here? Is anything written on this? Given that the next sentence mentions that they were ordered to disband, the implication is that they didn't do so well, but it is not expressly stated...
• "II battalion of the 14th SS Volunteer Mountain Infantry Regiment" --> "II Battalion..."?
• It might be worthwhile linking "cadre" to En cadre.
• Image licencing and referencing seemed fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All done [134]. Re: the second lot of fighting around Đakovica, Kaltenegger (who is the source) doesn't say, and I'm not aware of any source that does. Thanks very much for the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [135] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [136] (no action req'd).
  • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [137] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images are all PD/free and are appropriate for the article. One minor issue:
    • File:Skenderbeis.JPG needs a US tag added to say why it is PD there. Suggest {{PD-1923}} would probably be appropriate as image appears to have been published in 1909-1910. (that said I'm not really all that knowledgeable about Wikipedia's image policies).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [138] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Feels like this might need a comma: "The 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) was a German mountain infantry division of the Waffen-SS, the armed wing of the German Nazi Party that served alongside but was never formally part of the Wehrmacht during the Second World War." Consider "The 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian) was a German mountain infantry division of the Waffen-SS, the armed wing of the German Nazi Party that served alongside, but was never formally part of, the Wehrmacht during the Second World War."
  • No expert on royal styles but this sounds a little redundant: "and the Italian King, Victor Emmanuel III of Italy,", consider perhaps: "and ...the Italian King, Victor Emmanuel III..."
  • "... and form two corps of two divisions...", consider "...and form two corps of two divisions each..." (suggestion only)
  • this seems awkward to me: "...and Himmler saw the Muslim Albanians as a potential source of manpower in Germany's war against the Yugoslav Partisans,[9] who were having difficulty recruiting Kosovo Albanians to join their ranks." Consider: "...and Himmler saw the Muslim Albanians as a potential source of manpower in Germany's war against the Yugoslav Partisans, due to the difficulties experienced recruiting Kosovo Albanians to join their ranks."
  • "...was only of use for basic guarding duties....", considered instead: "...was only of use for basic garrison duties..." (suggestion only)
  • "...killing their German officers and NCOs...", abbrev NCO should be formally introduced at first use per WP:MOS.
  • A little repetitive here: "By this time, the division numbered less than 7,000 men, which was less than one-third of its intended strength." (Less used twice in one sentence). Consider: "By this time, the division numbered fewer than 7,000 men, which was less than one-third of its intended strength."
  • Otherwise a very good article completed with the usual attention to detail. Anotherclown (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review and suggested amendments, Ac. I'be adopted most of them. My edits are here. I didn't modify the guarding/garrisoning issue as I see a subtle difference between the two. I have now added the PD-1923 tag to the Commons file, it was clearly published in 1909-1910. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe the subject matter is of an appropriate importance, and because I would like this to ultimately become FA.. I have taken it as far as I can with resources available to me personally, and others have had their chance at doing so since its Feb 27, 2013 elevation to Good Article. I believe it needs real scrutiny on the sections involving military action and medals. My knowledge and resources are not in this field, and this area has been often rewritten by an editor who refused to source. The sources therein either existed prior to its Feb 2013 peer/GA reviews, or were added by me and editors other than the one who did so much rewriting. As much as I could, I tried to match military action and medals to sources I could find, but this needs experienced Military History editors looking at it. Additionally, I would like an opinion on how much of the Personal Life section needs to be there. Much seems scanty to me and there does not seem to be available verifiable information to expand. — Maile (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments, not a complete review - Dank (push to talk)

• I bet he didn't know he was writing about his Wikipedia article.

You lost me on this one. I did a search in the article and only came up with links to the film. Nothing under "What Links Here" on the dab indicates it's linked to the article. — Maile (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a joke. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah......— Maile (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "his role model influence": his influence as a role model

 Done— Maile (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "His widow Pamela devoted the rest of her life to the needs of veterans at a Veterans Administration hospital in Los Angeles.": Not sure that needs to be in the lead

 Removed — Maile (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to stop there for the moment; please go through with an eye for repetition. For instance: "Audie Leon Murphy was named after two local men who saved the family from starvation. ... Audie West also assisted in the birth of the baby named for himself and for Audie B. Evans Sr.", and "Emmett deserted the family ... Emmett abandoned the family for good in 1936 ... in the fifth grade when his father deserted the family". (Understood that the first "deserted" isn't the same as the second, which is a little confusing. It would probably work best to reword the first, and move the mention of the abandonment down to the "fifth grade" sentence.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do some reading of the sections soon, hoping to catch the kinds of things you are seeing. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Early life section only. I did much editing on it, so it looks ok to me. Let me know if you think otherwise. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Much better. I made some small changes. Keep going :) - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I just went through the sections Filmography, Discography and Autobiography for copy editing. I'll go through the remaining non-military sections first. I don't think I have enough knowledge to copy edit military awards that the above-mentioned editor changed around and wouldn't source. Maybe the same thing on the military action. But I'll check prose on those, anyway. I'm just doing those last. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

All right, Autobiography looks good now. There's probably more here to fix (missing spaces, missing "and", simple stuff) than I have time to cover, so I'll leave it there. Maybe we'll get some help. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dank, please note that I restored "Leave this alone" next to his birthdate in the infobox. I'm hoping that won't stop this from being an A-class. I recently did an analysis on the IP and redlink edits in the article's 10-year existance. That birth date controversy has been a bitter war and by far the #1 cause of disputes. I didn't even look at the registered users on that, but I imagine it's seen its battles among those also. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That wasn't me, that was a VisualEditor bug. I've fixed the errors it introduced, and turned off VisualEditor. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Haven't tried VisualEditor myself, but I see over at the Village Pump that editors are ironing out bugs. For today, I'm going to try and address Nick-D's comments below, and finish going through the individual sections myself. I see that every section I (and you) have so far gone through needed some prose editing. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Done Continuing. "he was part of Allied Invasion of southern France": + the
  •  Additional information needed I don't understand what you mean by this comment. Please clarify. — Maile (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • he was part of the Allied Invasion of southern France - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, got it...a typo. Fixed. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "His post-war stress caused him to sleep with a loaded gun under his pillow, looking for solace in addictive sleeping pills. Murphy drew public attention to what would in later wars be labeled post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).": Suffering what would in later wars be labeled post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he slept with a loaded gun under his pillow and looked for solace in addictive sleeping pills.
•  Done "During his post-war civilian life": After the war - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Done"with diet change": with a change in diet
• Not sure "and gave the Army a June 28, 1942 sworn affidavit from his sister Corrine that altered his birth date to June 20, 1924, instead of 1925": and gave the Army a sworn affidavit from his sister Corrine that claimed he was born in 1924.
  • Reluctant to change precisely as you have suggested, because this is the sentence that verifies the whole birth date issue that has been the center of an edit war for years. If I change it as you suggest, it will just open the door to all that again. I am open to a suggestion that will include his correct birth year of 1925 and that Corrine falsified his birth date.— Maile (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sigh. Okay, leave it as is. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Compromised a bit on this: "and gave the Army a sworn affidavit from his sister Corrine that falsified his birth date by a year". I just remembered the reference after that sentence points to the full explanation. Since the falsification is mentioned in the lead, I hope this meets you half-way on what you wanted. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Agreeing to serve for a specified period of service amounting to the duration of the war and a further six months": Did he agree to serve for the duration of the war plus six months? Did he agree to serve until February 1946? - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This was a July 13 edit by AustralianRupert. Prior to that, I had for the specified period "Duration of the War and Six (6) Months." in quotes, because that's exactly how it was worded on his enlistment papers. If I change this back, someone else might come along and change it again. Therefore, I have just eliminated the part of that sentence that refers to it. Hope this takes care of it. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "as 5 feet 5.5 inches (1.664 m) and his weight at 112 pounds (51 kg)": both "as", or both "at". - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Looks good, I'll pick this up again at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments It's good to see an article on such a famous person up for an A-class review. In light of the nomination statement (especially "I believe it needs real scrutiny on the sections involving military action and medals") I'm going to go over it with a fine toothed comb - I hope that this is OK, and my comments should be seen in that light.

• I found the chronological flow of this article to be a bit confusing - Murphy's location at various times isn't clear, and what he was doing there isn't always put in proper context. You may wish to consult general histories of the campaigns in which he took part (see in particular the excellent summaries published by the US Army's Center of Military History here). I'd also suggest that you read through the Tom Derrick FA - Derrick was the Australian equivalent of Murphy, and his article (in which I had some involvement, so I may be biased!) does a good job of presenting his life and military service in fairly precise terms

 Note: Helpful information. I'll look through it over the next few days. The US Army link is the best online relevant info I've seen so far. And thanks for the Tom Derrick link-a structure example to follow has been needed. Beginning with the cleanup in Feb 2013 it has been for me and other volunteers in some aspects like sorting through the rubble after a disaster hit. What is relevant and verifiable? What is not? How do you put it back together like it should be? What you have provided is useful, so I'll study it. — Maile (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done A note to Nick-D, Dank and all others. As I look at each section, I am beginning to realize the accuracy of the concerns here about the flow and pertinent details. Pieces are missing from the narrative it seems. It sometimes jumps from one place to the next with no flow or explanation of why he's suddenly in the next place. Probably because all involved have been doing patch work, rather than spending time on the whole of it. I'm going to have to go through this one section at a time. It looks a bit tedious from my point of view, and may take some time. The framework of the Tom Derrick article has been really helpful, and you may notice I've started to expand on the Audie Murphy lead in that manner. There was nothing in the lead that told a reader why he won all those medals. I hope those at this project can bear with me on the timeline, and that I can leave this open for A-class review. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed these issues throughout. I have to say, this has been a great teaching tool. This article doesn't even resemble the one that existed at the beginning of Feb 2013. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Yes Try to avoid citing Murhpy's memoirs except to recount his views - this is essentially a primary source.
•  Fixed "But he remained aware of his role model influence and refused offers for alcohol and cigarette commercials" - starting with "But" seems a bit abrupt
•  Fixed "Hunt County, Texas.[2][3][4][5][6]" - does this really need five references? Given that the content of these refs amounts to a note about the confusion over his year of birth, I'd suggest consolidating this into a single note.

Combined — Maile (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Removed "He tried to enlist in the ... Army paratroopers" - the paratroopers were a branch of the Army, and I don't think that they would have accepted direct enlistments (their personnel tended to be high performing volunteers from regular Army training intakes or other units)

Removed the paratroopers entirely. — Maile (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed"His company commander tried to have him transferred to a cook and bakers' school" do we know why? Note that - somewhat perversely - the US Army of the time had the view that smart soldiers should be in the technical services and the not-so-smart soldiers in the infantry, so this may not have been intended as a slight.

It was an issue of physical size. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "he arrived at Casablanca, Morocco in North Africa as one of the replacements for 3rd Platoon, Company B, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division." - in keeping with the theme of dumb US Army processes, replacements tended to arrive in unformed groups, and then cooled their heals in rather grim "replacement depots" until they were posted to make up losses, so he probably didn't arrive as a replacement for this very specific unit.

I just put a period after "Morroco" and removed the rest of the sentence. Curious about when this was added, the article history helped me track this back to Apr 12, 2006. Wow, that misinformation has been there a long time.— Maile (talk)

•  Fixed "After the surrender of the German Afrika Corps" - the German unit which surrendered was actually the Panzer Army Africa, but note that it formed part of a larger German and Italian force. I'd suggest that you replace this with "after the surrender of the Axis forces in Tunisia" or similar as the identity of these units is irrelevant.
•  Fixed "Murphy's battalion was charged with protecting a machine-gun emplacement, rather than engaging in combat" - highly unlikely. Machine gun positions were typically protected by a small number of soldiers, and not an about 1000-man strong battalion, and the 3rd Infantry Division advanced rapidly through Sicily.

Nothing in the source given even referred to that in any form, so I removed the sentence entirely.— Maile (talk)

Actually, I found it, and it says "his company", but I changed it to "group", unspecified but not as much up for debate. Anyway, I'm going through paragraph by paragraph trying to improve the prose and flow and clarity of all this. — Maile (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Murphy and Lattie Tipton killed five enemy combatants after they witnessed the enemy gun down one of their men" - would they have not killed them if they hadn't seen the Germans kill an American soldier?

I've removed this sentence also. The kills were more while they were trying to protect a man who had been somewhat foolish in his movements, but it doesn't seem important enough to really include in the overall story. — Maile (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is OK now. The incident has been integrated and fixed as part of the Mainland invasion of Italy. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "The German command sent a squad of soldiers in" - the grandly named "German command" here was probably a 20-something year old junior officer. I'd suggest replacing this with "A squad of German soldiers attacked the quarry" or similar
•  Fixed "Sieja was one of two people, the other being Lattie Tipton, to whom Murphy's book was dedicated" do we know what their relationship was?
•  Fixed Can the material on Anzio (for instance, "his unit became part of a major beachhead expansion assault") be married up with the well-documented events of this battle to explain what was going on? It's rather confusing.
•  Fixed "single-handedly took out" - he either killed, wounded or captured them them. Call it what it was.

I took care of this incident and in general copy edited the entire paragraph in which is was located. — Maile (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Kerrigan was shortly thereafter permanently taken off the battlefield by a mortar-shell fragmentation" - do you mean wounds caused by fragments of a mortar shell?
•  Fixed "The 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its action at Montelimar from August 27–29, 1944" - what was Murphy's role in this?

Taken care of as the general re-write of the whole section. — Maile (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "While trying to take a quarry near Cleurie on October 2, 1944,[82] Murphy followed to the rear of one of his patrols headed for the quarry. The enemy opened fire on the men, and Murphy made himself visible to draw the fire of the enemy." - watch for repetition (try not to repeat words in sentences)
•  Fixed "he wiped out the group" - as above. It's best to not use euphemisms.

This particular one was taken care of when I copy edited the whole first paragraph of Northeastern France. — Maile (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Murphy's unit was deployed to the area near Guémar to eliminate the Colmar Pocket." - this would have been one of many units involved in what was a major operation
•  Fixed "German tanks advanced launching heavy machine gun fire, pistols and rifles" - unclear. Tanks certainly produce lots of heavy machine gun fire, but they're not equipped with rifles or pistols
•  Fixed II have to confess that I found the account of the action for which Murphy won the MoH to be confusing - this is probably the most important part of the article, but it's rather disjointed and imprecise.

Whew! Your comment is an understatement. I rewrote the whole section, renaming it "Colmar Pocket". This section had been a bone of contention during the Feb-March edit war. I probably developed a mental block and didn't look at it since then. It was seriously confusing to do the re-write, because it was so convoluted and etc. (Interesting trivia if you've seen his movie of this, no eye witness account says the tank blew up as he walked away from it) The Riviera to the Rhine online book from the Center of Military History has been wonderful to this. As I've been going along through the whole Military service part, I took your suggestion re Anzio and have been trying to give the reader the story within the context of the events of which it happened. It really helps the flow of events. There's still some work to be done on this article, but nothing could be as bad as making sense of the MofH section. — Maile (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "He wiped out one full enemy squad" - as above
•  Fixed "his clothing ripped by artillery" - even a near miss by artillery would have killed him. I think that you mean bullets

Actually, the exact quote from an eyewitness account is, "His clothing was torn and riddled by flying shell fragments and bits of rock." I changed it to "his clothing was ripped by debris strewn through the air." I hope this works.— Maile (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Murphy's hour-long, single-handed battle came to a halt when his telephone line to the artillery fire direction center was cut by enemy artillery. He wandered in a complete daze to an outpost" - I don't get this. Why did he withdraw when he no longer had a working phone line? Was he calling in artillery, or keeping abreast of the general situation?

The eye witness account says nothing about his phone. It says he ran out of ammunition, and I have changed it appropriately.— Maile (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Removed "Reinforcements joined them for "the big attack"" - what's meant by "big attack"?
•  Removed"He stopped thinking of his men as people and viewed them only as part of the larger whole." - what does this mean? Did he stop caring about individual casualties among his own men?
•  Removed "The 3rd Infantry Division (Murphy) " - why the (Murphy)?

Because...it was some of the dumb unsourced content that kept being reinserted, removed, and reinserted again by a disruptive editor. I've removed it right now, but it stands as a good example of why this article needs a good go-through. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "On June 10, 1945, Murphy left Paris and arrived in San Antonio, Texas, to a hero's welcome" - it would have taken him much longer than a day to return from Paris.

Well, he didn't arrive until June 13, but sources vary on whether his departure was Paris or Salzburg. I fixed the date and omitted the point of departure. — Maile (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed This was also a pretty quick repatriation - I presume that he was sent home either as a reward, or to take part on bond-raising drives (or both) - can this be expanded upon?

Not sure how you're using the term "repatriation", but I think he was just on leave to spend time with his family. I'll see if I can expand on that. But later in the same paragraph, it does say he wasn't discharged until September 1945.— Maile (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Got it! He was ordered to Ft. Sam Houston, put on leave for recuperation, to report back to Ft. Sam afterwards. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed The sections on Murphy's post-war life are a bit confusing as they're not in chronological order. Also, try to avoid single paragraph sections. I don't see anything wrong with this level of detail on his personal life - he only spent a few years in the Army.

I did a general re-working of his civilian life, that I think addresses the issues you have raised. If not, please let me know. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "At the time, Murphy was still sleeping at Terry Hunt's Athletic Club" - this is the first time this is mentioned
•  Removed "McClure's share of the book's royalties was 40 percent" - remarkably generous for a ghost writer. Do we know why?

Nope, we don't know why. All we know is that the publishing contract Murphy signed gave 40% to McClure. You could guess that it's because McClure did most of the writing, or that in his youthful gullibility Murphy felt a particular friendship deserved 40%, or that they had one of those Elvis-Colonel Parker relationships. But I've found nothing that can be sourced other than that it was 40%. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure "It is the second most-visited grave site, after that of President John F. Kennedy" - I think that a stronger citation is needed for this.

Agree with comment, and switched to a cite from the U.S. Army SAMC. Need your input on the new citation. This sentiment is expressed everywhere on the web, but I don't know if they're just repeating what has been repeated for decades. I don't find any real stats at the official Arlington site to indicate anything other than JFK's is the most visited. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed I think that all the material in the paragraph which begins with "In basic training at Camp Wolters, he earned a Marksman Badge" and the subsequent paras has been noted earlier in the article (though the exact dates might not have been) Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, I need some input from you. This is not an isolated duplication on military awards and badges. They're all (I think) integrated into the military action prose according to when they happened. Then they're duplicated in the section on "Honors and awards". And duplicated again on the separate article Audie Murphy honors and awards. Which is a lot of duplication. My preference would be to leave them up in the military action section where the happened, leave a much briefer sentence or two under the "Honors and awards" section, with a link to the separate article where they are in a table. Please give me some feedback on this. — Maile (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

I agree with you - this is the approach which was used in the Derrick article. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, I'm going to do my best to address these issues one by one. It might take some time, given that not all the references are at my desk. And almost the entire military service section has been edited by various editors, so I may have to start from Square One on researching some items. Do I have a time limit on addressing these issues? — Maile (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A-class reviews are closed as unsuccessful only if there is no consensus to promote the article after about a month (in effect, more like 5-6 weeks at present). Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Second round comments Fantastic work with redeveloping this article! It looks excellent, and I have only the following comments and suggestions:

•  Removed The background on Camp Kilmer seems unnecessary
•  Removed "Murphy was initially a platoon runner, but eventually was assigned to combat" - this was a front line combat role (platoon runners would have been infantrymen, and their work was often very dangerous)
•  Fixed A reference is needed to support the statement that "To Hell and Back has had multiple printings and been translated into Dutch, Italian, French, Norwegian and Slovene." Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Have you seen this recent story about Murphy? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/audie-murphy-a-texas-hero-still-missing-one-medal.html?_r=0 Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

 Note: I am glad to have this NY Times story and have bookmarked it. At this time, I am not using it on the main article, but your comments on that are welcome. If mentioned at all, I think it would be appropriate on the honors and awards subpage, as there are multiple honors that have been bestowed by Texas on that list. This is the first time I have seen a source on this story, but it's been dropped in the article (unsourced) repeatedly over the years by one unregistered user by the handle Audiesdad. Apparently, this is almost an annual event, to try to get Murphy that legislative medal of honor. And it often makes it as far as passing the legislature, but the governor always drops the ball - which cannot be an accident if he does it consistently. Texas has a huge military presence, and the governor might feel some pressure to honor living vets who are native Texans. I view this as an effort by Murphy's supporters to get this done. At this point, it's just a campaign, like trying to get someone a postage stamp. There has been a far bigger campaign ongoing to get Murphy a Presidential Medal of Freedom. This has also been happening for years, and has shown up on this article (and deleted as spam) for years. None of these are a done deal, and both of them dependent upon political peacocks..— Maile (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, you're the expect here :) Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Support This article now easily meets the A-class criteria, and I'm very pleased to support its promotion. Great work in developing this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, thanks for doing this for for helping to make me a better editor in the future. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I reviewed this at Peer Review and can see you have done some excellent work since then. This is not a full review yet, just a few minor points at this stage (I will look to come back a bit later on):

•  Fixed watch for second commas. I fixed a few, but there are probably more

I'll have a look as I go through this again. Based on what I see that you removed, it might often be a case of how I was taught vs. what you believe to be correct. But I'll try and follow what I think your style is on this. — Maile (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm mainly talking about second commas around dates and state locations (e.g. "on June 10, 1945 he..." --> "on June 10, 1945, he..." and "at Keswick, South Australia he..." --> "at Keswick, South Australia, he..." (in those situations they should be added). The comma I removed was not a second comma issue, it was a comma splice. For instance, "Smith, was a tall man..." should be "Smith was a tall man..." (in those situations they should be removed). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to revise my comments here. It wasn't "your style" vs. anything else. It was comma overkill, and I ran across many of them. Hopefully, between you and me, we have caught them.— Maile (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There were a few more, but I've fixed them for you now. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Major General Lucian Truscott.[19] The major general took them " --> "Major General Lucian Truscott.[19] Truscott took them..."

This was clunky, wasn't it? I combined the two sentences. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• some endashes are used where hyphens should be used, e.g. "machine–gun emplacement" --> "machine-gun emplacement"

 Note: Just so you know, en dash, em dash, hyphen...I get genuinely confused by this. And I've read everything there is to read on Wikipedia about this. I'll check as I go through this again, but... Admittedly, it's a weak point in my skills and understanding here. — Maile (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked for this as I went through the article, but I didn't see anything. Perhaps you already caught the errors. — Maile (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think these have been fixed now. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed this seemed a bit awkward: "His first kill as a soldier happened with Company B near Canicattì where he shot two fleeing Italian officer". This seems quite a passive way of saying this and I wonder if there is a better way;
  • Perhaps this might work: "Company B later took part in fighting around Canicatti, during which Murphy killed two fleeing Italian officers"? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Fixed "He was recommended to be a candidate for the United States Military Academy" - when was this? Could some sort of indicative date be added? Who recommended him? Additionally it seems a rather sterile way of wording his rejection. Perhaps there is a better way of phrasing it, for instance. "...a candidate for the United States Military Academy, but because his application had arrived late, he did not have sufficient time to prepare for the entrance exams and, at the age of ?, he did not meet the age requirements for war veterans to be accepted into the Academy"

Here I could use some input from you. Maybe it wasn't exactly a recommendation as much as an inquiry about the feasibility. And if so, maybe I should delete the mention. A May 24, 1945 communication from "CG 3rd Infantr Division", no specific name, requested information as to how Murphy could enroll for "class of 2 July 1945". The reply came from a Colonel R. R. Coursey on June 1, 1945, and said, "Considered inadvisable" because there wasn't enough time to study for the exams, and because there was pending legislation to "raise the age limit for war veterans to enter the USMA". Don Graham's book says Murphy "considered" enrolling but dropped the idea on his own. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, based on your explanation, I'd definately suggest rewording it. It probably worthy of a mention, but needs more context. As such, if you decide to keep it, I think you should add some indication of when it occured. "CG 3rd Infantr Division" is possibly the "commanding general", but to be honest that isn't a designation that I've heard before. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded it to include as much as I know. Feel free to edit it if you like. But I agree that it needed to be addressed, because some editor later down the line will otherwise wonder why he wasn't "recommended". — Maile (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed"After the June 25, 1950, commencement of the Korean War" --> did Murphy seek to go to Korea? Is this known? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Fixed "he tried to enlist in the Marines and the Navy but was turned down for being underweight ... With a sworn affidavit from his sister that altered his birth date by a year, he was finally accepted into the Army". The first part of this states that weight was the issue, while the second part implies that he did not meet the age requirement for the Army, although it doesn't specifically state this. The lead does, though, so I think you need to reword the body of the article to more clearly article this issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Fixed "an unnamed soldier in their unit as they traveled along the Volturno River" --> this probably should be reworded. The soldier obviously had a name; however, it seems the source does not name him. As such, the sentence probably should clarify this. Perhaps something like this might work: "One of the early skirmishes recounted by author Don Graham, involved Murphy, his best friend Lattie Tipton (referred to as "Brandon" in Murphy's book To Hell and Back) and an unnamed soldier..." (There might be other ways of rewording this that also achieve the intent if this wording is not to your liking);
•  Fixed in the References section there are two red errors which appear to indicate that there are no citations to the Fagen and Nott sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see red errors. However, what sourced to the Fagan is what got separated out to Audie Murphy filmography. Same thing with multiples references to the Nott sourcing. Nott actually appears as a full Cite Book in ref 127. I've eliminated both Fagan and Nott under References. — Maile (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, you need to have the User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script installed to see the errors; nevertheless, you've fixed it. I've added my support above now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, thanks for your time on this. I've now downloaded the Uchcha script. Every tool is helpful. I do remember your doing the Peer Review, and you were very helpful at that time. Also, thank you for pointing my attention at the nitpicking things my instincts were not yet attuned to, such as the commas. Your input has been helpful on the Audie Murphy article, but will also be helpful on my skills going forward at Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Support You're linking to the wrong tank. I think you'll find that the Mark VIs were Tiger tanks, and not British WWI tanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed Thank you for catching. I have changed the link accordingly. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "General Alexander Patch" should be "Lieutenant General Alexander Patch"
•  Fixed "General Jacob Devers" should be "Lieutenant General Jacob Devers"
•  Fixed "General R. B. Lovett and Lt. Col. Hallet D. Edson" should be "Brigadier General Ralph B. Lovett and Lieutenant Colonel Hallet D. Edson"
•  Fixed "Lt. Gen. Alexander Patch," in the next sentence should just be "Patch", as he has already been introduced.
•  Fixed I would have thought an article on Murphy would have given equal weight to his movie and and military careers, but instead we have two separate articles. It wasn't obvious to me that the Filmography was a co-equal article and not a list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, I didn't do an overkill on correcting this. But now that I understand what you were getting at, I changed the hatnote in the section to the more appropriate one. And I put a different hathote at the top of the article that tells the reader where to find the details of the film career. Thanks for pointing this issue out to me. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, until July 5th there was more text in the main article Filmography section. When I was rearranging the whole article into chron order, I also shortened the section on films. Here's the Diff. Now, I can always put that back if you think it should be in this article. Just let me know, please. And, by the way, the reason it got separated out is size. Back in Feb when this was a much smaller article but everything was one, it was nearly impossible for me to edit and save without lengthy waits, because of the size at that time. And if you're thinking there should be something more extensive on the separate article about his film career, his career really didn't merit it. Not because of the quantity of films, but because most of them were the "quick and dirty, take the money and run" types. Often low budget, low quality, done in 10 days, and he was at times just going through the motions. There's only so much to be said about that. His movie career was not equal in accomplishment to his military career. — Maile (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, I realize that this issue of the Filmography could cause you to oppose this nomination. So, I would like to give you some background information on the splitting it off into its own article. As I say, the main article was too large for me to edit on my computer. I searched through Wikipedia and found wP Split. On Feb 10, the main article was 74,277 bytes, which according to WP Split means something could be divided off. The filmography wasn't well developed, so Initially, I just temporarily split it off into a child article to help my being able to edit everything. By Feb 20, I gave the filmography its own article. I also split the honors and awards off onto its own page on Feb 11 for the same reason. Right now, the main article is again 77,664 bytes. The filmography is 41,676 bytes, and the honors and awards is 41,024 bytes. I understand your concerns about the filmography content. I tell you this as someone who who has always seen Murphy as the cowboy movie hero first, and a medal of honor winner as just a part of his life. Until I tried to improve this article, I didn't know much about his military service except his reputation. It's been disheartening to research the filmography, and to watch his old movies over and over as I do this. Other than making two films for John Huston, one of which Huston later disowned because of quality, Murphy's career was unremarkable. The industry saw him as a way to make a quick buck with the least possible effort. He was a man with a 5th grade education and doing the best he could in an industry the eats its own. Watching some of those old movies, I'm embarrassed for him and think he must have been very frustrated. But all of that is POV. Researching the filmography was often scanty, because a lot of his films aren't even mentioned in books that include his works, or they're just a sentence in passing. I can't go back 60 years and reinvent his career. I think I've done the best I can, writing about it in a way that allows the reader to make up their own mind. But combining the filmography with the main article would make it almost 120,000 bytes, which WP Split says should be divided. Whatever you decide about this, I thank you for your time and input here on this request. — Maile (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to oppose the nomination. I was merely going to suggest that you consider making it clearer that the movie career is detailed in the filmography article for the benefit of readers who come looking for information on that aspect of his career. I disagree about his movie career, insofar as Murphy the cowboy is the image that the two of us have of Murphy. (And, as it happens, my sister is a huge fan of his.) I was a bit disappointed that you made little use of To Hell and back. For the MilHist folk, here is Murphy's account of the action ar Holtzwihr, from pp. 248-249

It is murderous. A single tree burst knocks out our machine-gun squad. The second tank destroyer is hit flush, and three of its crew are killed. The remainder, coughing and half-blinded, climb from the smoking turret and sprint down the road to the rear. At that moment I know that we are lost.
The smoke shell whizzes over, landing beyond the oncoming Germans.
200 right; 200 over. And fire for effect.
Our counter-barrage is on the nose. A line of enemy infantrymen disappear in a cloud of smoke and snow. But others keep coming.
The telephone rings.
'How close are they?'
'50 over, and keep firing for effect.' That artillery curtain must be kept between us and the enemy.
The tanks are now close enough to rake our position with machine-gun fire. Of the hundred and twenty-eight men that began the drive, not over forty remain. And I am the last of seven officers. Trying to stop the armour with our small arms is useless. I yell to the men to start pulling out.
'What about you?' shouts Kohl.
'I'm staying up with the phone as long as I Can. Get the men back, and keep them grouped. Candler will help you.'
'Candler's dead.'
The telephone rings.
'How close are they?'. .
'50 over, and keep blasting. The company's pulling back.'
I raise my eyes and see that the men are hesitating. Clapping down the receiver, I yell, 'Get the hell out of here. That's an order!'
Kohl says something, but his words are lost in a shell burst.
He shrugs his shoulders, beckons with his thumb, and the men stumble through the woods, casting worried glances backward.
I seize my carbine and start sniping. The advance wave of infantrymen is within two hundred yards of my position.
The telephone rings.
'How close are they?'
'50 over. Keep it coming.'
Dropping the receiver, I grab the carbine and fire until I give out of ammunition. As I turn to run, I notice the burning tank destroyer. On its turret is a perfectly good machine gun and several cases of ammunition. The German tanks have suddenly veered to the left. I change my plans and drag the telephone to the top of the. tank destroyer. The body of the lieutenant with whom I talked early in the morning is sprawled over the edge of the hatch. His throat has been cut; a small river of blood streams down the side of the tank destroyer. I finish dragging the body out and dump it into the snow.
The telephone rings.
'How close are they?'
'50 over, and keep firing for effect.'
'How close are they to your position?'
'Just hold the phone and I'll let you talk to one of the bastards.'
Hastily checking the machine gun, I find that it has not been damaged. When I press the trigger, the chatter of the
gun is like sweet music. Three krauts stagger and crumple in the snow.
Crash! The tank destroyer shudders violently. Vaguely I put two and two together and conclude that the TD has received another direct hit.
The telephone rings.
'This is Sergeant Bowes. Are you still alive, lieutenant?'
'Momentarily.' I spread the map on my left palm. 'Correct fire:-'
Crash! I am conscious of a flash and explosion. I reel back with the map and telephone receiver in my hands. .
'Lieutenant. Lieutenant. Can you hear me? Are you still alive, lieutenant?'
'I think so. Correct fire: 50 over, and keep the line open.'

— Murphy, To Hell and back, pp. 248-249

Some clarification on my editing of that section. First of all, back up with Nick-D suggestion of "Try to avoid citing Murhpy's memoirs except to recount his views - this is essentially a primary source," I started removing where I had used Murphy's book as a source. If I erred, that's some of the reason. Also, this section has been a primary battlefield between a disruptive editor (who never sourced and was apparently not always too picky about fact and accuracy) in Feb-March, and anyone else. I was unable to keep track of it then and still make sense of what was happening. Not to make an excuse, but recounting military history is not my best talent. Give me a few days, please, to go back and see what I can do about including Murphy's perspective on Holtzwihr. Also, I'll work on the wording of the filmography section a bit.

--As for Murphy's movies, my embarrassment over his having to make some of those movies has nothing to do with my joy at watching him do his thing. I could watch him forever. From my point of view, as a person born in Texas and surrounded by cowboy relatives, Murphy was the only one ever convinced me he was a cowboy. Others may have made credible movies in the genre, but I knew they were acting. Murphy made me believe he was the genuine article. I merely meant it that I have begun to see it from his point of view, perhaps colored by comments from him "I made the same movie 30 times. Only the horse changed." and others who said he never took that profession seriously. We could go movie by movie. "The Quick Gun" is one of those with low production values where they filmed men on horses riding around rocks, and edited it to repeat multiple times so the audience would think it was more men on horses than it was. "Battle at Bloody Beach", one of my favorites, was obviously filmed at different periods because his weight and face fullness changed. Not just from scene to scene-but sometimes from angle shot to angle shot seems filmed at different times. There's a village fight scene in that black and white movie that makes me feel as if I'm watching an old Johnny Weismuller Tarzan movie. The music is out of place and sounds more Keystone Cops. "A Time for Dying" is now on YouTube - you might want to catch it. Murphy and Budd Boetticher produced it. Murphy has a cameo is the only one with any acting skills. That type of thing. I just see it from his point of view, that's all.— Maile (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyhow, what you did is exactly what I was hoping for. Pleased to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much. I don't know if the above mentioned desire to see Murphy's account reinserted into the article would prevent this from promotion, but I'm working on this anyway. Assuming this makes it to Class A, I will need any and all advice taking it up for FA review. I've never been through that process. — Maile (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Read at your convenience, Hawkeye7. I'll post a diff as I finish each section of military service. You can see how I'm doing it, because I've received conflicting messages since Feb - not enough Murphy, too much Murphy, don't use Murphy's book, etc. But I think his perspective adds to it. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Colmar Pocket
• Northeastern France
• S/se France
• Italy

 Done Nothing in his book to add about North Africa, so Hawkeye7, I hope I've done it as you asked. — Maile (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I think it's great. Pleased to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Russian battleship Potemkin

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria. As I intend to send this on to FAC, I would appreciate it if reviewers could focus more on prose issues than perhaps they're used to doing. I'm not so worried about content, but more with style.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just some comments, not a complete review - Dank (push to talk)

• " ‘Prince Potemkin of Tauris’ ": double quotes
• "seakeeping qualities": either link or change to "seaworthiness"
• "The ship had a pair of three-cylinder vertical triple-expansion steam engines, patterned after those of Tri Sviatitelia, that had a total designed output of 10,600 indicated horsepower (7,900 kW).": In general, words should be close to the words they modify, but the pronoun "that" in particular needs to stay as close as possible (even more so than "which", which also needs to stay close).
• "a higher forecastle ..., Krupp cemented armor used as well as Belleville boilers.": missing "and", and drop "used".
• "; four in hull embrasures and the remaining 10 mounted on the superstructure.": sentence fragment (like this one :). A colon will fix it.
• "a 11-pound": an 11-pound
• "; one in the bow and two on each broadside.": sentence fragment.
• "they were supplemented by the addition of": they were supplemented by
• I got down to Russian battleship Potemkin#Protection. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, all done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I don't see any major problems here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupportbut very close to a support:

• "Panteleimon was captured when the Germans took the city in May 1918 " - I'd advise "took Sevastopol", as the "city" bit is referring to the object in a previous paragraph. (then, "the city" in the next sentence, etc.)
• "and was scrapped by the Soviets in 1923." - "and was finally scrapped" might read more emphatically
• "In 1895, planning began for a new battleship for the Black Sea Fleet that would use the slipway that would become available once the battleship Rostislav was launched the following year." - this was a bit convoluted for me, and felt like it needed breaking in two (e.g. after Black Sea Fleet) or reworking slightly.
• " who decided" - repetition of "decided"
• "The design process was complicated by numerous changes demanded by various departments of the Naval Technical Committee, but it was finally approved on 12 June 1897" - the "it" isn't quite right (the design was approved, not the design process)
• " Leaky oil caused a serious fire " - "Leaking oil caused..."?
• " The electrically operated turrets were derived from those used by the Petropavlovsk-class battleships. " - I wasn't 100% sure whether derived meant "copied from" (or something similar) or "reused" in some way.
• "their rate of fire was only one round every four minutes during their gunnery trials" - worth expanding slightly, or footnoting, to explain why "only one round" is (presumably) poor - I'm not sure what the comparison is.
  • Clarified a little, four paragraphs later there's mention of their rate of fire after modifications in 1911.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• "the first torpedo that the ship would have been equipped with was the M1904" - "was equipped with"?
  • Don't know for sure what model they were equipped with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Later that year, or in 1908, 2.5-meter (8 ft 2 in) rangefinders were installed." - "Either later that year, or in 1908, ..." would be clearer
• "Above the belt was the upper strake of six-inch armor that 156 feet (47.5 m) long and closed off by 6-inch transverse bulkheads fore and aft." - there's a word missing here I think.
• "The conning tower's sides were nine inches thick." - missing metric equivalent
  • No, see the first conversion in the previous paragraph.
• "Building of Potemkin began on 27 December 1897" - "The building..." or "The construction..."?
• "She began sea trials in September 1903 and they continued" - "these continued"
• "She was named in honor of Prince Grigory Potemkin, a soldier and statesman of the 18th century" - "a Russian soldier and statesman" might flow better
• "many enlisted men refused to eat rotten meat partially infested with maggots". Can't blame them, really. :)
• "The uprising was triggered when Ippolit Giliarovsky, the ship's second in command, allegedly threatened to punish crew members for their refusal. He summoned the ship's marine guards as well as a tarpaulin to protect the ship's deck from any blood. The crew mutinied when Giliarovsky threatened to shoot crewmen who would not eat the borscht made from the rotten meat." - this felt slightly repetitious - almost as though it could be covered in two, rather than three sentences.
  • Agreed, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The mutineers killed seven of the Potemkin's eighteen officers," - hard to tell if this is "a further seven" or if it includes Giliarovsky.
• "The following day the mutineers refused to land armed sailors and assist the revolutionaries behind the strikes take over the city as they preferred to await the arrival of the other battleships of the Black Sea Fleet." - I'm a bit comma-happy, but I would have added one to this sentence.
• "The battleship was easily refloated although the salt water had damaged her engines and boilers" - not clear if this means there is a link between the two halves. If not, perhaps "but the salt water had damaged..."?
• "However, this time a total of 337 main gun rounds" - I don't think you need the "However..." with "this time"
• The bit on the film probably needs expanding - I suspect (NB: but haven't checked) that there's some material on the symbolism of the portrayal of the ship and the way that its used in the film. I was also left wondering which ship "played" the Potemkin in the film. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Added the name of the ship's "stand-in", but I'm not so sure that I can do much with the symbolism of the ship, etc. as that's pretty far outside my field. I'll poke around, but I'm not sure how much I'll find. Thanks for the detailed review; I've incorporated all of your comments above with a few of my own in response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps images can be moved around, they seem to be grouped in one area, and there's empty space near the end for one more, perhaps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I moved the movie poster down to the legacy section and shrank it considerably.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

SupportComments: just a few minor nitpicks

• the duplicate link tool reports a few instances of potential overlink: Krupp cemented armor; torpedo boat; Russian battleship Tri Sviatitelia; Vice Admiral; Magazine (artillery); Naval ram; Russian battleship Rostislav; Odessa; Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov;
• "full extent of the damage to her bottom were" --> "full extent of the damage to her bottom was"?
• sometimes you use "the" before a ship name, and sometimes you don't. For instance, "Kolands the Dvenadsat Apostolov" v "crew of Georgii Pobedonosets";
• "fourteen 50-calibre" --> "fourteen 50-caliber" (Engvar);
• "the left of centre" --> "the left of center" (Engvar);
• should the crew complement be added to the body of the article?
• I wonder if some context could be added to this: "covered the pre-dreadnought Rostislav while she bombarded Trebizond on the morning of 17 November 1914". For instance, why were they bombarding the place? It probably wouldn't need much, maybe just a brief clause that mentions the outbreak of World War I.
  • Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• was this done to support the landings at Gallipoli: "On 25 April Tri Sviatitelia and Rostislav repeated their bombardment of the Bosporus forts". If so, perhaps a link could be added;
  • Yes, I should have done that at the beginning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• in the References, are there page numbers that could be added for the Smigielski chapter in the Roberts work?
• as above for Zebroski in Bell and Elleman?
• inconsistent presentation, "In Roberts, John" v. "In Christopher M. Bell and Bruce A. Elleman";
• inconsistent: "Annapolis: Naval Institute Press" v. "Annapolis, Marlyand: Naval Institute Press";
• "File:Knyaz'Potemkin-Tavricheskiy1905-Q81552.jpg": are we sure about the UK Govt licence here. The description says "Novosti Press Agency", which doesn't sound like a UK Govt entity. Perhaps it just needs a US-1923 tag, given that it was published in 1905? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Novosti was a Soviet-era organization so I don't know who actually took that photo. But I've added a US-1923 tag anyways. All other issues addressed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Your changes look good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

David M. Shoup

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

The latest in my series on generals. I'll take to FAC when I get the time. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• In the Tarawa section: "That night, Shoup was relieved by Colonel Merritt A. Edson, the division's chief of staff. He continued to command the 2nd Marines throughout the campaign." By he I assume you mean Edson? Edson can't continue if he just started. Maybe reword.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• In the CMC section "While still a Major General, Shoup was unexpectedly named Commandant of the Marine Corps by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, at the behest of Secretary of Defense Thomas S. Gates, Jr.. On November 2, 1959, he was promoted to lieutenant general and assigned duties as Chief of Staff, HQMC. He was then quickly elevated to general on 1 January 1960, upon assuming the post as the 22nd Commandant of the Marine Corps." I don't think I understand what happened here. Shoup was a two-star and became CMC, only to later be promoted and become Chief of Staff, to be promoted again to become CMC again?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• The CMC section (unlike the rest of the article) is not strictly chronological. I would recommend moving at least a few of the first sentences about the Kennedy Administration further down, so there's logical flow. You introduce Shoup's relationship with JFK only to jump backwards to address why Shoup was chosen to replace former CMC Pate.
  • I've tried to reword to make more clear. Let me know what you think. —Ed!^(talk) 01:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• There are a handful of spelling errors and some instances of poor capitalization; I'd recommend a good copyedit on this article.

Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Done some copy editing. Let me know what you think. —Ed!^(talk) 01:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I made a few other minor changes. I think you're good to hoof. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a few comments, not a complete review:

• "This criticism escalated after he retired from the military in 1963. He escalated his criticism ... Shoup's high-profile criticisms ... Historians consider Shoup's criticisms to be ... high-profile": repetition
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Battle Ground, Indiana. The family lived on a farm in Ash Grove, Indiana, but moved to Covington, Indiana": repetition of "Indiana". One fix: "The family lived on a farm in nearby Ash Grove, but moved to Covington"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Shoup was very sociable": I don't know what that means.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• "claiming to have instantly been attracted to her": The word "claiming" casts doubt.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Despite their competitive natures, the two dated": I don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Rather than put up a long list of corrections, I've copy-edited the whole article. Revert anything you don't like.
• I would, however, like to point out that June is not summer in the South Pacific. It's bloody cold here.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for looking it over. I didn't spot any references to weather-specific times of the year in the article. Did I miss something? —Ed!^(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

    I corrected it. But it originally said: "then attached to the 43rd Infantry Division on Rendova Island in the summer of 1943. During the latter assignment, Shoup was wounded in action and evacuated." The event took place in June 1943, which is not summer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Support

• I did the GA review and am satisfied the article meets the A-Class criteria. ★★RetroLord★★ 17:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• "against what (was) perceived as politicking among its officers"?
• Shoup opposed (the) military escalation (of) events"?
• "and later said he washad been instantly been attracted to her"?
• "He felt the use of troops for economic or imperialist consideration(s) werewas wrong"?
• suggest you need to explain what Scabbard and Blade is for non-US readers
• suggest "which would later be useful later in the war"?
• "which Shoup though(t) was unfair"?
• "not worth the life ofor limb of a single American"?
• "Shoup argued was that (among) the Vietnamese forces"?
• "the U.S. increased its air waroperations"?
• "highly publicized (through) discourse"?
• not sure Anti-war should be capitalised
• suggest you need to explain what the "Veterans of Foreign Wars" and "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" are/were
• File:Col. David M. Shoup.jpg needs to be categorised
• alt text is needed for several images [139]
• all other tools are green
• suggest some prose polishing will be necessary for FA
• a couple of formatting issues with the gong table at the bottom, it seems to me that the top row left and right (MoH and LoM) should be centred in their boxes to be consistent with the rest of the table.
• the date in the preamble to the MoH citation is weird, "from 20 to November 22, 1943" should that be "November 20 to 22, 1943"?

I've made all of the above fixes. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 17:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Supporting.

---

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

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

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Southeast Croatia

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GAN in December last year and has been improved since. It covers a German-Ustasha offensive in the winter if 1941–42 in eastern Bosnia that forced the Partisans out of the German occupied areas into those areas occupied by the Italians, and sounded the death-knell for Partisan-Chetnik cooperation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I've only had a quick look at this stage. I plan to come back later when this coming weekend, but until then I have the following comments (I also made a couple of minor tweaks to the article):

• is it possible to add translations for the title of the work by Popovic in the References section? I believe that the cite book template has a "trans_title=" parameter that can display this;
• in the References, locations that are not widely known, such as "Abingdon" probably should have a state/county location as well. New York is fine by itself, though, based on guidance at FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• These are done. Thanks for the tweaks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, looks good. I made a few more tweaks. Continuing my review below... AustralianRupert (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Having read through the article in full, I wonder if the name shouldn't be changed to "Operations Southeast Croatia and Ozen". Thoughts?

• I'm relaxed about that, Southeast Croatia was the larger of the two, Ozren was essentially intended as a mopping-up op, which is why it is titled the way it is.

• Let's wait to see what others say. It's not a war stoper. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• in the infobox, "seven Croatian Home Guard battalions" --> "7 Croatian Home Guard battalions" and "nine Croatian Home Guard artillery batteries" --> "9 Croatian Home Guard artillery batteries". I believe that even numerals below ten are presented using numbers in the infobox;

• Good point, done.

• Are there any images of troops in action during these operations, or commanders of the forces involved, that could be added?

• pics of troops on these ops are few and far between, I have added a pic of Bader (who was the overall commander and issued the objectives for the ops).

• German casualties and losses are included in the infobox, but not in the body of the article. I think it would be a good idea to add a sentence on these to the prose;

• Done.

• is there any information on Partisan casualties that could be added?

• Found something from a US Army Centre of Military History pub and added it.

• I don't see the "30,000 – 35,000" or "20,000 – 30,000" figures (for German/Croatian) or the "2,000" (for Partisans) figures in the text. Could this be worked in (additionally, the 20, 000 - 30,000 and 2,000 figures don't appear to be referenced);

• Done.

• Johann Fortner is mentioned in the infobox but there doesn't appear to be a mention in the text as to what role he played;

• Done, he was the commander of the 718th.

• "However, the majority of Partisans were able to evade the cordon and escape." Is there any information that could be added about what they did to achieve this? Did they fight delaying actions, split into smaller groups to evade, etc.?

• I think the take home message was the NDH troops weren't up to the job, but I'll confirm what the sources say, if anything.

• Added more info.

AustralianRupert (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

couple more to addressAll done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, AR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "in the southeastern parts of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) (modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina)": This would usually mean that NDH was more or less where Bosnia and Herzegovina is today. This would work: in the southeastern parts of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), in modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina
• "Several days after the conclusion of Operation Southeast Croatia, a follow-up operation known as Operation Ozren was launched. Operation Ozren was carried out between the Bosna and Spreča rivers.": Combine these.
• "groups led by either communists or Serb–Chauvinist Chetniks.": This might mean that each group might be led by communists, Chetniks, or both; if each group tended to be led by one or the other, then slightly better would be: some groups led by communists and some led by Serb–Chauvinist Chetniks
• "November–December": November and December
• "Bader considered that": maybe: Bader believed that
• "frontline": front line (frontline is the adjective)
• " – ": no spaces unless there's a space in one or both of the elements on either side of the dash
• "Igman": Isn't it a mountain plateau?
• "machineguns": machine guns
• "using seemingly impassable terrain": through seemingly impassable terrain
• "The Germans caused considerable losses to the Partisans": The Germans inflicted considerable losses on the Partisans
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Dan. It was always referred to as "Mount Igman" when I was there, but strictly-speaking it is a mountain plateau. All addressed [140]. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Not a dealbreaker here, but I'm wondering if (NDH) acronym needs expansion on the first instance of its use to (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska – NDH), possibly using {{lang-hr}} template since the acronym is not self-explanatory because it is formed from Croatian instead of English.
• In "The insurgents in the area of operations destroyed villages to deny supplies and shelter to the Germans who were operating in mountainous terrain with snow up to 1 metre" the figure 1 should be spelled out per WP:ORDINAL. Since the figure is currently produced by a {{convert}} template, this can be achieved using {{convert/spell }} template instead. Note a space between "spell" and the first parameter pipe though.
• More out of curiosity than anything else: In "...infiltrating through the cordon through seemingly impassable terrain." is it meant to say that the seemingly impassable terrain was cordoned off or left unguarded?
• In troop strength indicators in the infobox (the first one), what does addition of "in total" mean?
• I'm not a native speaker of English, so I might be completely wrong here, but the caption of the infobox image "Mount Igman where the 1st Proletarian Brigade crossed" leads me to ask "crossed what?"

Granted, at lest three of the above issues are subjective impressions and a case of nitpicking, but the previous reviews have apparently been sufficiently thorough to leave little to mend.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• all addressed, except for the terrain one, the source doesn't say, I think the implication is that both the Germans and Croatians didn't have those areas properly cordoned. Thanks for the convert template tip, hadn't used that one before. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• The changes look fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Jackal

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed a GA review and benefited from incremental improvements related to the GAR and subsequent editing (based on similar article ACRs). Tomobe03 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• I'm not sure whether this is AmEng or BritEng ... you have "preempt","reorganized", "reorganised", and "favourable".
  • It was meant as British English. Fixed the two cited instances of AE spelling, but I'll have another look for more.
• "Position of the border in the region leaves a 2 to 10 kilometres (1.2 to 6.2 miles) wide coastal strip of Croatian soil in the area.": I don't follow the present tense, or what the sentence is saying.
  • Apparently that turned out to be very clumsy. I meant to say that the region (around Dubrovnik) is (both now and was back in 1992) a very narrow coastal strip.
  • Significantly trimmed and rephrased to clarify.
• "The northward push through Bivolje Brdo, Pijesci and Gubavica, reaching the southern approaches to Mostar on 14 June.": no verb
  • Changed "reaching" to "reached.
• "follow up": follow-up
  • Amended.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. I tried to address the issues raised above, and I'll check the prose for any American English spellings left over. Could you have another look at the confusing sentence referred to in the item 2 above to see if it is any better now?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

I did the GA review for this article, and note only minor changes have been made since then. Reviewing those changes and looking at the article again with "fresh eyes", I have the following comments to make:

• The OoB mentions the various brigades, but the "Timeline section" only refers to the movements of the 4th Guards Brigade. Is there any information available on the movements/actions of the other brigades? Is there any casualty information available? If possible, I would to see the "Timeline" section expanded a little given it is effectively the topic of the article (most of which is otherwise background).
  • There's very little info available, but I found a source for some of the 156th Bde movements. I'll add those shortly - I'll recheck what can be found on other individual units before I add the material.
    • Added some info.
• "...HV/HVO were able to advance quickly in both of the planned directions." This doesn't flow well to my eyes at least. I suggest: "...HV/HVO were able to move forward quickly along their planned line of advance."
  • Yes, that's better. Amended as suggested.
• "...capturing the villages of Varda, Kruševo, Jasenica, Slipčići and Orlovac Mountain." Is Orlovac Mountain the name of the village or should it be "...capturing the villages of Varda, Kruševo, Jasenica, Slipčići as well as the Orlovac Mountain."

That's my review done. Zawed (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Fixed.

Thank you for taking time to review the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

SupportComments:

• "The HV later reestablished " --> "The HV later re-established";
  • Fixed.
• "29 February–1 March 1992" (this probably should be a spaced endash as the two elements have spaces;
  • Added.
• in the Footnotes there is a red harv error relating to "Jutarnji list 6 December 2012" (If you go to the references, it seems to relate to the News reports where there is an error identified, probably around the date (16 Decemeber or 6 December);
  • Indeed. The ref was used to support claim about CO of the Herzegovina Corps. The ref carried erroneous date of 16 Dec instead of 6 Dec. Fixed now.
• is there anything that can be said of casualties on either side?
  • Unfortunately nothing that is reliably sourced. No amount of searching for sources turns up anything useful - not even "light" or "heavy", let alone a specific figure.
    • No worries, thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• what were Anton Tus and Radtko Mladic's roles in the battle? Currently they are listed in the infobox as commanders/leaders, but there is no mention of them in the body of the article;
  • Not much. They were chiefs of respective general staffs (HV/VRS). Do you think the box would be better off without them listed there?
    • My advice would be to remove them from the infobox if they do not warrant mention in the article, otherwise there is no context and technically they would be uncited. It's a minor point, though, so I will leave it up to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Removed them both.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Battle of the barracks" --> "Battle of the Barracks"?
  • Fixed.
• in the References, the books probably don't need retrieved dates (this is, at least, the advice I've seen at FAC);
  • Fixed.
• in the References, are there page numbers for the Bgelajac & Zunec contribution to Ingrao and Emmert's work? (It appears to be a chapter contribution, but I could be wrong);
  • Specified.
• image licencing and referencing seems fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review this nomination. I think I managed to resolve the issues you brought forward, except I could not find any reliable (or otherwise) sources on casualties for now. Also there's the issue of the two commanders where I'd prefer to receive your feedback before I remove them from the box or add anything in that respect to the prose.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Peasants' Revolt

Nominator(s): User:Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article as it covers a popular and well-known English rebellion; the article covers the current state of research well, but could do with a polish and advice from a wider grouping of editors. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Support: Cdtew (talk)

• "One of the causes of the Peasants' Revolt was the impact of the Black Death in England." - This sort of pops out of nowhere. The remainder of that paragraph is a thumbnail sketch of the English economy at the time, and you don't actually get to the Black Death until para 2. I realize you're trying to give the "Causes" sections some structure (ie, "A. Black Death, B. War in France, C..."), but it reads somewhat awkwardly. I'm certain to a person who knows nothing of the subject it would seem like a non sequitur until they get to the next para.

• I've played with the intro a bit - see if it works better now. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "making it illegal to refuse work or to break an existing contract" - Strictly speaking, breach of contract is unlawful - the term illegal being at times fraught with uncertainty. While there's a general consensus it seems that "illegal" means "criminal", there's an argument to be made that anything you can be penalized for at law (but not at equity) is "illegal". I'm usually of the mind that when you mean something has been criminalized, you should say "made it a crime to ..."

• I think there's a subtle distinction in the medieval law around this, but I think your wording would avoid any confusion, and have changed accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "this time with a sliding scale of taxes against seven different classes of English society." - Was the scale regressive or progressive?

• Strictly speaking, I don't think anyone knows - the amount increased for the upper classes, but I'm not sure if the maths made this genuinely progressive or not (the sources don't say). I've clarified further as far as I can in the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "his claims to the French throne" - would it be worth wikilinking this to something like British claims to the French throne for clarity's sake?

• Definitely. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "rate of four pence" - this is something there's clearly no accurate way of adjusting to today's currency, but can you give the reader an approximation of the value (ie, "a gallon of wine at the time would have cost between three and four pence" per [141])? The source I cited is illustrative, but it gives potentially reliable sources as its source. I know you have a footnote about larger sums, but it's hard psychologically to compare a four pence one-time or yearly expenditure to 600 pounds yearly income, whereas I think the information would be useful for a reader to understand the burden the poll tax placed on certain classes of people.

• Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Marshalsea Court" - obviously someone curious about the meaning of this could go to the Marshalsea Court page, but it might be worth mentioning the court's unusual jurisdiction to give the reader an idea of why that would have caused unrest.

• I've expanded a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The poet John Gower feared a repeat in England of the Jacquerie revolt of 1358" - Since the Jacquerie didn't per se happen in England, saying it would be a repeat seems inaccurate. Perhaps "The poet John Gower feared the occurrence in England of a revolt similar to the French Jacquerie of 1358"?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "they were except from such requests" - Unless this is part of British English that I may not know about, shouldn't this be "excepted" or "exempted"?

• No special BritEng, just my bad spelling! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Good work overall so far. I have more comments to come; I've stopped at ==Events==. Cdtew (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• "had claimed that Robert Belling was an escaped serf" - This Robert Belling pops up without introduction; perhaps something like "a man by the name of Robert Belling", or "a man in Kent called Robert Belling"

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The people of Kent were furious" - surely not all the people of Kent? Is there a way to stay away from generalizations? The rabble of Kent? (Just kidding, but more seriously) "A substantial number of peasants in Kent"?

• The original source and the chroniclers gloss it widely, but I've had a stab at rephrasing - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk)

• "such as Bealknap and Bampton" - Is this the same as Belknap mentioned earlier?

• Yep, an alternative spelling. I've standardised. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "and the rebels also targeted houses belonging to Flemish immigrants" - Any reason for this in particular mentioned in your sources?

• In the background section there's a bit on the hatred of Flemings. Individual attacks are hard to explain from the sources, and most don't; the best we can usually say is that they were competitors, foreign, and had non-English accents. I don't think this instance has any specific trigger. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "with eight men-at-arms and a small force of archers" - I seem to recall that he gained more men along the way, correct? Do your sources give an approximation of his command before North Walsham? Right now, as it reads, Henry had 8 men and some bowmen, and went to battle with only that force.

• The paragraph goes onto say that he left Norwich with a company of men, but have clarified the increase in forces. I've checked back, and I don't think there are any good estimates for the numbers at the battle itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Richard himself visited Essex, where he met with a rebel delegation, seeking confirmation of the grants the King had given at Mile End" - I think, as it reads right now, the sentence states that Richard was seeking confirmation; it should probably be changed to "Richard himself visited Essex, where he met with a rebel delegation seeking confirmation of the grants the King had given at Mile End" (no comma after delegation). If this is a Britishism, let me know, but even if it is, it's seemingly unclear in this context.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Roger de Bacon was probably arrested" - elsewhere in the article he's referred to as "Sir Roger Bacon"; I'd suggest to pick one and stick with it.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "however, with this research has been typically interdisciplinary in nature, involving historians, literary scholars and international collaboration" - I'm not sure this is grammatically correct; the "with" seems to throw the whole sentence off.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke argued over the lessons to be drawn from the revolt and the degree of sympathy that should be displayed for the rebels." - I recall Paine strongly took the rebels' side, and Burke I imagine did not, but do you have a source that elucidates this? I can't recall if Burke brings it up in Reflections on the Revolution in France or not.

• I think the source I used covered it. I've tweaked to bring this out. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the Historiography section, you discuss the name "Peasants' Revolt"; is there anything in your sources about the first known use of "Wat Tyler's Rebellion" or any other names?

• Unfortunately not. I searched a bit when I was researching this, and although I think I could answer it with OR, I can't find a reliable secondary source. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if you need some sort of footnote explaining the Old Style civil year difference -- for instance, while most of the article deals with dates after March 25, 1381, you mention things happening in 1382. If those occured between Jan 1 and March 24, you perhaps should include an (New Style) notation to let the reader know the year was adjusted forward. I suppose in general, readers should know these are all Old Style dates, but those civil year conversion dates might still need an identification (if it indeed qualifies as such).

• On this one, I think I'd disagree. I've been checking back over the sources used here, and the historians aren't seeing the need to clarify it in their own works. I've checked the MOS for guidance on dates, and I think the article is compliant "as is" with that - but I'm no expert on the MOS, and stand ready to be corrected! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I believe you're right, because the MOS seems to state that all dates should be written in New Style unless you note otherwise. I guess, then, that if your sources don't note whether they're using OS or NS, then we know (by application of convention) that (a) they've converted all pre-Assumption-Day dates to New Style, and (b) likely have not Old Style dates to New Style, which fits with Wikipedia's guidelines. So, I agree this really would be redundant if noted. Cdtew (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• "the Commons instead concluded at the end of 1381" - Is this then end of 1381 Old Style or the end of 1381 New Style? I know you're not giving specific dates, but I tend to think its helpful to add OS/NS information if you're talking about "the end of X year" or "in early X year".
• " royal council appointed new commissioners in March 1381" - another OS/NS one
• Image Check: All images appear to have valid PD tags with no issues; as a note, none of the images have alt text, which is not a requirement for ACR or FAC, but it may be useful to review if alt text is needed (or even a simple |alt=refer to caption would be nice).

• Alt text added. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a great bear of an article, but is written exceedingly well and shows that it was a true labour of love. My hat's off to you on what you've done! Cdtew (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on this! It was a real pleasure to read and review, and it made me dust off my college copy of Alastair Dunn. As an additional note, have you considered a "See Also" section for articles such as Popular revolt in late-medieval Europe, List of peasant revolts, and Jack Cade (which has a similar Kentish influence)? Just some thoughts, but at this point I'm happy to support. Cdtew (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! The list of peasant revolts is hatnoted, so I've added the popular revolt and Jack Cade in as see also's. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Support -- copyedited and reviewed at GAN and, having checked changes made since I last saw it, I think it meets all the A-Class criteria; well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Ian. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments A few comments, not a complete review:

• "One of the causes of the Peasants' Revolt were the economic and social impacts of a plague known as the Black Death": I wish people used topic sentences more often, but this one doesn't quite work for me, because it takes too long to get to the statements that support this. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Tweaked - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• NB: "upheaval" sounds fine to me! Thanks Dank. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• "due to his sympathy": in sympathy
• "they appear to put forward": tense; not sure how to fix
• "While Richard was at Mile End, the Tower was taken by the rebels. A force of rebels, probably separate from those operating under Tyler at Mile End ...": While Richard was at Mile End, the Tower was taken by the main force of rebels, while a separate group ... ["probably" is probably too much or too little; you could expand with "judged by most historians to be" or something, if the uncertainty is a point of some significance.]
• "Once inside, the rebels began to hunt down their key targets. Archbishop Sudbury and Robert Hales were in the chapel of the White Tower; along with William Appleton ...": Because so many readers will read the semicolon as if it were a comma (at first), I recommend: Once inside, the rebels began to hunt down their key targets, and found Archbishop Sudbury and Robert Hales in the chapel of the White Tower. Along with William Appleton ... - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• "forced to agree a new charter": This is a bit informal even in BritEng and looks like a typo to non-Brits, and the subtle distinction between this and "forced to agree to ..." is entirely lost on most of us. Please reword; "agree to" would work, but perhaps "forced to negotiate" is closer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Peasants continued to use the memory of the revolt when negotiating rents with their landlords": I'm not sure what this means; were they insinuating they would revolt if rents were too high?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No. 38 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers the history and current role of one of the Royal Australian Air Force's transport squadrons. Formed in 1943, No. 38 Squadron saw operational service during World II and the Malayan Emergency before becoming an operational conversion unit. Despite this focus, the squadron provided aircraft to peacekeeping deployments in Pakistan and East Timor. It operated the remarkable de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou for a remarkable period of 45 years, before being re-equipped with Beechcraft King Air 350s in 2009. It is also one of the few RAAF squadrons to have never been disbanded, with the result that it has the longest period of continual operation of any of the RAAF's flying squadrons.

I developed this article as part of the current B-class drive, and it turned out much better than I was expecting. It passed a GA review on 9 June, and has since been expanded and copy-edited. As such, I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. I'm also considering developing the article to FA status, and would appreciate any suggestions for areas of further improvement. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments -- I expect I'll review in depth as usual but I just happened to be thinking about air force unit articles at FAC and figured I may as well share my thoughts on this now, since you ask...! My feeling is that articles on active units need a bit more than a lead and a history section. I'd expect there to be a section on current role and organisation in there as well. Therein lies the rub, of course, as the place you'd expect to get this sort of info, the official RAAF website, is usually painfully thin in this regard. Even the units that have their own page, and a role subpage, often have only a line or two's "detail" on their purpose and organisation. This is why (if you were wondering!) that I've stopped short of taking any of my recent wing articles the next step after their successful ACRs -- I just feel there's a bit more current info out there to be added, and I'm not really comfortable putting the articles up for FAC without it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The good thing about this unit is that Australian Aviation published a fairly in-depth article on it in 2010, so there's some reasonably up-to-date coverage of its role which I've drawn on in the last paragaphs (the magazine covered most of the RAAF's squadrons during this period, but only occasionally seems to discuss wings). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the situation is better for squadrons than for wings. The latter are generally only ever mentioned in passing, but squadrons sometimes attract entire articles that can provide the info I'm talking about. My suggestion is that if you have a paragraph's worth of role/organisation stuff then it'd justify its own section between the lead and the history section (and if that sets a new standard for the structure of "current" RAAF unit articles to aim at for FAC then so be it -- indeed, so much the better). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article as it stands certainly follows the structural standard of other A-Class RAAF units/formation articles, and indeed the few Featured RAAF squadron articles, so I've no particular issue with the structure as it is for ACR. However I'd like to see a separate role/organisation section at least prior to FAC. I note that No. 79 Squadron, which if memory serves was the first RAAF squadron article to achieve Featured status, doesn't have such a section but I think it could, given the detail in the final "Current status" section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments Ian - I've just restructured this article to include a "current role" section (expanding it a bit during the process), which I think makes things clearer - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: looks pretty good to me, I just have a few comments/suggestions regarding prose tweaks:

• "In 1954 it became the unit responsible for training RAAF personnel to operate Dakotas" --> "In 1954 it became responsible for training RAAF personnel to operate Dakotas";
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• "newly-independent nation" --> "newly independent nation";
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• "detachment on the island of Morotai" --> "detachment on Morotai island";
  • That's an improvement Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• this sentence seemed a little awkward to me: "In an unusual task, during May..."
  • Tweaked 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, that does the trick. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• I wonder about spliting the paragraph beginning: "In an unusual task, during May..."
  • Do you mean the next paragraph about the unit's service in Malaya? If so, I've just done this. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did. Sorry, copy paste error. Your change looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• "During the 1950s and early 1960s No. 38 Squadron developed a reputation as a "cowboy" unit with lax flying standards. The squadron did not conduct proper conversion courses, and new Dakota pilots received only ad-hoc instruction on the type while serving as the co-pilot during operational tasks. In addition, veteran pilots generally did not attempt to pass on their experiences to trainees." Were there any consequences of this?
  • Funnily enough, none of the sources note any... I did look for this - it seems that the unit was not doing its job properly, but not in such a bad way that it contributed to accidents. I would imagine that the new pilots who received conversion training with this squadron needed further training once they reached an operational squadron. The RAAF's flying standards in general seem to have left a lot to be desired in this era. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• "One of the tasks of this detachment" --> "One of the detachment's tasks";
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• "further five newly-built aircraft" --> "further five newly built aircraft". AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Change made. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, the article looks good for A-class to me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Did a fair bit of copyediting and a couple of additions, let me know if I mucked up or you disagree with anything. Happy with the prose now except this: In addition to its training role, No. 38 Squadron participated in transport operations in and around Australia, including in response to natural disasters. -- the last clause grates a bit but I admit I couldn't think of a better way of expressing it, maybe someone else can...
  • All those changes look good to me - thanks a lot. I've slightly tweaked that sentence to make it a bit clearer - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Coverage, referencing and supporting materials (incl. image licensing) seem fine.
• Structure-wise, and following on from my points at the top of the page, I don't have a major issue with the "Current status" section at the end, though my personal preference is for a "Role" (or similarly named/themed) section right after the lead, such as in my recent No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF. Since both these articles are up for ACR at the same time, be interested in finding out if reviewers have a preference either way, since it'd be good to standardise... Anyway, well done on this! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review Ian Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [142] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [143] (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text - [144] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals one (minor) issue with reference consolidation:
  • RAAF_HS_68 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Images are all PD or free and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [145] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Typo here: "No. 38 Squadron moved from Richmond to RAAF Base Amberley, the west of Brisbane, in October 1992...", should probably be "No. 38 Squadron moved from Richmond to RAAF Base Amberley, west of Brisbane, in October 1992."
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise excellent. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "a detachment on Morotai Island, which dropped supplies": a Morotai Island detachment that dropped supplies. I know that it sounds like you're talking about a specific detachment, and that would make the "that" nonrestrictive, but the "a" is indefinite enough to call for "that" rather than "which", usually. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• "new Dakota pilots ... while serving as the co-pilot": ... while serving as co-pilots
  • Hmm, given that there was only one co-pilot per Dakota that's a bit confusing IMO. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• "transported United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan personnel and supplies": transported personnel and supplies for the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan. Long strings of nouns are harder to parse.
  • Massive improvement: thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Three King Air 350s were transferred to No. 38 Squadron from the Army's 173rd Surveillance Squadron on 20 November 2009, and deliveries of further five newly built aircraft were completed in July 2010.": ... a further five. Also, I'm not sure if you're saying that these five aircraft are newly built King Air 350s.
  • Done: they were brand-new King Airs. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

The RAAF's fighter conversion unit, which originated in WWII, disbanded in 1947, and was revived in the middle of the Korean War, when the Air Force realised there was a significant gap in its training program. Since then it's converted pilots to all of Australia's front-line fighters -- Sabre, Mirage, and F-18 Hornet. I'm thinking of taking it to FAC depending on how it goes here, so feel free to offer comments with that in mind as well. Thanks to Dank for a quick turnaround on the article's recent GAN, and Nick-D for some additional info and images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: couldn't see anything to pick fault with except one minor typo/whitespace issue which I fixed. Otherwise, looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments I've added a few odds and ends to this article, so I may be too involved to vote, but I have the following comments:

• "New RAAF pilots enter No. 2 OCU after first qualifying to fly fast jets at No. 79 Squadron and undertaking initial fighter combat instruction at No. 76 Squadron" - is "new" accurate here? I'd imagine that a transport or maritime patrol pilot who's re-rolling to a fighter role (which I think happens from time to time, but isn't very common) would also go through more or less the same path.
  • Yeah, quite right, I did intend to mention that to balance the "new" part, then decided I didn't need to but forgot to take out "new" -- I might add something after all 'cos I always liked the term they use for it, "retread", which is happily used in the Air Force Today article for the purposes of sourcing... ;-)
• I'd suggest adding more on the fighter combat instructor training role, as this is about a quarter of the unit's workload. Interestingly, it also trains its own personnel through these courses. I can add more on this from the Australian Aviation article if you'd like.
  • Looking at the info you've provided so far from Australian Aviation and what I have in Air Force Today from almost ten years earlier, it looks like very little has changed. Let me expand a bit on FCI with my source and then if you can check it against yours, we can cite Australian Aviation as well and that should do it.
• "During World War II, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) established several operational training units" - I was about to suggest providing a specific number of OTUs here, but given that some of the operational squadrons were de-facto OTUs at various times, that probably isn't very sensible.
  • From memory, the official history doesn't even mention 2OTU specifically, let alone a total number...
• Can historical context for the formation of this unit in April 1942 be provided? This was when the RAAF was responding to its previous total lack of fighter units in Australia as the Kittyhawks began to arrive.
  • I can add that the first three RAAF P-40 squadrons were formed around this time in response to the threat to Northern Australia and New Guinea as a bare statement -- not sure any source makes a direct connection between that and 2OTU though...
• During the 1950s No. 2 OCU formed a Sabre-equipped aerobatics team called the Marksmen - I can provide a reference Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That'd be good, tks, and tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, think I've actioned everything per above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Support On reflection, I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved to vote, and I'm pleased to support the article's promotion. I'll be adding a little bit more material to it over the next few days, but this shouldn't have much of an effect on my overall level of involvement. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Tks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [146] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [147] (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text - [148] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a few issues with reference consolidation:
    • McNamara, The Quiet Man, pp. 117–118 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • Quiet (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Solo358 (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • Images are all PD/free or have a valid fair use rationale and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [149] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • "As RAAF pilots were now gaining their first exposure to jets at another school, No. 2 OTU took over from the fighter squadrons the responsibility of converting trained jet pilots to Sabres." Consider more simply (perhaps) "As RAAF pilots were now gaining their first exposure to jets at another school, No. 2 OTU took over the responsibility of converting trained jet pilots to Sabres from the fighter squadrons."
    • I think the way I have it might be more correct grammatically for what I mean, although I wouldn't say either sounds exactly musical to the ears... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Could probably add the article to a few more categories. Perhaps at least "Military units and formations established in 1942". Anotherclown (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Tks AC, will review/action the above shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
      • All actioned/acknowledged now, I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Crossroads

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and HowardMorland (talk)

A series of nuclear tests designed by the US Navy to demonstrate the survivability of ships under and atomic attack. Turned into "the world's first nuclear disaster." Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a few cites that could benefit from being split into a footnote section. For example:

• " The bomb yields are often reported as 21 kilotons, but the figure of 23 kilotons is used consistently throughout this article." is this a quote Daly 1986? "This article" refers to his work or our article?
  • Our article. Tried to reword this to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• "As in most tropical ocean locations, its surface winds blow westward and its stratospheric winds blow eastward." Quote? Unref claim?
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There are more like this. Once they are all reworked I'll be happy to look at the article again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• time format inconsistencies, for instance "09:00:34 a.m" v "0835";
  • Switched to 09:00 and 08:35 per MOS:DATE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• in the lead, are the exact timings necessary. I understand maybe including in the body, but it seems a little too much for the lead. Thoughts?
  • I don't think so. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• in the lead, "because of the Navy's inability" --> "because of the United State Navy's inability";
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• in the lead, "Crossroads Charlie was rescheduled as" (should Charlie be in italics here for consistency?)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• in the lead, "fallout of the Baker explosion" (should Baker be in italics here for consistency?)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• there are some inconsistencies in English variation, e.g. "cancelled" and "canceled"
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk)
• not sure about this, but it doesn't quite sound right to me: "Not enough data were gathered" --> "Not enough data was gathered"?
  • Data is a plural. One datum, two data. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• "General Billy Mitchell" --> Brigadier General Billy Mitchell?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• not sure about the punctuation here "future of the Navy is at stake,. .. if" (particularly the comma then the full stops);
  • Should be an ellipsis. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Commodore William S. "Deak" Parsons then proposed that it be headed by Vice Admiral William H. P. Blandy." (what was Parsons' role?)
  • Who was Parsons? Who was Parsons? Aaaarghh! Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• "most men and material" (should this be materiel?)
  • Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• "bomb might make Russia" (should this be "the Soviet Union"?)
  • Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• "On March 6, Commodore Wyatt" --> "On March 6, Wyatt"
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The next day, a Navy LST moved them" (perhaps mention LST 861 here, as it is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else?)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• slightly repetitious: "Able and Baker are the of a previously-used version of the Joint Army/Navy Phonetic Alphabet, used from 1941 until 1956" (previously-used and used);
  • Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The two bombs were copies of the plutonium-implosion Fat Man bomb" (should "Fat Man" here be in italics as you have previously displayed it as such?);
  • Have not italicized it. To me, Fat Man is the Mark III nuclear bomb, which was produced between 1945 and 1948, and was superseded by the Mark 4 nuclear bomb in 1949. For some other editors, it is the particular bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I got down to the end of Nicknames; will come back later. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• this seems to be missing something: "proposed that Blandy for the role";
  • Stray word. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• not sure about this construction (the mixture of italics, plain type and all caps) "Life Magazine" (is the proper name "Life" or "Life Magazine"?)
  • The proper name id Life. Deleted "Magazine". Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• should the comma be inside the quote here: the "Geiger men," asserted...;
  • Should be outside. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• "a notable exception being the Bismarck, which sank upside down but righted herself after her turrets fell out on the way to the bottom" (I wonder if it could be made clearer that Bismarck wasn't sunk during Crossroads);
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• this sentence seems quite awkward: "Air bursts distribute fallout in a large area as it distributes through strong stratospheric currents". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, not a complete review:

• "TJ": terajoules
  • The MOS says not to link common units, where a common unit is broadly defined as an SI unit, or a "non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI". The point presumably being that everyone in the world understands SI. Whereas while my Dad still measures his weight in stones and distances in furlongs, it seems that the old measurements are not well known any more. So I've linked it, but if someone comes along and says "you don't link joules, it's SI" then back it goes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• "To prepare the atoll for Operation Crossroads, Bikini's native residents agreed to evacuate the island. Many were moved to the Rongerik Atoll.": I recommend something like: "In advance of Operation Crossroads, Bikini's native residents agreed to evacuate the island, many to the Rongerik Atoll."
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The Baker test resulted in the radioactive contamination of all the target ships.": Many style gurus prefer more verbs and fewer nouns, and some say there's a "buried verb" here, so: The Baker test contaminated all the target ships. ("radioactive" is repeated before and after.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The Joint Chiefs of Staff decided that because the Navy was contributing the most men and materiel, that it should be headed by a naval officer.": One "that" too many, and which noun does "it" refer to?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Controlled by the United States": Should start with a noun or noun phrase for parallelism.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll stop there. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Howabout "present" rather than "there"? Most of the starboard side is there
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Saratoga article has updated into on the diving activities at Bikini. Which you mention twice, here and later. Probably best to consolidate in one place.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Put Oertling in title case.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - what's the difference between "Controlled by the United States" and "In territory controlled by the United States" ? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Baker target array section, Ships Sunk table shows 9 ships. Ajoining diagram and text says 10. Do I take it that ship #36 in the diagram is Prinz Eugen?
  • You may. Added this to the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Induced radioactivity section (1st paragraph) says: "Other radioisotopes were produced from seawater: hydrogen-3 from hydrogen-2, carbon-14 from oxygen-17, and chlorine-36 from chlorine-35, but..."
  • Whoops! It should be oxygen-17 from oxygen-16. Aargh. 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Induced radioactivity section (2nd paragraph) " 0.4 pounds (0.18 kg) pounds "
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Bikini after Operation Crossroads section: end of Paragraph 3 and start of Paragraph 4 are very similar.
  • Trimmed and consolidated the two paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• I do not know how necessary this is, but some attention to notes perhaps? e.g. #43 and #44 are both "Weisgall 1994, pp. 263–265." and #95 is "^ a b Weisgall 1994, pp. 225." Is there a tool for this?
  • Yeah, there is. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hamish59 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Additional Comment - I have merged / tidied some more cites. Feel free to revert. 08:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

List of coastal defense ships of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another list of German warships - this one covers the coastal defense ships built by Germany in the 1880s-90s, and completes this topic (which means the list will go to FLC sooner or later). Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Add a hyphen to mid 1880s.
  • Done
• Tell the reader what position Bismarck held in the lede.
  • Done
• Perhaps "ran aground and scrapped" might be better for Hildebrand than just plain sunk.
  • Sounds fine to me
• Just a suggestion, you could consolidate common refs in the column header rather than each individual cell.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "after the end of the war and subsequently disposed": after the war and subsequently disposed of
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ending a sentence with a preposition? Do my eyes deceive me? How about "subsequently discarded"?Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: I had a read through this a couple of times and couldn't find much to fault except a typo that I fixed myself. Image licencing and references looked fine to me. Looks good to go in my opinion. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

William McAloney

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have substantially expanded it recently and believe it now meets the A-Class criteria. A career aero fitter and engineering officer in the Royal Australian Air Force, McAloney's primary claim to fame comes from a single action on 31 August 1937. During a training exercise, an aircraft crashed on take off and McAloney ran into the flaming wreckage in an effort to rescue the pilot. His efforts ultimately proved unsuccessful, but he was nonetheless awarded the Albert Medal for his actions. In 1971 he exchanged his Albert Medal for the George Cross. The article has just passed as GA, and I welcome any and all comments. Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Support -- just passed as GA, having reviewed coverage, referencing, structure, prose and supporting materials with an eye on A/FA standards as well, and hardly found the article wanting for those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As always, thanks very much for the review and tweaks Ian. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: not much that I could see wrong with this. I only have the one suggestion:

• Ref 26 could possibly be replaced with a dead tree source if you are keen. Horner & Bou 2008, p. 439 provides the following dates in relation to the son's tenure as CO 1 RAR: "14 Aug 1984 - 14 Dec 1986". The full details of the source are: {{cite book |last1=Horner |first1=David |last2=Bou |first2=Jean |year=2008 |title=Duty First: A History of the Royal Australian Regiment |edition=2nd |publisher=Allen & Unwin |location=Crows Nest, New South Wales |isbn=978-1-74175-374-5}}. Anyway, good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review (and typo fixes!), Rupert. :) I actually have a copy of that book, but never thought to check it for this. Will add the dead tree source in now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments A well written and informative article. The only issues that I noted was:

• "...the coroner publically commended..." Is it publically or publicly?
  • From my understanding, they are both acceptable alternate spellings of the same word. However, as "publicly" is the more common spelling I have changed it to that. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• "In 1971, owing to the decline in status and significance of the Albert Medal, the British Government announced that living recipients of the decoration would be invited to exchange their medals for the George Cross, and would henceforth formally become recipients of the latter award." The word "would" is repeated in close succession. I think you could delete the second usage and it would not affect the readability of the sentence.
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review, Zawed. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Have added my support now. Zawed (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

509th Composite Group

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Reedmalloy (talk)

A very famous military formation, one which is still active today. But this article is about it during World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments It's good to see this important article in excellent shape - are you planning on taking this to FAC? (I hope so).

• Yes, I intend to take it to FAC. It will be a co-nom with User:Reedmalloy, who wrote most of the article. I intended to send about a dozen Manhattan Project articles to FAC over the next year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd be honored.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have the following comments:

• The lead seems a bit short - I'd suggest fleshing this out so it provides a more comprehensive summary of the article
  • I've expanded it a bit Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Was there anything special about the original crews of the 393d Bombardment Squadron which remained with this group? (eg, were they merely the best 15 of the 21 trainee crews who happened to be assigned to this unit, or had they been hand picked from a larger pool before being whittled down further?)
  • I deleted this because it was not covered by the source. All I really know is that a B-29 squadron had 15 crews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The criteria for selecting the final 15 crews is not known to me, but this squadron was put together routinely for the 504th Group (unlike the movie version) and sent en masse to Wendover. The "pool" from which the final 15 were selected were the 21 crews originally assigned by the AAF for the 504th. Having said all this, I don't have any documentation to back it up yet.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • OK, that seems likely Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I found a source for the reduction in the number of crews, but it says 20 crews instead of 21. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• The "216th AAFBU" should be spelt out when it first appears
  • Used it full name every tine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Project W-47 (superseded by Project Alberta)" - what this involved should be briefly spelt out in the article
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd suggest swapping the order of the first two paras in the 'Overseas movement' section: the anecdotes about security need some lead-in
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Tibbets initially prepared the group to operate against targets in Germany or Japan - is this correct?, and if so can something be added to the article on it?
  • I cannot find it. Tibbets says that in September 1944 he expected to go to the Pacific, because this was where the B-29s were deployed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • To the best of my knowledge, after assignment to what became the 509th, the group trained solely for the atomic mission.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • OK, my memory must be faulty (and it makes sense given that in September 1944 the Allies thought that the war in Europe would be over within weeks). Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd suggest noting that the early combat missions over Japan were flown in small formations to convince the Japanese that such forces were not unusual and posed little threat, and so weren't worth trying to intercept. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Do we have a source for that? The only one I have is Coster-Mullins. I did add the bit about flying above the effective range of the flak. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've just added some material on this. Norman Polmar's short book The Enola Gay: The B-29 That Dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima is excellent if you can find a copy. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I have a copy here. Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - again, great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "Because was self-sustained": ?
  • Correct, but perhaps confusing to the non-military reader. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The 390th Air Service Group was created as the command echelon for the 603rd Air Engineering Squadron, the 1027th Air Material squadron, and its own Air Base Support Squadron, but as these units became independent operationally, acted as the basic support unit for the entire 509th Composite Group": "as" could have two or three different meanings here, and I'd prefer an "it" before "acted".
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "27 sorties": write out (or move) numerals at the start of sentences.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "the other ... had its bomb ... plunge through the closed bomb bay doors": I wouldn't say that my car had its muffler fall off; the car isn't the actor.
  • Re-worded. Can you imagine how some of these incidents might have played out with a live atomic bomb? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Four targets were designated": This and following (until the next bullet) aren't thematically or grammatically part of the list.
  • Tweaked to trim the military jargon, which should make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "the disassembled components of the first two atomic bombs were transshipped to Tinian": not what "transshipped" (transitive) means (but it's close), per M-W. That seems like a reasonable meaning to take hold some day, but it's easier to defend my work if I can point to something in the dictionaries.
  • Changed to "shipped". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "a nine washer-like rings": nine washer-like rings
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The first four were expended in test drops; the fifth test was the rehearsal on Iwo Jima; and L-11 provided the bomb shell for the Hiroshima bomb.": commas
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "2:45 a.m. 7.5 tonnes": insert a comma
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Special Mission 16 was moved up two days from 11 August because of adverse weather forecasts, with the added benefit of suggesting to the Japanese that the United States was not limited in its supply of bombs.": How does moving the date two days forward suggest that?
  • I think what was meant is that a bombing pause might have given the Japanese the impression that there was only one bomb. Removed this phrase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "using radar. However the Fat Man was dropped visually": "using radar; however, Fat Man was dropped visually", or "using radar, but Fat Man was dropped visually"
  • Move than one source has expressed suspicion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "However the pit for the third bomb was still at Site Y on 13 August when Groves ordered that all shipments of material be stopped. His order reached Los Alamos in time to keep the pit from being shipped." [Assuming you want to keep "however":] "However, Groves ordered that all shipments of material be stopped while the pit for the third bomb was still at Site Y on 13 August." (I think the readers will assume that this stopped the shipment unless you tell them otherwise.)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "After the announcement of the Japanese surrender, however": As you know, reviewers sometimes give "however" a hard time at FAC. I don't support a blanket condemnation of "however" ... but if you use it 4 times in a short span (including the footnote), then it necessarily loses the useful meaning of "pay special attention here, because this reverses what you'd assume from what I just said". That is, emphatic words lose their ability to draw special attention when they're overused.
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "140 sorties ... 60 flights": sentences beginning with numerals
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk)
• "Four of the eight were delivered in August as spares for the 509th, two others were sent to Wright Field in August for modifications, then detached to the 216th Base Unit in October as test aircraft, and the final two ...": nonparallel. "... modifications and detached ..."
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Barry Nelsonas" Barry Nelson as
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Image review and general comments

• :File:Agnew HiroshimaAircraft.jpg is a problem because Harold Andrews' status needs to be clarified. If he was an official photographer then the license is appropriate. If not, and I strongly suspect not, then the photograph needs a different license, which will likely preclude its use here.
  • Here's the situation as I understand it. Harold Agnew was a civilian working on the Manhattan Project as part of Project Alberta. He was technically employed under a government contract with the University of California. On Tinian, civilian Project Alberta personnel wore plain uniforms without rank badges. The camera was government owned, a special one for taking colour pictures of the operation for the Manhattan Project. It was used for taking shots of the Nagasaki raid. It seems that he took the photographs back with him. The one we have seems to have come from the Agnew collection by a roundabout route. Of course, we could just try asking him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If you know how to do so, then go ahead and do it. If he used a government camera and his duties included photography, then the license seems appropriate, but I'm sure that the question will come up again at FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • He took the movie footage on the Hiroshima mission. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Is this correct?: L-1, L-2, L-5 and L-6 were expended in test drops. L-6 was used in the Iwo Jima dress rehearsal What was used for the 31 July rehearsal?
  • L-6. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• If it took nine rings to make up the hollow cylinder, and four rings were delivered by C-54s then where did the other five rings come from?
  • Corrected. There were three C-54s, each with three rings. The other two were on the plutonium mission, which accounts for all five. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• The B-29s covered almost 400 miles within 45 minutes? I know the B-29 was fast, but that's nearly 600 mph! If that's what the source says, OK, but somebody needed to check their distance better.
  • Corrected. Re-checked the source and it says 90 minutes. Which makes it 300 mph. Which sounds plausible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed it does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this is a complete view of North Carolina's highest-ranking and most infamous officer in the American Revolutionary War. A surprisingly small amount of literature has been written about Major General Robert Howe, but I'm confident I've read through all major sources, and have plumbed the depths of secondary sources out there on his life. I appreciate all comments, and thank you for taking the time to look this over! Cdtew (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: I looked for inconsistencies in presentation:

• "promoted to the rank of Major General" --> "promoted to the rank of major general" per WP:MILTERMS;

• Done.

• "the rank of Brigadier General" --> "the rank of brigadier general" (as above);

• Done.

• in the text spaced emdashes are used, where WP:DASH asks for unspaced;

• I think I've fixed this...replaced spaced emdashes with spaced endashes

• per the above comment, in places you have also used a spaced endash for the same purpose. These should all be consistent: either all spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes.

• I think this is now consistent. Is there a tool I can use to fix this/check for this easier than by hand?"

• inconsistent date format: e.g. "Retrieved April 22, 2013" v. "Retrieved 2 May 2013";

• Fixed. Should all be MDY

• in the Bibliography: "In Samuel A'Court, Ashe" --> In "Ashe, Samuel A'Court": the first/last parameters in the template are reversed;

• Done.

• inconsistent presentation of states: e.g. "Madison, Wisconsin" v. "Raleigh, NC";

• Now consistent, I believe.

• the capitalisation of the titles in the Bibliography seems inconsistent. Sometimes title case is used, but then sometimes a mixture of title and sentence case is used;

• Fixed - should all be title case, except for Bellamy source -- same reason as Wright in James Moore (Continental Army officer).

• Clark (1906): is this a chapter in the work by Ashe? If so, is there a chapter title and are there page numbers for the chapter that could be added?

• Done.

• page numbers for the chapter by Lennon in Watson?

• Done.

• "Booklocker.com, Inc" --> "Booklocker.com"

• Done.

• page numbers for Rankin's chapter in Powell; same for Schaw in Andrews and Whitaker in Hamilton? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Added pages for Rankin, but not for Schaw. Schaw is a contemporary/primary source that was curated by those editors, with little actual commentary. In other words, the whole book is generally Schaw's, with Andrews/Whitaker doing the actual editing as well as some expository writing. Let me know if you still think it needs pages.

• No, your explanation makes sense. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments on this one, also, Rupert. My responses to your comments are in italics below each of yours. Let me know if there's anything else you think I need on this. Cdtew (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries, I hope it helps. I've just noticed that you have nominated this at FAC, as well as here. It might be best to withdraw this review so you don't have two open at once. Please let me know what you want to do. If you want to close it, I will ask one of the uninvolved Milhist co-ords to do the honours. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, no, you're confusing James Moore (Continental Army officer) - which is at FAC - with this article, which is a companion article in the same series. This review should go on, as its a different article. Thanks again for your help. Cdtew (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed you are right. Please accept my apologies. Not sure what I was thinking (possibly something to do with my review in the peer review for James Moore???) Anyway, I'll self administer an upper cut and have another read through this article today. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I did some copy editing: please check you are happy with my changes. I've also added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• They all look fine to me! It's amazing how much stuff I miss. I get some sort of blindness to my own work once I've written a large amount, and am almost physically unable to review it for typos. Guess I need to work on that. Thanks much for the review! Cdtew (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments, not a full review: - Dank (push to talk)

Thanks for the always-helpful comments! My responses are below yours in italics

• "prominent family": prominent family per WP:EGG

Done

• "Howe was one of only five generals from North Carolina to serve in the Continental Army and was the only one to obtain the rank of major general.": I have a slight preference for: Howe was one of only five generals and the only major general in the Continental Army from North Carolina.

Done, but modified to "Howe was one of only five generals and the only major general in the Continental Army from that state", since North Carolina is before the comma right before this statement.

• "commanding the Continental Army and Patriot militia forces to defeat in the First Battle of Savannah.": I haven't heard "commanding ... to defeat" before; maybe "commanding ... in their defeat" - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Changed per your suggestion. Didn't even think about the implications when I wrote it.

• "highlighted primarily by conflict with political and military leaders": "highlighted" is an approving word, but what follows doesn't sound like a strong point of his.

Hrm. I guess highlighted can be approving; done and changed to something more neutral.

• "Howe fought a duel with Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina which was caused in part by Howe's conflict with South Carolina's state government.": "Cause" is the wrong word here; having a disagreement with a politician doesn't force you to shoot at them. Please see WP:Checklist#because.

Done - consulting the checklist, I chose "spurred", which (having the definition "having given an incentive or encouragement to") seems to fit better.

• "These confrontations": Which confrontations? Similar duels, or something else?

Clarified by just changing to "Political and personal...", because it's supposed to refer to both his inability to get along with the state governments, as well as the duel.

• "him being stripped": "his being stripped" is a little more grammatical, but generally, avoid "his being" and "him being" in encyclopedic prose, there's usually a tighter, clearer way to say it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dank:Done - I think the best way may be "Continental Congress stripping him..." Cdtew (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Sure, that all sounds good. - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Continuing: "both legitimate and illegitimate children": Just "children" works. "illegitimate children" is out of fashion. (Garner's quotes some jurist saying that there are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.)

• Done? If I changed it to "fathered an unknown number of children in and out of wedlock" would that suffice?
  • If that information isn't repeated, sure. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "of "Howe's Point", a rice plantation near Barren Inlet, which is today located on the mainland directly across from Figure Eight Island.": Mason's Inlet is on the south side of Figure Eight, where is Barren Inlet? Also, "which" seems to modify "Inlet" here. If Barren Inlet no longer exists, then: "... a rice plantation then near Barren Inlet, but now on the mainland ..."

• This may be an issue of shifting tides and shifting names -- on Collet's map, Barren inlet is between Rich Inlet (present today) and Broad Inlet (?). So either Masonboro Inlet was known in 1770 as "Broad Inlet", and Mason's Inlet was known as "Barren inlet" (which Collet's map seems to suggest), or several inlets have closed/opened in the meantime. I will change it to make it clear the "which" refers to the plantation, and try to suss out the inlet naming issue.

• A-ha! As I suspected. Mason's Inlet is Barren Inlet. Now to find a more reliable source than this to prove it. I'm sure Powell's Gazetteer will have it in it. Cdtew (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done - found info confirming the above in Powell's Gazetteer. Cdtew (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "a currency shortage in the colony which led to many colonists having difficulty in repaying private debts": a currency shortage (You explain the connection to debt-repayment more precisely a couple of sentences later.)

• Done.

• I'm sorry, I don't think I'm going to have time to finish the whole thing ... I'm not familiar with the period, it would be tedious (for both of us!) for me to ask all the questions I have. Perhaps someone else will take it from here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I completely understand, and I thank you for your kind assistance. There's just not enough of us "stone age" military history enthusiasts on wikipedia. Perhaps I'll try targeting a few potential reviewers from the ARW Taskforce (if any are still active). Thank you so much for your kind and productive input! Cdtew (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Certainly, I'll keep doing what I can. - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Continuing. "he began to drill the local militia, using the unusual combination of drums and fiddles.": I don't know what that means.

• Done? As opposed to fifes and drums, which were used since the late 17th century to drill soldiers. Does that clarify?
  • I think it helps, yes. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Replace "' ... '" throughout with " ..."

• Done

• "Royal navy": Royal Navy - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done Cdtew (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't pay a lot of attention to image issues, but I'm wondering if the Gadsden image should be in the Gadsden subsection.

• Done - although I'm on my iPad, so I don't know how it looks on PC. Cdtew (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• "attacking Howe's intelligence, ability as a commander, and questioning Howe's legal authority": nonparallel (that is, it doesn't work when expanded: "attacking Howe's intelligence, attacking Howe's ability as a commander, and attacking Howe's questioning Howe's ...") One fix is to change "intelligence, ability" to "intelligence and ability".

• Done per your suggestion

• "an 18-stanza satirical poem": about the duel? - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done yep, about the duel.

• Possibly, you could omit the bit that starts "During his testimony before a later court martial" ... I think we can assume in every trial that the defendant may claim he wasn't responsible, and others may say that he was. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I could eliminate that, but I figure in most criminal trials, while a defendant is expected to deny the charges against him, most people are fascinated by the defendant's reasons for denying it (see: Twinkie defense and Murder of Travis Alexander#Trial. While this isn't nearly as outlandish or sexy, it still gives an inclination that even Howe is admitting he was slightly guilty of poor planning.

• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your support! I know your time is in short supply, and I owe you yet another one. Cdtew (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sure ... happy to help, it's good stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• What was it about his style of command that upset people?

• The sources don't really comment on this. There's an undercurrent that suggests most historians think he was a pompous, self-important ass, but a lot of that opinion stems from his detractors, so I'm not sure it's prudent to include. Other than that most sources tend to blame it on the typical conflict between southern states' governments antagonism with the Continental establishment. I'll see if I can find some more detail.

• @Sturmvogel 66: I've scoured the sources, and no source gives me any neutral, verifiable reasons. I think the article is fairly clear in that it describes a lot of concurrent conflicts without going into psychoanalysis. Bennett/Lennon (both North Carolina historians) blame the conflicts on vain local governments; Ranlet blames them on Howe's own vanity. I don't think either opinion is particularly accurate. Cdtew (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• co-conspirator to Benedict Arnold "with" not "to"

• Done

• Founding member became an original member of the North Carolina Society

• Done

• Is O'Kelley self-published? If so, what makes it reliable?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• O'Kelley is possibly self-published, I'm not certain. In this case, it was a remnant before I was able to obtain Bennett and Lennon. I had forgotten about it being self-published, so I'll go through and replace with Bennett/Lennon. It's actually a fairly accurate source, and contains pretty thorough sourcing, but still, rules is rules. Many thanks for your comments, let me know if you have more. Cdtew (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like a plan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done Cdtew (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments and support! Sorry for not catching that last typo. Editing from the ipad. Cdtew (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

William Hely

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

My first brand-new bio in a year, this chap has been on my list for a while, the catalyst for finally creating the article being my recent expansion of No. 84 Wing, of which he was inaugural commander. Like "Moth" Eaton, he first made a name for himself locating lost travellers in the Australian desert. His subsequent career largely paralleled those of his ex-Duntroon stablemates such as Fred Scherger, Val Hancock, Alister Murdoch, Ian McLachlan and Wally Walters. It was unusual however in that Hely never held squadron or base command, and remained in one post, Air Member for Personnel, for a whopping six years. I plan on taking to FAC assuming a successful outcome here, so have at it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• "The third child of Prosper Frederick Hely, a storekeeper, and his wife Alice (née Lloyd), William Lloyd (Bill) Hely was born on 24 August 1909 at Wellington, New South Wales." I'd advise starting this first paragraph the other way around: "William Lloyd... was born... the third child..." or something like that.
  • I think I did it my way to avoid the semblance of effectively using the Australian Dictionary of Biography article's phrasing, maybe that's carrying things too far, I don't know... ;-)

• I guess it felt odd, having the subject's name so far in. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• "In addition to the four graduates the Air Force had enrolled in 1927, budgetary constraints imposed during the Great Depression necessitated the transfer from Duntroon of eight other RAAF-sponsored cadets midway through their four-year course, including Alister Murdoch, Bill Garing and Douglas Candy." This felt a bit cryptic - did this mean that Hely was transferred Duntroon? If so, to where?
  • If I made it "transfer from Duntroon to Point Cook of"?

• That's clearer - but am I right in thinking that Hely was transferred? If so, could we say "As a result of budgetary constraints imposed during the Great Depression, Hely was transferred from Duntroon to Point Cook in xxxx midway through his four-year course, along with..."? It would be clearer still, I think.

• No, Hely went to RAAF anyway, per the previous sentence, "He graduated as a lieutenant on 9 December 1930, and the following day enlisted in the RAAF". It was these eight other cadets midway through their course who transferred early. I thought it was worth including this because a few of them figure later in Hely's story, and they're all pictured with him in the accompanying image... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• ""Grave fears" had been held for their safety" - unclear from context who the quote is from.
  • Fair point since there are two sources! "According to the Argus..." or "The Argus reported that..."?

• Sounds good to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Fenton was subsequently quoted as saying "I have only the highest praise for the efficient manner in which Hely conducted a difficult search and the skilful way in which he located me and picked me up"." - Would "later" work better than "subsequently"?
  • I thought the latter as it can imply cause and effect as well as simply "afterwards".
• "In October, he joined the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, Air Vice Marshal Bill Bostock, as a delegate to a defence conference in Singapore, where the Australian contingent found the local forces ill-prepared for an attack by the Japanese, and recommended significant increases in air capability, both in Australia and the Pacific Islands, to meet the threat." - Was it Hely who recommended the increases, or the Australian contingent? It's unclear from the wording.
  • If I dropped the comma after "the Japanese", would that make it clearer we mean the contingent as a whole?

• Definitely. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• "(subsequently renamed No. 10 Local Air Supply Unit )" - spare space at the end there
  • Tks!
• " after almost forty years in the military" - would the MOS have this as "40 years"? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I tend to spell out short word-numbers and from prior experience I think it's okay, but I don't have a strong feeling about it. Many tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Minor comments - excellent article as always. Just a couple of rather minor comments:

• "His early postings as a pilot in 1932–33" and next sentence "he served at Point Cook from 1933 to 1936" - inconsistent presentation, and I have been informed that "to" is the preferred method in such year ranges.
  • I tend to prefer dashes when it's successive years (e.g. 1932–33) and "from/to" when it's longer (e.g. from 1933 to 1936) but I don't feel strongly about it... ;-)
• "The official mourning party included... Vice Admiral Sir Victor Smith" - Smith was Chief of Naval Staff at the time of Hely's funeral, so for the purposes of consistency you might want to mention that too.
  • Yes, figured he was, it just wasn't mentioned in the report and I felt the sentence was long enough...
    • I don't see any harm in adding it in, particularly given all of the other chiefs are mentioned. Not a major issue, however, so up to you. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk)
• Regarding the succession boxes, is it known who preceded Hely as Air Member for Personnel? If not, that box can probably be removed.
  • Great minds, I didn't add that and when I saw it my reaction was similar to yours (see my edit summary for further explanation).
    • I figured you didn't, and just thought I'd add my 2 cents in... ;) Though I see two more succession boxes have returned. Up to you, of course, whether or not to keep them in, but if you do I'd recommend adding the appropriate ranks in for consistency. Abraham, B.S. (talk)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Tks for revew, Brice! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Changed to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

List of sunken battlecruisers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think I've cited just about everything that didn't move fast enough to avoid me. I would like reviewers to especially consider the structure and organization of the tables; should they be combined into one or two larger tables and how important is it that some were converted into other ship types? The introductory text can handle that if need be, IMO, but other opinions would be useful. I would also like to see how clear this is for non-ship types as specialists often have blind spots. I know that the FLC people have a requirement for ALT text; I'll be adding that as I get time, so that's not an issue right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comment - so, how many battlecruisers have been sunk, in total? That may be a good thing to include in the first sentence, along with just what battlecruisers are. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Damn good question, but the answer depends if you count ships that started as BCs or ships sunk in their original configuration. As for your second point, I agree that a definition should be added, if for nothing else to explain why the Dunkerques and Scharnhorsts haven't been included. Which, of course, is part of the debate that's slowed completion of the main BC article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That might make for a nice footnote, don't you think? ;-) Also, for DYK you could go with "... that after the Battle of the Coral Sea, Lexington was torpedoed by her own forces?" Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
      • That was my initial thought, yes. Thanks for the DYK suggestion, but Lutzow and Akagi were also scuttled by torpedoes. Maybe something like the greatest single loss of battlecruisers was the ecuttling of 5 German BCs at Scapa Flow. Or the greatest number of BCs lost in a single battle was 4 as a consequence of the Battle of Jutland...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
      • What do you think of the organization of the tables?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Well you could use all of them, or just go with "... that Lutzow, Akagi, and Lexington were all sunk by their own forces?" Something that seems commonplace to us isn't so common to those unfamiliar with maritime history (i.e. 99% of the world!)
        • Only comment I have on the tables is are there no relics of the converted battlecruisers? It seems odd to have relics for everything but that table. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It does, doesn't it? I have no answer, but that there honestly don't seem to be any that I could find. Sara and Lex dismounted their old 8-inch guns before Coral Sea, but they've been scrapped since and I suspect that much the same happened to any guns dismounted from the other ships. I can't even find mention of anything stripped from Sara before she became a target at Bikini.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Added the note about Scharnhorsts, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, looks good to me then. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "Further damaged, her captain": misplaced modifier
• "rudding": rudder?
• "in chronological order by date sunk": in chronological order of sinking
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Dank, all fixes made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Questions Thank you for clearing these points up, Sturmvogel 66. Hamish59 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• The text forms one large lead section. Would this be better broken down into a lead that explains the article (a one or two paragrph intro?), then the rest of it in a separate section?
  • Excellent idea. How does it read now?
• Paragraph 1 "The next losses were a quarter century later...". Should that be "The next combat losses..." as parargraph 2 jumps back to 1919?
  • Yes.
• Paragraph 3 talks about two of three Courageous class - should there be a foot note / mention of the 3rd (for completeness)? Or would that be digressing? Just a question, not important.
  • I think not because she survived the war.
• Paragraph 3 "...convert two of its Lexington classs during..." Too many "S" in "classs"? Or is it just me? What is the plural of "class"? Perhaps "...convert two of its Lexington class ships during..."?
  • Yes.
• Paragraph 3/4 - should Saratoga be in a different paragraph to Lexington?
  • Best to combine the two paragraphs, I think.
• Paragraph 5 - "...Kirishima was forced to cast off her tow because of repeated aerial attacks. Her captain ordered her crew to abandon ship ..." does not seem to scan right. Sounds like Kirishima's captain ordered his own crew to abandon ship. I know that reading the rest of the sentence clarifies this, but it made me pause on first reading. Perhaps "Hiei's captain ordered her crew to abandon ship after further damage and scuttled her in the early evening of 14 November." or some such.
  • Good catch, done.
• "Sunk in combat" table combines the "date sunk" entries for the 3 British ships lost at Jutland (and the "location" for SMS Lützow), but you do not use the same technique in the "Scuttled battlecruisers" table for the 5 German ships at Scapa Flow. Inconsistent?
  • Actually I should probably revert that as it's a sortable list and colspan negates that.
• Why "Scuttled battlecruisers", BTW? As this article is about battlecruisers, is this tautological, perhaps? Hmm. "Converted battlecruisers" cannot really be cut down to "Converted" so perhaps best left alone.
  • I couldn't come up with a good term either.
• Question: is there any particular order for the German ships scuttled at Scapa Flow? Just idle curiosity...
  • Nope, sortable list.
• Note 1, last sentence threw me: the "did/do not" bit. Perhaps "did not/do not".
  • Agreed, I think that that is clearer. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

Probably the most high visibility of my recent milhist projects, I wonder what would it take to get this to A-class. Just please, if you want to comment on prose, please be specific, I am not a native speaker and there are some prose issues I cannot do unless they are clearly explained). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: I've made a few changes today, please check that you are happy with them. I have a couple of comments below, and will try to take more of a look at the article a bit later:

• is there a reference for this: "Having all but cut off the last means of escape, Gates accepted General Burgoyne's surrender of his entire force at Saratoga on October 16, 1777."?
• watch for overlink: I removed some, but there are more examples. I find that this script helps: User:Ucucha/duplinks. The rule of thumb at A- class these days seems to be once in the lead, once in the infobox and once in the body of the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Added a ref. Duplinks script stopped working for me few months back, I asked the creator why, I agree it is useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've removed some, but there are still quite a few left. Continuing my review below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• the lead mentions a sum of $20,000 but this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body;
• in the Tributes and commemoration section, I suggest combining some of the short/single sentence paragraphs;
• if possible, can the titles that are not in English be translated, for instance "Костюшко Тадеуш Андрей Бонавентура – 100 ВЕЛИКИХ АРИСТОКРАТОВ – всемирная история" (Reference 16);
• in Reference 28: "Holger Afflerbach; Hew Strachan (26 July 2012). How Fighting Ends: A History of Surrender. Oxford University Press. pp. 177–179. ISBN 978-0-19-969362-7. Retrieved 18 May 2013." Is this a book, or a website? If a book, then it should probably use the same citation style as the others (e.g. Reference 27);
• in Reference 37: " Dave R. Palmer" Fortress West Point: 19th Century Concept in an 18th Century War." Military Engineer 68 (1976):171–74". This should probably just be converted to a short citation like the others and the full details added to the Bibliography;
• in Reference 66: "Tomasz Otrębski (1994). "Kościuszko," 1893–1896. Wydawn. "Partner". p. 39. ISBN 978-83-900984-0-1. Retrieved May 9, 2013." Is this a book, or a website? If a book, then it should probably use the same citation style as the others (e.g. Reference 65);
• in Reference 89: "Jonas Zdanys, ed. (1986). "THE UNUSUAL STORY OF THADDEUS KOSCIUSKO", the capital letters should probably be changed to title case. Additionally is this a book or journal? If so, it should probably use the same style as other similar refs;
• in the Bibliography, there seems to be an inconsistent approach to including urls. For instance, compare Colimore to Davies. One is embedded in the title and the other is embedded in a link called "Url". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll take care of those shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Replies:
    • I can't fix the Belarusian ref as I don't read Cyrillic
      • Well I do; it hadn't occurred to me that anyone else would have a problem with it. "Костюшко Тадеуш Андрей Бонавентура – 100 ВЕЛИКИХ АРИСТОКРАТОВ – всемирная история" is "Kościuszko, Tadeusz Andrzej Bonawentura - 100 GREAT ARISTOCRATS - world history" Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks, added info to the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I might add here that there is no requirement to translate the titles of foreign language sources, and as a rule they should not be because it will maker them harder to look up. However, you should, in line with the other sources, get rid odf the capitals - "Костюшко Тадеуш Андрей Бонавентура – 100 Великих Аристократов – всемирная история" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Another editor has converted refs into a new style I don't understand; I'll ask them to update the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I made a couple of tweaks today. There are still inconsistencies in the citation style, but its not enough to hold up this ACR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

• "his enlightenment ideals of inalienable rights and the American Revolution": not sure what you're saying; the war wasn't an ideal. Am I parsing this right?
• "However, his exact birth date is not known": it's not an issue at A-class, but if this is headed to FAC, drop the "however".
• "After the Polish–Russian War of 1792 resulted in the Second Partition of Poland, Kościuszko organized an uprising against the Russians two years later": Two years after the Polish–Russian War of 1792 resulted in the Second Partition of Poland, Kościuszko organized an uprising against the Russians
• "to Europe to his heirs": to his heirs in Europe
• " a 15th–16th–century courtier of the Polish King Sigismund I the Old (reigned 1506–1548)": I'm not following ... if the King only reigned in the 16th century, then Kościuszko wasn't a courtier in the 15th century (of this king).
• "which at the time meant a Polish-speaking inhabitant, whatever their ethnicity may have been, of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, however now would be interpreted by modern Belarusian sources": "which at the time meant a Polish-speaking inhabitant of any ethnicity in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but is interpreted by modern Belarusian sources". I'm not the expert here, but this feels like the wrong approach ... either you believe, after reading the relevant secondary sources, that these Belarusian sources are wrong, and there's no significant debate about this (in which case, you can omit what the Belarusian sources say), or you believe there is a significant debate ... in which case, don't put "which at the time meant ..." in your voice, attribute it to the proper sources (you might just say "Polish sources" if virtually all the Polish sources say that), and attribute the Belarusian position to those sources. If you decide to cover this debate in any depth, put it in a footnote. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed other than the last issue raised. I don't read Belarusian, and this was added by Belarusian editors; I don't feel comfortable removing this, through I'd invite you to raise this concern on talk of the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this one at GA, and I feel its pretty good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:Support: Cdtew (talk)

• "Modern Belarusian sources, however, interpret his Ruthenian or Lithuanian heritage as Belarusian" - This seems like awkward phrasing in English; it may be better as "Some (or is it all?) modern Belarusian sources hold that Kościuszko was actually Belarusian" or something of the like. Does that effect the same meaning as what you're aiming for? Note: I realize this is what Dank had some comments about also, just adding my 2 cents/concerns.
  • I am not sure how to rephrase the sentence with "hold", and as I cannot read the Belarusian sources, I don't want to try to change the meaning. :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• "whatever their ethnicity may have been" - this sounds too casual; perhaps "regardless of ethnicity"?
• I wikilinked Voivode; feel free to revert if you disagree.
• "appealed to the French revolutionary and arms dealer Pierre Beaumarchais" - This foreshadows too much; in 1776 Beaumarchais wasn't yet a revolutionary -- a malcontent and future revolutionary, perhaps. This needs a little rewording.
  • Done.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Soon afterward he prepared a plan for fortifying Philadelphia, a task on which he would spend the coming winter." - At whose request did he prepare the plans, and were they implemented (other than Fort Billingsport)? I've honestly forgotten this tidbit, and if you can't find a source in English, I may be able to dig one up in my library.
  • Removed that sentence, I couldn't find sufficient details in the source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean for you to remove it entirely; I just wanted to know if you had any more information. I returned home and couldn't track down any more details. Cdtew (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Burgoyne did exactly what Kościuszko would have done and had his engineers place artillery on the hill" -- Who's to say if Kosciuszko would have done that (I mean, we can be almost sure he would have, but it's still speculative language). I think it would be better-phrased to indicate this is something Kosciuszko warned about.
  • Agreed, done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The dwindling British army was dealt a sound defeat, the combination turning the tide of the campaign to an American advantage." - this sounds too universal, when in reality you're just talking about things in the Saratoga campaign. Perhaps limit your language to that.
• I modified your phrasing re: the Race to the Dan; Cornwallis' troops weren't exactly exhausted; if they were, Greene's army and affiliated militia were even more so: after several near-escapes (Battle of Cowan's Ford and several sound defeats (See: Battle of Torrence's Tavern), Greene's troops barely eked out a close loss at Guilford Courthouse. Also, Jan-Feb in North Carolina isn't particularly "wintery" and so "the dead of winter" sort of conveys imagery of mounds of snow and freezing temperatures, whereas the temperatures at that time would have been moderate by other "winter" standards. If you disagree with these changes, I'd be happy to help come up with a better solution.
• I've made some other changes to the text, particularly in the American Revolution section; feel free to revert/discuss if any of them are off-base.
• "His situation was not helped by the fact that promised money from the American government—late payment for his seven-year services—never materialized." - you may want to clarify what this means, as the previous section notes he received a "Certificate" for his pay at 6% interest. In other words, see if one of your sources describes the fact that the US government never made good on its bond obligation to him.
  • I've double checked and both claims seem correct, although the original text is not perfectly clear. I am assuming that the certificate - the promise to pay - was never realized. I've added a clarification that the second ref refers to the interest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Kościuszko considered a plan of kidnapping the King, but it was rejected by Poniatowski." - this is out of my league, but you're saying that Kosciuszko presented a plan to the king to kidnap that same king, and the king rejected it? This sounds a little funny. Kidnapping in the English language usually indicates a crime, and by definition is against the will of the person being kidnapped. Perhaps you meant something more along the lines of "abduct", "seize", or something else? Or perhaps its a different person who rejected his plan to kidnap the king?
  • Abduct would be fine; and this Poniatowski was the Prince, not the King. Clarified. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• "against the three practitioners" - do you mean "partitioners" here?
  • Of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• I feel like the "Kościuszko Uprising" section needs to be broken up -- even on my wide-wide-wide screen monitor it looks dense, so I know it looks dense on an iPad or laptop.
  • It should've been, somebody ate a break line. Restored. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• "last will dedicating some of his resources to the buyout of the slaves" - did this include black slaves he owned. The "the slaves" phrasing is awkward. If its his own slaves, say "his slaves"; if its others' slaves, say "the buyout of slaves belonging to others"; if it's a mixture between the two, say so.
  • He never owned any slaves; I am not sure if saying "belonging to others" helps, as this could imply he had some of his own he didn't want to free. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• These two paragraphs - "Kościuszko's bequest to Jefferson remained legally blocked by his relatives until 1852 when the U.S. Supreme Court finally awarded it to his relatives in Europe, thus frustrating Kosciusko's original intent. In the course of the lengthy litigation most of Kościuszko's funds were embezzled by one of the administrators. [11]" and "In 1852 the Supreme Court awarded the estate, by then worth $50,000, to Kościuszko's heirs in Poland.[6] It ruled that Kościuszko had died intestate, although he had made four wills.[95] During the legal proceedings between the date of his death and the Supreme Court decision, the value of his estate decreased substantially; this was attributed by a case attorney to Colonel George Bomford's use of the estate for his own purposes.[96] None of the monies that Kościuszko had earmarked for the manumission and education of African Americans in the United States was ever used for that purpose" - need to be joined together. They repeat the same information, but have different citations. I'll leave that task up to you.
  • Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Image check:

• The image "Thomas Jefferson by Tadeusz Kościuszko.PNG" needs an appropriate PD-Art tag; see the red warning on that image page
• The image "Tadeusz Kościuszko 1.PNG" -- the black-and-white bust engraving of Kosciuszko -- needs a PD-Art tag fix also
• Otherwise, the images all appear to check out for copyright purposes and are properly tagged
• Virtually all of the images are missing alt text, which per ALT should be on all images for readers with visual impairments; this isn't a requirement for FAC or (I don't believe) MILHIST ACR, but we don't want to slight those with vision impairments, do we?

• • All done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article is very comprehensive, very well-written (especially for someone with English as a second language), and I am happy to support once the above are remedied or addressed. Cdtew (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to address the above this weekend. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I now support. Thanks for your hard work! Cdtew (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (R)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

This article follows the same layout of all the other lists of this series. I believe it is of the same quality. Please let me know how you feel about this. Thanks for the effort. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - an excellent list that I believe meets the A-Class criteria, being well written, constructed and referenced. I do have two minor comments:

• "The book was chosen by Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler" - professor supersedes doctor, in which case I think the "Dr." is redundant and can be removed. Also, I think it would be best it professor is written in full.
• Under "Recipients": "Knight's Cross lists for the Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy), Luftwaffe (Air force) and Waffen-SS" - since it is linked and specified not too far about that these three are the Army, Navy and Air Force, I think you could do away with the bracketed mentions here.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - up to the standard of previous RK lists submitted by MB and passed. I have reviewed four of MB's RK lists at ACR and this one includes all the improvements suggested during those reviews. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Minefields in Croatia

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently went through a GA review and I trust it generally meets the A-class criteria. Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: I did a bit of copy editing: [150]. Please check that you are happy with my changes. I believe that the article is now good enough for A-class, although I would suggest further copy editing before taking to FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, copyedits and the suggestion for further ce. I have posted a request for help in that respect with WP:GOCE in mid-April, but I'll take a further look myself as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "Minefields in Croatia": Don't link bolded words in general, but particularly not in the lead, per WP:BOLDTITLE. You and I know that the garish blue is just an artifact/artefact of bolding and linking, but for the typical reader, it looks like we're singling out one word in the lead as being particularly important for some reason.
• "They were laid to strengthen defensive positions that lacked sufficient weapons or manpower. Despite this, the minefields played a very limited role in the fighting.": They were intended to strengthen defensive positions that lacked sufficient weapons or manpower, but played a very limited role in the fighting.
• "Euros": There's an argument for capitalization, but a better argument against.
• "relying heavily on them until early 1992 in order to stop advances": relying heavily on them to stop advances ... until early 1992
• "frontline": front line (frontline is the adjective)
• "casualties of land mines": casualties from land mines - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking a look at the article. I fixed all of the above as suggested, extending the capitalization (or lack thereof) to kuna as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Continuing. "in the Operations Flash and Storm", "during the Operations ...": in Operations, during Operations (and style guides tend to recommend lowercasing "operations", but it's not a big deal)
• "given the latter offensive": this refers to "comparably light" I think, but it's not close enough to what it refers to
  • I tried to fix this. Please have another look at the passage.
• "post war": postwar or post-wa
• "The theft of the minefield signage has proved a significant problem, and has been particularly marked ...": Use "pronounced" instead of "marked", which could be confused with of being marked by the signs. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I think all the issues are fixed now, but could you please have another look the one marked above by a comment.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• "considered that the posters appeared threatening, and were a potential source ...": This meaning of "consider" isn't in the dictionaries. "believed" might work, but I recommend: "considered the posters a potential source ..."
• "suspected of containing mines": suspected to contain mines (A person is "suspected of" bad behavior.)
• "locally-designed" no hyphen per WP:HYPHEN and per most style guides
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• All of the above implemented. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• support. Seems comprehensive and well written. I'd suggest creating a bar chart showing how the estimated number of mines changed through time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That would prove quite problematic because the number is merely estimated. Besides that, I could find reliable sources for the initial and the present figures only.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Helmuth Raithel

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently undergone GA review and I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class. Raithel earned the coveted Nazi Party Blood Order as a teenager despite not being a member of the Nazi Party. He was briefly the commander of a Waffen-SS mountain division in the Balkans, and commanded two Waffen-SS mountain regiments. Severely wounded twice, he was unsuccessfully recommended for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments I haven't done a detailed review of the prose at this stage, just have the following comments to make initially:

• The lead is quite large given size of article. There is a lot of detail, some of which only has one sentence in the main body of the article or is a direct repetition of content (e.g. the personal life section), that could be culled out.
  • Done.
• Some paragraphs could be broken into two for ease of reading; in particular the Early life, Yugoslavia and Germany sections.
  • Done.
• Do we know what he was awarded the Iron Cross and German Cross for? (I'm guessing not but just checking)
  • No details available in any of the books I've been able to get access to.
• In 1943, his mentor Schörner (now a General der Gebirgstruppe (lieutenant general))...: there was a bracket missing in this sentence which I added, but looking at it again, I think the first pair of brackets are better off as commas. Avoids the double bracket. Also, until now, there has been no indication that Schorner even knew Raithel. Could this be expanded a bit to give some context to the "Mentor" relationship?
  • I have addressed both aspects of this comment.
• Raithel received the following awards during his service: Should the Blood Order be listed here? He wasn't in the military at the time.
  • Good point, have removed it.
• Why does the German Cross have the extra detail in the Awards section? Looks out of place relative to the other awards.
  • Have removed it for consistency.
• Images: The tags/fair use rationales appear appropriate to me.
• No duplicate links.
• No citation errors noted.

That's all for now, I will have a closer look at the prose later but on this first pass I don't see many issues that won't be fixed by a few commas in the right place :) Zawed (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• All done so far. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Have done my second pass (finally) and made a few of what I think are minor tweaks. Added my provisional support for now but reserve the right to go over the prose again if it gets expanded in light of comments below. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. We'll see what turns up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment

A high Waffen-SS leader, commanding an ethnic Waffen-SS Division in anti-Partisan-operations in Yugoslavia and there is not a single hint about atrocities and war crimes under his command and in his area of command. The same about the mutiny he suppressed in the Kama-Division. What happened during this mutiny? How was it suppressed? Another thing is, when was he released from American custody? How went his denazification? Were there any investigations against him? Did Yugoslavia tried to get him for their own war crimes trials? This are things that have to be included in good and A-Class articles about Waffen-SS personnel and if there werent any war crimes in his area of command thats even more noteworthy. --Bomzibar (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day Bomzibar. Despite his brief command of a division undergoing formation, he was not a general (in fact he was a colonel), and a description of him as a "high Waffen-SS leader" is at the very least arguable given his rank. During my research regarding this fellow I have conducted an exhaustive search of online and library sources in English. I am unaware of any material about atrocities or war crimes specifically ordered by Raithel or committed by troops under Raithel's command between March and June 1944 while he was with the 13th SS Division. Equally, I have not seen any source that states he or his troops were involved in any such crimes while he was with the 6th SS Division or the 6th Mountain Division. If you are aware of such material I would be glad to add it to the article. However, there are sources that state that the 13th SS Division as a whole had a reputation for brutality and savagery, and did commit atrocities against Serb civilians in the divisional security zone. I have added what the sources say at the appropriate point in the body. The sources available in English do not mention how the mutiny was suppressed (the source actually says Raithel "managed to gain quick control of the situation", so I have modified the language regarding the mutiny to more closely abide by the source), why or when he was released by the Americans, or what denazification or investigations he underwent (if any). There are any number of possible reasons for this, including that his circumstances were unremarkable (given he was only a colonel). I daresay it is unlikely that a source would exist that categorically states that Raithel (or troops under his command) did not commit any war crimes or did not undergo investigation etc, but it would be WP:OR to state that they did or even opine that they might have without sources to back it up, so I have not done so. I am not aware of any sources in any language that deal with the matters you have raised. He was not extradited to Yugoslavia, and the source I have on the extradition of members of the 13th SS to Yugoslavia does not mention him at all in that respect. Only members of the 13th SS Division that were captured by the British were extradited (a total of 38). Thanks for your comment, I hope I have addressed it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, that was my fault with the high leader, maybe because the equivalent of a colonel alone is not seen as notable in de:Wiki. I will take a look into the german version of Germany and the Second World War in my library next week if he is mentioned in any of the books. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

His military notability might be questionable on en:Wiki if he hadn't been awarded the Blood Order or commanded a division (however briefly). Although I think he would probably meet WP:GNG regardless given he has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including Yerger, Rusiecki and Lepre. I have searched available online versions of Germany in the Second World War for references to him, and came up blank, so anything you can find would be appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I found a few books in German language that have some content about Raithel. As they are not available in my library I asked another user if he can scan the appropriate pages at the Bavarian State Library. The books are:

• Hans Werner Neulen (1985): An deutscher Seite. Internationale Freiwillige von Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS.
• Roland Kaltenegger (1994): Schörner. Feldmarschall der letzten Stunde.
• Roland kaltenegger (2008): Totenkopf & Edelweiß. General Artur Phleps und die südosteuropäischen Gebirgsverbände der Waffen-SS im Partisanenkampf auf dem Balkan 1942-1945.

All this books used the version Hellmuth for his first name instead of Helmuth but it is out of question that it is the same person. Sadly the right version of his name can only be found out by original research. Furthermore while searching for books on Raithel I found a french book about the Bosnian Waffen-SS divisions.

• Amandine Rochas (2007): La Handschar: Histoire d'une division de Waffen-SS bosniaque.

Hopefully this shows you that my votes on your articles are not because of its you or I have a pesonal issue with the Waffen-SS but that Im just a German which naturally are more sceptical about SS-topics. ;) --Bomzibar (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Interested in anything you can provide to add to the article. I am also pretty much convinced he is the "Hellmut Raithel" mentioned in the Mount Russell (Alaska) article (as a member of the Deutscher Alpenverein but have not been able to confirm it with a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, there is nothing new in Kaltenegger's Totenkopf & Edelweiß. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "a 2,100 metres ... mountain": adj=on
• "SS-Führungshauptamt, Oberkommando des Heeres, kampfgruppe, Maibaum": translations missing. (Btw, use "Maypole", not "May tree", for Maibaum).
• "was appointed to command the 11th Gebirgsjäger Regiment Reinhard Heydrich": This sounds like he was appointed to command some guy named Reinhard.
• "He was married ...": I think reviewers will ask you (at some point) to insert this in chronological order.
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• All done, thanks for the review Dan. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support: Cdtew (talk)

• Was he never a member of the party, even during the Hitler regime? How did he escape the qualification of being a party member in order to receive the Blood Order? If it was clerical error, does any source state that explicitly? Just a few questions that raises, the answers to which aren't clear.
  • How he got the Blood Order when he was not a NSDAP member isn't clear, but Yerger (which appears to be drawn from his SS file) states he didn't have a NSDAP number, so he was not a Party member according to the sources. There were quite a few senior Waffen-SS officers that were not NSDAP members. Seems hard to credit, but there you go.
• "although he did not have any political beliefs at the time" - This is fairly hard to document, isn't it? I mean, I figure this would be better stated as "he did not have any stated political beliefs..." or "he claimed not to have any political beliefs..." (if it is based on his own statements).
  • Rusiecki's footnote goes to a series of sources, including his SS file and a conversation with one of Raithel's former colleagues. I've added "apparently"
• I'm surprised no one caught that that whole paragraph ending in "..was not a member of the Party." doesn't have citation anywhere at the end. I presume this was split off from the following para, so I suppose there's a claim that the cites in para 2 cover it as well; I know I prefer to follow a one cite per paragraph rule, but obviously that isn't required by WP:CITE (as interpreted by WP:MINREF). Since your next cite is a double ref to Rusiecki and Yerger, I think this first paragraph (and possibly in the sentences before the dual-cited sentence) require citations for clarity.
  • Have tightened the citations to the sources, you're right, the para was split off, but it needed closer adhesion to the sources.
• "Raithel led his regiment bravely" - This raises a slight flag for NPOV issues; is there a better way to say this, like "led his regiment with distinction" or "didn't avoid front-line combat"?
  • I changed it to "well", that'll do.
• "for his leadership and courage" - another one; could it be better-stated as "with the recommendation citing his leadership and courage"? I suppose this could be an NPOV statement provided your neutral sources state he did things that were objectively courageous.
  • have modified it, let me know what you think?
• Footnote issues

• Fn 9: The source states that an earlier mutiny by Muslim soldiers in the 13th resulted in the execution of ringleaders; for some reason, Williamson pp 130-131 are hidden behind a G-wall for me, and so I can't see whether the same was true for the 23rd Kama. Do you have this source in hand, and can you confirm if it discusses the mutiny?

• It's Lepre p.266, and he doesn't say what was done to gain control. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant was to check in Williamson and see if it discusses it - Williamson p. 129 starts to talk about the mutiny, but Google Books fortuitously won't let me read 130-31. Cdtew (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fn14 matches the material in the article -- but it raises some concerns for me about Rusiecki. The author uses sometimes praising language to describe Raithel and his men; generally light admiration in a historical work can be expected, but given the sensitive nature of the subject matter, I think that should lead to using even more caution with this source (and dealing with the subtler NPOV issues I mentioned above).

• Granted, and I have tweaked the language for the other points, but he is quoting an American commanding officer called Sparks, it is not Rusiecki's opinion. Nevertheless, I've added "ruefully", as it is clear from Rusiecki that the American felt it had cost them.

Otherwise, it looks like it's a perfectly fine A-class candidate, just needs a few things corrected or checked for A1/A2 issues. Cdtew (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• All done, thanks for the review. Let me know if you think any further tweaks are needed? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good job all around, everything looks fine to me, and I'm happy to Support. Cdtew (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk)

Although Nick and I have a long history of editing and reviewing each other's articles, this is the first time we've actively collaborated. The idea developed quite spontaneously as I was expanding No. 86 Wing (long-time operator of the C-130) and Nick was working on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service, which I reviewed at GAN. It occurred to us that a) there was an article on the C-130s' service crying out to be written and b) we were just the blokes to write it, the subject and format being fresh in our minds! Anyway, this is the story of the RAAF's greatest workhorse, with a 50-year-plus history through four different models -- enjoy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks, but not much stood out for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks good, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "as of March 2013 the Australian aircraft were using version 6.1 of the software, and the RAAF was participating in the development of version 7.0": Unless the software is famous for some reason, we probably don't need to know the version number.
  • Fair point: I've just made this less specific. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, except that I may have missed some things in the extensive green diffs (see the changes made since I reviewed this for GAN ... I had to click on the triangle symbol at the bottom to get the "improved diffs"). These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Support with minor points:

• "The RAAF's first strategic airlifter, the Hercules have frequently been used to deliver disaster relief in Australia and the Pacific region, as well as to support military deployments overseas. " - I'm not sure it should be changing from singular to plural in the sentence.
  • I agree, well spotted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• In the article there are various numbers expressed words which I think the MOS would have as digits (24 etc.)
  • Will review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Done that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The Hercules represented a quantum leap over the C-47 in payload, range, speed and manoeuvrability" - quantum leap felt unencylopaedic to me.
  • It may be somewhat colloquial but elsewhere the source uses the term "quantum advance" to describe a similar leap forward in fighter technology... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• How about "represented a significant improvement over the C-47 in terms of payload..."? That would the capture the meaning of the phrase, but avoid the colloquialism and the problem of the phrase implying time as well as absolute improvement. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, considered "significant improvement" but don't think that captures the advance as expressed in the source, which describes it as jumping three generations of capability in one bound -- don't want to seem stubborn but I still think the current wording does the job without being too colloquial for an encyclopedia (as I say, "quantum advance wasn't too colloquial for the source, which is an official history). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• " a large number of aeromedical evacuation flights out of Vietnam to transfer wounded or sick personnel to Australia, via Butterworth, for further treatment. " - "aeromedical" felt redundant (unless I've misunderstood it!) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, I can see that, might leave to see if Nick has an opinion. Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Trimming that would be sensible - the rest of the para notes that the planes were specially configured and staffed for these flights, so the word is essentially surplus. Nick-D (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

HMS Warrior (1860)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

The first iron-hulled, armored warship in history. Most of the detail regarding the reasons for her construction and its impact has been covered in the class article; I'd like opinions as to how much is appropriate here vs. there, etc. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Particularly given that the class only includes two ships, I'd be inclined to allow for quite a lot of repetition between the two articles (plus, given the way many readers navigate the wiki, plenty will never click through to the class article, and will sadly miss any additional material there). I love the ship, btw; I was lucky enough to have dinner on board it the other year, and it was wonderfully atmospheric.

I'd take another look at the first part of the Design and description section. It assumes that the reader is familiar with the ship designs and politics of the 1850 - it doesn't explain why the Gloire was important, for example, or note the tensions between France and England. I suspect it would read more easily if it started with a simple description of the Warrior - ironclad, with steam engines and sails - then explained what the traditional designs had been like before that. It could then explain the impact of the Gloire, why this concerned England, note the innovations, and then note that it was evolutionary as much and revolutionary. Then carry on with its projected role in the fleet etc.?

How does it work now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm working from memory, but isn't the armour on the Warrior often likened to an armoured box, inside the ship? (Which is why it doesn't protect either ends). Again, from memory, a criticism I'm sure I've heard of the ship is that the combination of steam and sails was problematic; having sails required a huge crew, and in turn that meant a big ship, and that the ship's range under steam was then limited - but this may be popular myth! :) The local guides on the ship are keen to mention the ship's water distillery plant to visitors, but I'm not sure if this gets a mention in the article.

I'm going to have to think a bit on these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

NB: I've found a bit on the "box" design at the Warrior website, under "design". Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Added a bit on this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The money figures could use modern equivalents, or contemporary comparisons.

That's been discussed before and the consensus was that they were capital costs that could not be directly compared.

You couldn't use the RPI, that's true, but you could use some of the GDP measures designed to compare the prices of capital projects - see their use on the Manchester Ship Canal or John Crichton-Stuart, 2nd Marquess of Bute. Alternatively, you could compare her price (£377,292) to other contemporary ships, perhaps the HMS Inconstant (£213,234), to give a sense of comparative costing? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to source GDP figures so I'd prefer to use a comparison figure, but I can't find a figure for the Orlando-class frigates, the most direct predecessor to the Warriors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if File:Portsmouth HMS Warrior citadel 13-10-2011 13-38-31.png might make a nicer picture than File:HMS Warrior between decks.jpg? (it lacks the date stamp etc., and still gets the guns in to the shot). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, that's a much nicer shot.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Royal Navy's": the Royal Navy's
• I don't know what "more evolutionary than not [evolutionary]" means.
  • Isn't that explained in the last part of the sentence?
• "They were designed ... They were designed ... Rather they were designed": repetition
  • Fixed
• "but they had a very different concept of operation to": but, unlike the Gloire, ... [and then finish the thought, with information from later in the paragraph]
  • Agreed
• "credited with the ability", "credited with the nominal ability": repetition - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed.
• "from Queen Victoria. In April 1868 she was part of a squadron ...": ... the ship ...
  • I think I got understood what you mean here, but check.
• "the then Prince of Wales": the Prince of Wales
  • Done.
• "In August the squadron departed for a cruise to Scotland. During the cruise, Warrior collided": In August, cruising with the squadron to Scotland, Warrior collided
  • Oh, my, yes.
• " 'Bermuda' ": "Bermuda". Also, what's a Bermuda floating dry dock?
  • My mistake, it's the dry dock's name.
• "floating dry dock across the Atlantic from Madeira to Ireland Island, Bermuda. After a time in dry dock": Some readers will assume a connection between the first mention of dry dock and the second.
  • Done.
• "a refit that lasted until 1875. The work carried out included": a refit that lasted until 1875, including
• "including the addition of a poop deck, a steam capstan, a shorter bowsprit and the replacement of her boilers.": the missing "and" before "a shorter" makes this nonparallel. But better would be: "including a new poop deck and steam capstan, a shorter bowsprit and replacement boilers."
  • Done.
• "new figurehead carved": nonparallel. "new figurehead was carved"
  • I think that Ian got this.
    • Thanks Sturm. Ian has covered the prose support for this, so I'll stop at this point. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• "current berth", "is now": WP:DATED - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Now I look at it, I believe I've taken care of some of Dan's points as part of my copyedit -- great minds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments I've been fortunate enough to have visited Warrior, and have the following comments:

• "The naval architect and historian David K. Brown commented" - this sounds a bit odd. 'Has written' might work better than 'commented'
  • Done.
• Can anything be said about the crew's living conditions? They struck me as being very cramped-looking (even in comparison to the nearby HMS Victory and USS Constitution in Boston) due to the low ceilings and amount of room taken up by the internal sub-divisions and armour. The captain had an unusually nice cabin though! - there's some useful-looking material on the ship's official website here.
  • Cramped, yes, but I can't tell if it was any more cramped than Victory which had a larger crew, 850 vs 707, berthed on two decks each about half the length of Warrior's.
    • Can you add anything on this? That source should be reliable. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I think that's more appropriate for the class article, but I'm only assuming that the crew slung their hammocks on the gun decks. Perhaps the idlers berthed down in the orlop, but I really don't know, but it makes any real comparison hard to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't agree I'm afraid - this is a really famous ship (she's literally the first thing most visitors to the historic dockyard at Portsmouth see when they leave the train station), and most readers are going to visit it and not the class article. The fact that this article gets about 300 page views a day while the class article only managed 20 views a day says a lot. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Finally got Wells, who has a moderate amount on the living arrangement. Enough for a separate paragraph when combined with the info on her Royal Marine detachment. Does it satisfy?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, that works. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• "In September 1871, Warrior began a refit that lasted until 1875" - this seems really slow for the era (especially as it took just over two years to build the ship) - can anything be said about the cause of the delays?
  • Nothing I can quote, but I suspect that it was prolonged because it cut expenses and kept the royal dockyard workers gainfully employed. Lengthy refit times were endemic during this period.
• The HMS Warrior Trust credits the MP John Smith (!) as being the prime mover in saving the ship: [151]
  • Good idea.
• "In 1995 she received just over 280,000 visitors." - can this be updated? Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to, but I haven't been able to turn up anything on Google. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed: it's good to see such a comprehensive article on this famous and important ship. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Copyedited as usual, the only thing still outstanding for me is "From 4 to 28 July, Warrior..." -- the previous paragraph mentions April 1868, then August, so best make clear what year you're talking about here...
  • Good idea. Thanks for taking care of some of the copyediting stuff that Dank pointed out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Structure, coverage, referencing and image licensing look good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Everything looked good to me. One question: the name of the article is "HMS Warrior (1860)". However, from the end of the article it sounded that the (current) name of the ship is "HMS Warrior (1860)", and that the "(1860)" was part of the name (and should be italicized). Did I miss understand? Inkbug (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all; it's just that the ship's name for her active career was just HMS Warrior. The year being a felicitous coincidence between our naming policy and the Royal Navy's. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Reluctant Oppose for the time being. Switch to Strong Oppose (see below).

• Background: Basically I think this article is far too brief in its background. Like Hchc, I think there should be a lot more material from the class article put into this. I also think there should be a ‘Background to construction’ section explaining the historical context of the ship. This should include the historical context (ie. the tensions with France and why the invasion scares occurred) and more on the evolution of the design. At present the article says that historian David K. Brown has written, "What made [Warrior] truly novel was the way in which these individual aspects were blended together”, but doesn’t explain what most of these individual aspects actually are. This lack of background continues throughout the article and so it all lacks context. For instance; why was Warrior refitted only 4 years after launch, and again 7 years after that? I think there needs to be more on the rapid evolution of ironclads that led to Warrior being relegated so quickly. This evolution is touched upon in the lead but not in the article.
  • I've added a bit on her background to explain the context of the design. The individual aspects weren't important because the only new thing about Warrior was the armor, as I've now emphasized more clearly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That looks better, but the individual aspects of her design are important, because this is an article about the ship. It still doesn't make any sense to have Brown's opinion on the individual aspects of the design without having first listed them. For instance, you have to read all the way down to the propulsion section to find out that Warrior had a propellor; this is quite an important aspect of her design and knowing it (plus everything else about the ship's design) before Brown's opinion is crucial to understanding. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not so sure that those aspects were as important as you seem to think they were because only the armour was the really innovatory aspect, as Brown says. Nobody else seems to think that listing them is so important, so I'm not sure how much weight to give your belief.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
        • It's quite simple; if you know nothing about Warrior and read this article for the first time, the design section doesn't make any sense. If you're going to use a phrase saying 'these things' you need to explain what they are first - this is basic prose. Hchc has also said that there needs to be a basic description of Warrior to start with but you have not yet included one. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Find me a source that says Warrior went into reserve in 1875 because she was obsolete. Lambert is quite clear that it was British policy to save money by putting large ships into reserve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That isn't exactly what I was asking for, but since you ask. On p39 Lambert says that Warrior was too large and costly for any other station (this doesn't quite equate to what you say). However, he's already established context for this on p35: "In 1870... Warrior had been left far behind by the ironclad revolution she had helped to start." Winton states on the back cover of his book "within a few years, she was out of date". As you might expect, there's a lot more inside the book. The warrior website has a whole page on the ship's obsolescence "within a decade" [152] and this is also touched on in the commission section. My point is that at present, you could read this article and think that Warrior was a top of the line, unmatched warship until one day she was suddenly hulked. This is obviously not the case, and her career was heavily influenced by the most important period of naval technological expansion in history - yet none of this appears in the article. Hence there is no context upon which to understand Warrior's history, and the article is sorely lacking as a result. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately the picture is more complicated than you realize. Warrior's sister Black Prince was assigned to the Coastguard in 1866, about four years after her completion and returned to that duty after being rearmed in 1867–68. And then she's assigned to the Channel Fleet in 1875, just about the time when Warrior went into reserve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure how that's relevant. If you're trying to argue that Warrior wasn't really obsolete, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. This lack of context and the subject of the ship's obsolescence is a major omission from the article, and not including it does not reflect what numerous reliable sources have to say. My oppose remains until this is corrected. Ranger Steve ^Talk 23:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
          • You're asserting a connection between her obsolescence and being relegated to the 1st Reserve while that is demonstrably not true; they're two separate issues. The RN certainly didn't seem to think that Black Prince was obsolete when they reassigned her from the Coastguard to the Channel Fleet in 1875, nor when they originally assigned her to the Coastguard in 1866, and almost did the same thing to Warrior the following year before changing their minds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Once again, I'm not asserting any such thing and I don't know where you're getting this idea from. There are two separate issues here. One; there is no context in this article about the rapid evolution of ship's technology, which is a major theme in Warrior's story. Some information is needed, just like some was needed on what led to Warrior being built in the first place. Secondly; there's a large body of reliable sources - all of which are good enough to be used in the article already I might add - that make it quite clear that Warrior was obsolete in ten years. You might not be aware of this or like to admit it, but it is a quite simple, plain and uncontroversial fact. This information is not in the article and really should be in order for it to be A class. Ranger Steve ^Talk 06:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
              • My memory of Warrior was certainly that she was obsolete within a decade, which would match up with Ranger Steve's points above - and the website of the Warrior's current owners. Again from memory, it was the sails and steam that was the major problem - but it's been a couple of years since I last did naval history properly. Being obsolete in the 1870s doesn't mean that she couldn't see service - this was an era where even the idea of sudden obsolescence was only just coming into being, after all - but I'd agree with the sources mentioned that by then her design was already old-fashioned etc. Could it potentially go into the paragraph that begins "In September 1871, Warrior began a refit that lasted until 1875..."? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll not argue that Warrior didn't became obsolete; every warship since the Industrial Revolution has done so. Warrior was no different and I see little reason to mention it here as that's just assumed as a fact of life. The RN certainly didn't seem to think her and her sister as obsolete until around 1880 from what I can gather, assuming that an assignment to the Channel Fleet equals a belief that the ship was still a viable combatant. Now I can think of half a dozen reasons why they might have kept Warrior and Black Prince in first line service until then, but that would just be me speculating. I have no solid info on why the RN did anything with these ships, only the bare facts. I don't mention as to why a ship is retired/scrapped/whatever, unless I have a source that tells why, which is far rarer than you might think. So very few ships articles by me or anyone else explicitly address the issues of obsolescence. You're not making a successful case to treat Warrior any different from any other warship, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no need to make a case to treat Warrior any differently; numerous reliable sources do that for me. The facts are quite simple; Warrior was obsolete within ten years. This is very closely related to the fact (that I've exhaustively pointed out) that this was a period of the greatest naval technological expansion in history. I don't care how other articles deal with it, the rapid evolution of ship technology leaving Warrior behind so quickly was a massive part in the story of this ship, as all the sources point out (to that list can be added the Pitkin guide to Warrior that is sold as the official guidebook in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard). Three of the references used in the article at present are all about the development of warships in the late Victorian era, but despite this the article doesn't mention anything about this development, which is vital context for this ship. As such the article fails to properly reflect sources and is not complete. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Construction: Is dealt with in only one sentence in the Service career section (which is the wrong place for it). There’s no mention of the spiralling costs or the amusing launch. There is a lot of information on the construction process on the Warrior website which deserves to be in the article and I would suggest a separate construction section.
  • Expanded, but not into a separate section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Better. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Museum ship: I think this deserves a separate section detailing the role it has had since it arrived in Portsmouth in 1987. At present the article only has two sentences on this and makes it seems as if she was only open for visitors in 1995 and only added to the historic dockyard in 2013. Given that she’s been a museum ship for 25 years, I think this part of her history needs more information. I also think there needs to be more information on the dockyard, why she went there and why it’s good that she’s there (the fact that Victory, M33 and Mary Rose are all close by for instance). This would give an opportunity to expand on visitor numbers (anyone who goes cannot avoid actually seeing Warrior at least, even if they don’t go on board).

I've had a go at this bit myself. There's probably room to expand it though. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You've clarified that and I've clean it up a bit. I removed the section about functions aboard ship as we're not here to advertise it. You're asking for OR about how it's good that the ship is there with Victory, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's advertising to state simple facts when it is properly done. Warrior is a licensed wedding venue; that is quite pertinent to her current role and I think should be included. I thought my way of doing it worked quite well, but I'll leave it up to you as to how best to incorporate it. I also wasn't asking for traveller reviews saying how wonderful it is that the three ships are in such close company, I was rather thinking more of simply explaining the fact (seeing as the Mary Rose and Victory weren't in the article at all to start with) and letting the reader decide. Even so, it isn't difficult to find reliable sources that make the point [153]. There's also page 62 of Lambert. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Referencing: A whole paragraph in the Service career section relies on one reference. At present, ref 25 might only be a reference to the collision with Royal Oak, rather than all of the detail above. On a similar note, ref 26 is too broad (ten pages). Individual facts that are not really related to one another should probably be cited separately (particularly notable facts like the threat to the Queen).
  • If one source is used for everything in one paragraph then it gets one cite at the end of the paragraph with all relevant page numbers. I will never cite individual facts or sentences all derived from the same source as that way lies madness (and considerably exceeds academic standards, I might add).
    • I know what you mean, but nonetheless, ref 25 (or 32 as it is now) covers a period of 4 years and half a dozen places. If the paragraphs content was all on roughly the same subject I wouldn't worry, but several totally different subjects are covered in this bit. How do I know that the solitary ref covers all of them (see WP:INTEGRITY)? A good example of this is that moving the referenced sentence on visitor figures has forced you to add a fact tag to a sentence on the ship's name, which wasn't ever in the reference. Separate facts really do sometimes need to have separate citations. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't agree. WP:AGF adequately covers one source for an entire paragraph, especially when it lists a bunch of pages. And now that I've got my own copy of Wells, I might be adding more information from the same few pages, dunno yet.
• Prose: I think this needs a good going over I’m afraid. There are quite a few examples where I’m uncertain of what is actually meant and others where the grammar needs work. To take a random example, the paragraph below needs work:
  • I don't generally agree with this assessment of the prose; nonetheless, I've rewritten some of it to reflect your concerns.

The ship was assigned to the Channel Squadron under the command of Captain Arthur Cochrane. In March 1863, Warrior escorted the royal yacht bringing Princess Alexandra of Denmark to Britain to marry the Prince of Wales. In mid-1863 the Channel Fleet toured the ports of Great Britain, where the ship was the centre of attention.

Don't like your phrasing, although the number of visitors is a good idea. Rephrased it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Did Cochrane command the ship or the squadron?

I'll grant you this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Was Princess Alexandra on the yacht or on Warrior? Better structure would be In March 1863, Warrior served as an escort for the Royal Yacht, which carried Princess Alexandra to Britain for her marriage to the Prince of Wales (not perfect but you get the idea).

Sorry, I don't see any problem here; your suggestion seems clumsier to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly not the best example of correction, but the problem is tense. Escorted and bringing - perhaps escorted and brought? Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see your concern. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Was Warrior the centre of attention in Great Britain or in the ports? Better structure would be In 1863, the Channel Squadron embarked on a tour of the major ports of Great Britain. Warrior became the centre of attention amongst the public and over 6,000 people a day viewed the ship at each of the ports that the squadron visited (ref to Warrior website).

Rephrased and expanded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I know this looks unduly harsh, but I note only 13 edits to this article since it was made GA. I think it’ll take a bit more work than that to move it up a class. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this last comment doesn't sound like what I meant it to mean! What I meant was that I'm sorry if all of these comments seem quite harsh, and I think with a bit more work it'll improve quite rapidly. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, while I might disagree with some of what you suggest, many of your comments have been quite helpful.

I'm away for a short while from now, but can respond to any more comments on Monday. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Switch to Strong Oppose. I feel this article does not fully reflect the story of Warrior as given by numerous reliable sources that are already in use in the article. I cannot understand the resistance to putting basic facts and context in, but at present only particular aspects of the ship's story have been incorporated whilst overs are being ignored. As such I feel it fails A2 of the A Class criteria. Additionally, the article lacks any basic description of the ship's characteristics before it starts detailing selected aspects of the technology on board, and therefore fails A3. Again, I detect an unwillingness to incorporate any of this information. I have no intention of incorporating it myself as I suspect that would only lead to an edit war, but it means I cannot support it for A-Class. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Broadside ironclad is one other well-cited name for the type which should be added to the prose in addition to Armored Frigate.
  • Done.
• "it required 600 men to raise it into the stern", cited but I don't understand how this would happen in a ship with only 707 men total, and the officers certainly wouldn't be involved in the manual labor of this operation.
• Complement uncited Kirk (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • HMSWarrior.org has the crew required for lifting the propeller at 400 [154]; I found a couple of sites with the crew specifically split up into specialities, with only 455 seamen and boys [Example http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Heritage/Warrior/statistics.html] so the 400 number makes more sense to me than having all the marines and stokers helping.
  • I read the snippet in the source and I would translate the jargon into something like "a ship-board crane (assuming that's what he meant by 'sheer') on the stern was used by approximately 4 hundred men to hoist the shaft up using block and tackle (falls)". Some sources have the time required for the 10 ton anchors at about 2-3 hours but there wasn't any information about the time required to lift a 30 ton propeller shaft. Kirk (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Both Ballard and Lambert quote 600 men, which would be an all-hands evolution, I imagine. Since you're changing over to sail power, the only engine room personnel needed would be those required to shut down the engines and boilers. Ballard even mentions that it was the "favorite" deck evolution among the stokers in his description of the procedure. He doesn't give times for any of these evolutions, unfortunately. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You'd think the HMS Warrior museum's information would be more correct in this instance; they have the propeller + shaft at 32 tons instead of just the propellor at 10 tons. I looked in vain for a diagram of this hoisting - this must be described at the museum somewhere!
        • The propeller was decoupled from its shaft. I don't really it's necessary to mention that, but I can add it if you think that it's important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
          • The guidebook has a diagram showing the mechanism. It also states 24 tons for the propellor and 8 for the banjo frame, and says that "it took about 400 men to do [raise] it." Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Ballard and Parkes say 10 tons, Wells says 26. I've changed it to the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
              • What's the copyright status of the diagram? If its protected maybe we can commission someone to 'redraw' it? Kirk (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• I also want to comment on the issues rased above by RangerSteve.
  • The infobox as far as I can tell is complete, accurate and cited in the prose and it a good summary of the basic description of the ship's characteristics, so I don't understand that criticism.
  • Sturm has written this at level of detail which I think is consistent with summary style. I see the point of adding more detail about the birth of ironclad warships and the museum ship, if we use USS Constitution as a guide this article could use some information about the ship as museum in that section, but that article is FA and this one is being reviewed for A. The birth of ironclad warships is very chaotic because the technology changed so rapidly so its hard to summarize for a reader when different historians can't agree on basic facts, I think that one is better left linked out to the Ironclad warship article.
  • 'Obsolete' is not a technical ship term, its more of an opinion, in many cases it could be an individual historian's opinion that we cite. I'm sure you two could find citations with different times when the ship was obsolete - one probably claims it was shortly after being built since all the guns were replaced 3 years after being commissioned (which might be addressed by Parsecboy's question below). The facts appear to me to be in the article and the reader can decide when it was 'obsolete'.
• Support - I think you probably should add more in the museum ship section for FA (How could you leave out its a licensed wedding venue??? :) but I think it meets the A criteria. Kirk (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion and to support this article, but I don't like the idea of editors being asked to comment on other editors just because they don't support an article. But anyway, to address some of your concerns briefly. Infobox; should not be used as part of the prose. I don't know how I can put this any more plainly; the design section doesn't make any sense in plain English. Here's a simplistic example. "Churchill was a man. These characteristics made him great." What characteristics? These need to be summarised before this quote for the quote to have any meaning. Two editors have now asked for just such a summary of the characteristics. Ironclads; The ship that practically started the ironclad revolution should have some more context on that revolution and how it fitted into it, just as reliable sources do. Obsolescence; No, they all say ten years. This is a well known aspect of Warrior's career, and leaving it out is starting to look more and more like cherry picking. Additionally readers cannot make up their own mind, because, there is no context on Ironclad evolution to allow them to do so (my previous point). Obsolete doesn't need to be a nautical term, this is Wikipedia and relies on reliable published sources. This article does not reflect what those sources say, so I'm sorry to say that in my opinion it fails A2 at A class. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Just to further emphasise the point on obsolescence and how it relates to the ship, the guidebook has several paragraphs on how the appearance of Monitor, Captain and Devastation reflected the changing design of warships and in "1871, the year that introduced HMS Devastation, the first British ocean-going, mastless battleship, also saw the end of Warrior's career as a front line warship. Ten years of of service during a time of rapid change had made her obsolescent." The same information is reflected in three other reliable sources, and to be quite honest, I imagine it's probably in most of the other books on Warrior as well. This stuff needs to be in the article for it to satisfy A2 IMHO. Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
      • A very spirited discussion! On the issue of specifications please review some of the A/FA ship articles and come back and consider this one; maybe we missed something specific you can list? On the design section not making sense, the one quibble I can see is the 'discussion' doesn't have its own subsection in design but it all reads ok to me (just reread it). Also review those A/FA ship articles how they handle 'obsoleteness' since I don't remember it being very common & I agree with Sturms' comment. Your quote sounds reasonable to me, so I would add it if you think its an important opinion for the reader to consider. Kirk (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't intend to review this article against other articles, I'm reviewing it against reliable sources on the subject, which is what the article should reflect. I'm glad you think the design section reads ok now, Sturm has improved it since my last comment with the simple addition of a few specifications, so that it now makes sense in English. I still think the service and ship's obsolescence lacks context, so I'll expand that sentence making use of the quotes from Lambert and the guidebook later. If it doesn't get deleted, I might be able to switch to support. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure, it's in plenty of books, as you've already mentioned, but they're all judgements made in hindsight and don't reflect how the RN treated Warrior and her sister. The placement of Black Prince in 1st Reserve/coastguard after her rearmament in 1866–67 and the plan to do the same for Warrior strongly argues that there's no correlation between being placed in reserve and obsolescence. This is further reinforced by the fact that Black Prince was assigned to the Channel Fleet in 1875, just about the same time that Warrior finished her lengthy refit and was assigned to the Coastguard reinforces the lack of correlation. I think that the website and the guidebook have failed to consider Black Prince's career in assessing the reasons why Warrior had the career that she did. I further think that the sources have committed presentism in thinking that assignment to the 1st Reserve/Coastguard is the same thing as being assigned to the Reserve Fleet in modern times.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but that's simply massive OR on your part as I'm sure you realise. Wikipedia's task is to reflect what reliable sources say. This article doesn't do that. Ranger Steve ^Talk 06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It does now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • Does the explosive shell have the same performance characteristics as the solid shot? If so, make that clear, and if not, can you add them if they're available?
    • Probably not, but data isn't available.
  • What type of iron was used for the armor? Wrought? Cast?
    • Good catch.
  • Can we move the photo of the restored gun deck so it doesn't impinge on the section header below?
    • Done.
  • Nelson might be famous enough to warrant leaving out his first name, but probably not for general readers.
    • Good point.
  • Link Tudor navy for Mary Rose Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I presume that you mean Tudor warship rather than Mary Rose, which is already linked? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

William George Malone

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria for A-class. I first read about the subject of this article at school when we were learning war literature, when the play Once on Chunuk Bair, in which Malone is a major character, was compulsory reading for students. He is the prototypical colonial soldier demonstrating that the amateur NZ officer was just as good, if not better, than the professional British officers occupying the senior commands in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force of WWI. Zawed (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• There is some inconsistency with spacing, several sentences have two spaces after the fullstop, several have one. Please make consistent.
• "...The couple had five children, a daughter and four sons. Malone..." -- I know you're talking about the subject of the article in this last "Malone" reference, but you should make it explicitly clear, as the seven people mentioned in the preceding sentence all have that name.
• I don't know that "military career" is the best term for the third header, since you state that his military career began in the first header.
• You begin to use the term ANZAC before explicitly stating what it means.
• Repetition: "He immediately set about improving the position, which overlooked the Turkish lines. As well as improving the position's defences,"
• " His four oldest sons all served in the NZEF, and one, Maurice, won the Distinguished Conduct Medal during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign.[36] Another son, Edmond, won the Military Cross serving with the Wellington Regiment on the Western Front." -- Military types can be very sensitive about the term "won" regarding valor decorations. "was awarded" seems to be preferred.
• Images appear to be properly lisenced. I see no apparent issues with referencing, article stability, or neutrality.

Will support pending a few improvements. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Ed. I have made some tweaks in response to your feedback, let me know if they are not satisfactory. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Great work! —Ed!^(talk) 13:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - but very close to a support. Support

• "bush country" - worth linking for less confident English readers - The bush would work.
• "a by-election for the Taranaki electorate in 1907" - the red-wikilink for 1907 felt like an easter-egg (I wouldn't have guessed what it would have linked to)
• "of the three candidates, he came third" - would "of the three candidates, he came last" be sharper?
• "In both cases..." - I had to check back on this as to what the two cases were. "In both 1907 and 1908..."?
• "This reputedly extended to his sleeping on a military camp bed. " - I wasn't sure about the "extended" bit (it isn't exactly the harshest of training regimes!). Would "This reputedly included his sleeping..." read better?
• "On 27 April, the battalion would be called upon " - "was called upon" would avoid the conditional
• "which Malone considered had wasted the lives of his men. " - I always get this wrong, but isn't it "that Malone considered" here?
• "With the Turkish trenches often only ten metres" - you'll need an imperial equivalent here.
• "ordering construction of machine gun posts and loops to try and restore fire superiority" - worth linking "loops". There's probably a less military equivalent, civilian phrase to "fire superiority".
• The formatting of the editions in the templates in the bibliography isn't consistent (some use the edition field, some include them in the title field). Hchc2009 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Zawed (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "before receiving further schooling at Marist boarding schools in both England and France.[1] As a result of his time in France, he became fluent in French.": before receiving further schooling at Marist boarding schools in both England and France,[1] and becoming fluent in French. WP:Checklist#because is relevant, I think.
• "emigrated to": It's usually "immigrated to" or "emigrated from".
• "his hard work had converted his land", "Malone worked hard to support his young family", "his business and other interests meant that time with his family was limited": I'm not sure how much of that needs to be in his article. Everyone works hard and wants to spend more time with family and friends.
• "with who he would have three more children": Agreed that "whom" probably won't survive forever, but I never see ", with who ...". There are many options here.
• "Mount Taranaki/Egmont": Probably better to pick one, per WP:SLASH.
• "Malone considered Braund's actions had": Malone believed ...
• "Wellington Battalion, which went ahead despite Malone pointing out to Johnston the lack of flanking support for such a charge": Wellington Battalion, although Malone pointed out to Johnston the lack of flanking support for such a charge
• "Johnston, still in command of the brigade despite being clearly unfit to do so,": ... unfit for it
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dank, I have made the suggested changes. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Stanislaw Ulam

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and User:Deer*lake (talk)

Yes, another Polish ACR. I present Stan Ulam, the mathematician, flying the Polish flag for the Manhattan Project. (Apparently, Joseph Rotblat isn't famous enough.) He's best known for the Monte Carlo method, the Fermi–Pasta–Ulam problem and other mathematical wonders, but for us military historians, he's the co-inventor of the Teller–Ulam design, which make multi-megaton weapons possible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Not much to add - I already said all during GA process. Still, have my vote to avoid failing due to insufficient interest (as most of my reviews do, sigh). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "Nuclear thermal rocket": all uppercase if it's a proper noun, lowercase if not
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Even the inherent statistical fluctuations of neutron multiplication within a chain reaction have implications with regard to implosion speed and symmetry. In November 1944, David Hawkins and Ulam addressed this point in a report entitled "Theory of Multiplicative Processes".": Your thoughts on this? "In November 1944, David Hawkins and Ulam addressed the statistical fluctuations of neutron multiplication in a report entitled "Theory of Multiplicative Processes"." - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The first one is better; it tells you why it is so important. The point is that implosion requires some serious mathematics, physics and ordnance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• "von Neumann decided to use electronic computers. This approach was made possible by his access to computers: ENIAC at Aberdeen, a new computer, MANIAC, at Princeton, and its twin": von Neumann decided to use ENIAC at Aberdeen, the new MANIAC computer at Princeton, and its twin
• "to follow a completely different approach, which was guided": ... approach that was guided, or: ... approach, one guided
• "With the aid of a cadre of female "computers", including Françoise Ulam, who performed computations on mechanical calculators": a suggestion: "With the aid of Françoise Ulam and a cadre of women, then called "computers", who performed computations on mechanical calculators"
  • I've re-worded it this way: Françoise Ulam was one of a cadre of women "computers" who carried out laborious and extensive computations of thermonuclear scenarios on mechanical calculators , supplemented and confirmed by Everett's slide rule. I am reminded that in American English, "women" is used where we would say "female" and vice versa. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• In one caption, you note that the Scottish Cafe is now in Lviv, but the rest of the article calls the place Lwow or Lemberg (with explanations as to why). Perhaps an added explanation in the caption would be helpful to a reader? Not being familiar with Galicia, I had to click to make sure Lviv was the same as Lwow and Lemberg. On the other hand, it's not terribly pressing, if you don't have a quick source to cite for it, or if you think it'd be tacky.
  • It's in the article. Basically, Lemberg is the traditional German name, Lwow is Polish and Lviv is Ukrainian. Added a bit of explanation to the caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I saw the Lemberg-Lwow connection, but didnt see Lwow-Lviv explained explicitly in the text. Looks good now. Cdtew (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• For aesthetic's sake, on my monitor at least, I'm seeing a large amount of white space between the end of the "Nuclear propulsion" subsection and the "Return to academia" section, caused by the NASA Project Orion illustration. Is this just me? Perhaps shifting it's location may avoid that formatting gap?
  • No it's me inserting markup that prevents the next heading from starting on the right. I've moved the picture up a paragraph to reduce this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• In Fn 37, is the page range supposed to be italicized? Looks like that's all in the title field of that ref
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Image check: All images have appropriate PD tags, but not many -- if any -- alt texts. I know that's not a requirement, just thought I'd mention it.
  • No, it isn't, not even at FAC, but I have added it anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand its not a clear requirement, but I think it's best practice for our visually-impaired friends. Cdtew (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Support at this time for ACR, regardless of whether or not the above is substantively addressed. Cdtew (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I have addressed the problems you raised but am not sure a resolution to the layout one is possible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It was nice to learn about Mr. Ulam. Cdtew (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No. 84 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

A companion piece to the recent No. 86 Wing expansion and ACR, the RAAF's other transport formation, which also started life in another guise during World War II, in this case as an army cooperation wing. Re-formed much more recently than 86, this one always seemed to to be the poor relation in terms of hard facts but I think finally has enough to make the grade. Also recently passed GAN. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• "The wing comprises..." I'd have gone for semi-colons between the squadrons, rather than commas, to make it easier to read at speed, but that might just be my dodgy grammar! :)
  • I agree -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Formed in 1944 for army co-operation duties in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II," I had to click on army coop duties to work out what it was; personally, "close air support" would have been clearer. (Insert time gap as I read through the main text...) Although perhaps I'd have assumed more offensive CAS then, rather than their non-offensive duties. Hmm. Not an easy one.
  • Yes, I think that's the thing, that "CAS" is probably generally understood to mean ground attack, whereas "army co-op" is perhaps considered a little more benign, which is more in keeping with 84 Wing's true role. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• "As the navigational efficiency of the New Zealander pilots increased" I read this as suggesting that their navigators were pretty poor before; either way, it might be worth unpacking it slightly.
  • The source expresses it as "improvement in the standard of training and map-reading by New Zealand pilots" -- happy to take suggestions re. wording... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't think of anything better! - your wording sounds fine to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Transport formation..." - A minor point, but on the screen, these paragraphs felt very long and detailed as I read through them; I'd consider if if 4 shorter paras rather than 3 might make them easier to read. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Done, and took the liberty of splitting the longest of the three WWII paras as well. Tks for review/support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No prob's, enjoyed reading it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• " in the words of the official history, "the eyes of the battalion commanders"." -- whose official history? Just need a quick clarity of who created the "official" version.
  • I linked and spelt out official history of the RAAF in the Pacific in the previous paragraph so didn't feel it necessary to re-link/re-explain... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• " the wing lost one Auster, one Wirraway, and one Boomerang on operations." -- Any indication as to whether these were in combat or due to mechanical failure/weather?
  • Source doesn't elaborate, I'm afraid. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Beginning of "Transport formation:" Just wondering, was there ever a stated reason why this particular unit was selected to be revived, and/or background on logistical need that resulted in the standing up of an additional transport wing?
  • The RAAF has a history of reviving old unit numbers, both at wing and squadron level, especially if there's at least a vague connection between the old and new roles; in this case, 84WG's WWII and initial post-war roles were both connected with army support. However this is OR, just my observation -- I don't think I've seen it written down anywhere... ;-) As to the particular need, I think we can only infer that it was a means of collecting their two existing tactical/battlefield transport squadrons under the one roof. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Any chance you could elaborate on the difference between a tactical transport wing and a special transport wing?
  • A fair question! Yes we can (to coin a phrase) but more by implication than direct comparison. "Tactical transport" is closely connected with army support, and I do mention that role for the Caribous. "Special transport" in the RAAF is most commonly associated with VIP tasks, and all three of the units in its special transport incarnation had that role, 34SQN primarily and 32/33SQNs part-time. I may be able to include something that defines "special transport" in those terms, and I've already added that 32SQN did VIP work in addition to its other roles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Added brief explanation of "special transport". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• I found no disambiguation links, and no duplicate links. All external links appear to be working. Spotted no reliability issues with references. All images appear to be properly licensed. I see no issues with article stability or neutrality.

Just some quick comments, nothing major. —Ed!^(talk) 02:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Ed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Good work! —Ed!^(talk) 13:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "trainer/transports", " tanker/transports": I think I remember you changed these in another article, per WP:SLASH.
• "AOP flight": AOP Flight
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Done, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

SMS Pommern

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

The last of the Deutschland class, this one is short and sweet, since she was the only battleship of any type lost on either side at Jutland. Thanks to everyone who takes the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment - Groner (#4) and Herwig (#8) appear in the Footnotes, but are not listed in the References. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, both added in. Parsecboy (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I have a few minor observations:

• inconsistent: "Pommern was laid down on 22 March 1904" (text) v "April 1904" (infobox);
• inconsistent: "draught" v "draft"
• "18.7 knots (34.6 km/h; 21.5 mph)" and "18 kn (33 km/h; 21 mph)" (text) v "17 knots" (infobox)
• "At a cruising speed of 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph), she could steam for 5,830 nautical miles" (text) v "5,000 nautical miles (9,000 km; 6,000 mi) at 10 knots"
• "twenty 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns in pivot mounts" v "22 × 8.8 cm (3.5 in) SK L/45 naval guns (casemated)"
• "armored belt was 240 mm (9.4 in) thick amidships and she had a 40 mm (1.6 in) thick armored deck" (text) v "Waterline belt: 230 mm (9 in); Deck: 76 mm (3.0 in)"
• "between 1908–1914" -> "between 1908 and 1914";
• "Pommern remained assigned the II Battle Squadron" --> "Pommern remained assigned to the II Battle Squadron";
• why were they called five-minute ships?
• "Pommern couldn't" --> "Pommern could not";
• inconsistent "entire crew of 839 officers and enlisted men" (text) v "Complement 743" (infobox). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, they should all be fixed. On the last one, the difference is between peacetime and wartime crews - the latter fluctuates so I only included the former. I did add a line to the construction section on the crew size though. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "Pommern was 127.6 m (418 ft 8 in) long, had a beam of 22.2 m (72 ft 10 in), and a draft of 8.21 m (26 ft 11 in).": ... long, with a beam of 22.2 m (72 ft 10 in) and...
• "resultless": fruitless
• "At least one torpedo, and possibly a second, struck the ship. The hit detonated one of the 17 cm ammunition magazines aboard Pommern and caused a massive eruption of fire. The tremendous explosion broke the ship in half.": I recommend: "... struck the ship, detonating one of the 17 cm ammunition magazines. A massive explosion and eruption of fire broke the ship in half."
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good suggestions, both implemented. Many thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• A couple of minor niggles only:
• Capitalize Elbe River
• spell out 8: 8 pre-dreadnoughts
• Images are all appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Both fixed, thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments — MisterBee1966

• order under the letter "O", HRS v6 p237
• speech by the Oberpräsident of Pommern, Helmuth von Maltzahn. p237

That's all which HRS can add, unless you want to know her commanding officers. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Both added in, thanks for checking HRS for me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support -- It all looks very good (and reasonably familiar!) to me; I've done my (minor) prose tweaks and the referencing, structure, coverage and supporting materials seem fine. Tiny ref niggle is that I wouldn't have thought we needed OCLCs when ISBNs are present... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good point, removed them. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

USS Kentucky (BB-6)

Nominator(s): Inkbug (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has just been listed as a Good Article, and I believe it also meets the A-Class standard. Inkbug (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest take this for peer review, and/or having the guild of copy editors take a look at this article before moving on with this nomination? This will assist it in the future in potential FAN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for help from the Guild of Copy Editors. It seems they have a bit of a backlog there, but I hope they will help with the prose. However, if I understand correctly, A-Class review is mainly for content problems, and less for style issues, so I believe the review can continue in the meantime. Inkbug (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • You've got some duplicate links - you might try using User:Ucucha/duplinks to catch them.
    • Removed. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You should probably link to United States occupation of Veracruz
    • Added. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You might consider fleshing out the Great White Fleet section with a little background info - why did TR send the fleet out, for instance? The average reader won't know this, and FAC-level articles shouldn't require you to read another article to understand the basic context.
    • You might also want to look at USS Connecticut (BB-18), an FA on the GWF flagship, and crib some general information about the fleet's movements from that article.
      • I've added some more info. I'm not sure that more than this is needed, but if there is anything specific that seems to be missing, I'll be happy to add it in. Inkbug (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Same thing on the WNT - you might briefly explain that the treaty required the scrapping of dozens of battleships in the major navies to reduce naval armaments.
    • I've added some background. However, the sentence I added desperately needs references – is there some good source I can reference it to? Inkbug (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I got a source for it, but if there is anything better, I'll be happy to replace it. Inkbug (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
        • You could use Breyer, Siegfried (1973). Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World, 1905–1970. London: Macdonald and Jane's. ISBN 0-356-04191-3. p. 70. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Replaced. Thanks, Inkbug (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Bradleys as a family were teetotalers" - should probably read "were a family..."
    • Changed. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why did Kentucky go to China? Was it related to the Boxer Rebellion? I ask because I know Germany sent several warships in response to the uprising, and I wonder if this was also related.
    • My sources don't mention it. A Google search gives me this page as the number one result. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Given the timeframe, it should be acceptable to say that Kentucky was sent overseas due to the rebellion (your article says Kentucky was sent on 26 October 1900, and the rebellion didn't end until 7 September 1901). Just my two cents, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Added. Inkbug (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please specify what type of ship Rainbow was - as a rule, you should always tell the reader what type of ship you're talking about when you introduce a new vessel. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Added. Inkbug (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Everything looks good to me now. You're doing excellent work on these early American battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support proved the above are all dealt with to Parsec's satisfaction. I've been through the article, made a few tweaks, and am fully happy with it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Structure, coverage and references seem fair.
  • I've copyedited as usual but feel the article needs further work on the prose before going near FAC (you're quite correct that content is particularly important at ACR, but the style needs to be at least as polished as GA and, while it might be at that level now, I think it's only just).
    • The article is still waiting at the Guild of Copy Editors' request page. Inkbug (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This caused the guns to be mounted far back in the turret, making the ports very large -- Coming as it does right after mention of the turret designers, I'm not sure exactly what's causing the guns to be mounted that far back, something by the designers that we haven't been told about, or simply because the guns were on two levels.
  • On 26 October, she left Tompkinsville, Staten Island, for China due to the Boxer Rebellion -- I felt this needed more info about exactly what she was doing re. the rebellion, and when I checked the source it only seemed to relate that she left port, not why or where she was heading. If one of your later citations mentions the Boxer Rebellion, you need to put it here (or mention the rebellion later).
    • I added the Boxer Rebellion based on the comments above. Inkbug (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't see any changes since my last edits -- did you forget to save something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I was referring to this edit, which I performed based on Parsecboy and Ed's comments above. Inkbug (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Licensing for first two images is fine but there's a tag on File:USS Kentucky bb6 in great white fleet.jpg that should be resolved. Also I couldn't find the image at the source page mentioned -- did I miss something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up the description page, and fixed the link, but what tag needs to be resolved? Inkbug (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Tks, I see the image at the source now. On the WP file there's a tag re. US copyright -- I suspect the image is fine to use given its age but not sure about the ideal copyright template. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Switched the tag to PD-1923. Inkbug (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "resulting in", "due to": Consider the advice at WP:Checklist#because.
  • Changed. Inkbug (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• "became flagship of": Although "As flagship of" works, "became flagship of" doesn't quite; use "became the flagship of".
  • Fixed. Inkbug (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No. 78 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Why stop when I'm enjoying it? Yet another active RAAF wing, an appropriate companion piece to No. 81 Wing, which I've just nominated -- both were fighter formations in the Pacific during WWII, and operated Sabres in the 1960s. After that things began to diverge, as fighters became more complicated and expensive, and therefore fewer in number. The Air Force couldn't sustain two fighter wings, so it now has one (No. 81), plus a fast-jet training wing in support (No. 78). The latter's story is no less interesting for that and, as the sources are pretty well interchangeable, I hope that running the pair at ACR simultaneously will make reviewing them relatively straightforward. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: again, good work and not much for me here. I have the following points:

• is there source information for "File:78WingRAAF.jpg"?
  • Can't imagine why I didn't note that at the time, same for 81 Wing's crest I think -- would've been the RAAF website as it was then, think we should just say "RAAF" somewhere.
• is there any more that could be said about the types of operations undertaken during the invasion of Tarakan and the Battle of Balikpapan? Did the wing continue to fly ground attack missions, or had something changed after the "Mutiny"?
  • Will re-check Odgers and co...
    • Precious little in Odgers on role at Tarakan but something on Labuan (which I hadn't mentioned previously for some reason) and at Balikpapan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• as per the 81 Wing review, can something be added of casualties or losses in the World War II section?
  • Ditto.
    • Included July figures from unit history as a sample. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Sabres flew missions against communist guerrilla forces" --> ground attack missions?
  • Indeed, will do.
• "six months to one year-long rotations". Should this be: "six month- to one year-long rotations"? AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but might try something different... Tks again for review/spt! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Your solution is better. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • I reviewed for GA over a year ago, so due to the passage of time and the changes that have occurred since then I have done a full review. Article meets ACR criteria in my opinion.
  • No dab links [155] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [156] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [157] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
    • Will do, tks for reminder. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images are all PD or have a valid fair use rationale and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [158] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • A little repetitive here: "The relegation of No. 1 TAF to areas of operations bypassed by the main Allied thrust towards the Philippines and Japan led to poor morale in late 1944 and early 1945. In April 1945, the newly appointed Officer Commanding No. 78 Wing, Group Captain Wilfred Arthur, helped bring about the so-called "Morotai Mutiny" in protest at the relegation..." (relegation twice).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherclown (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 May 2013‎

• I'll think of something -- tks for review/support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments.

• "By the middle of the year, the wing's rate of effort in New Guinea operations was consistently higher than its counterparts in the US Fifth Air Force.": ... than that of its ... (if I understand right); also; what's a rate of effort?
• "which had been delayed moving its aircraft": This could mean two different things; I suggest "which had been delayed while it moved its aircraft", if that's accurate.
• "May–June": May and June
• "No. 79 Squadron continues to provide": Any thoughts on "As of (date) ...."?
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Done, I think -- tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

While one of the newest aircraft in the Royal Australian Air Force's fleet, the six C-17 Globemaster transports which entered service between 2006 and 2012 have proven to be highly successful. The aircraft have operated around the globe, and have played an important part in disaster relief and supporting Australian military operations in the Middle East.

This article was assessed as a GA in April, and has since been expanded and copyedited. As such, I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- I was the GA reviewer and, having checked (and tweaked!) the additions and alterations since then, I think it also meets the A-Class criteria; well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [159] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [160] (no action required).
  • A few of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [161] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images all seem PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [162] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links.
  • Have read through the article and cannot find any fault with it, seems comprehensive. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot. I've just added that missing alt text. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - I've spent half an hour trying to fault it for something, anything, but I can't. Zawed (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Military career of Ian Smith

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk)

This article just passed GAN following a very pleasant review from AustralianRupert Anotherclown, and I feel it can go further. Smith's service in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War is particularly interesting when viewed with his later political career in mind. Knowing about his wartime experiences helps one to fully understand his mindset as Rhodesian prime minister during the 1960s and 1970s. I look forward to all comments and suggestions. Thanks, and have a nice day, —Cliftonian (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day, actually it was Anotherclown who reviewed this at GAN, but he's been bludging off me for years, so its only fair that I get some of the credit for his hard work now... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For that, I will book myself in for a review... Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Very droll AR... but probably true! Anotherclown (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Er, um... woops... Apologies for the name mix-up AC, and thanks AR for also now reviewing! I hope you are both well and look forward to hearing more from you both. :) —Cliftonian (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment: No worries, I've read through the article once and made a few minor tweaks. One question I have at the moment is about the dates of birth and death. The full dates only appear to be in the infobox where they appear uncited. I wonder if they should be added to the body? I will come back tomorrow and have another read through, but it is late here so I'm off to bed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put citations on the birth and death dates in the infobox; I feel the full dates aren't really necessary in this article, which focusses on Smith in the RAF rather than his whole life, but I don't feel too strongly about this and will go with consensus. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I got busy at work and had to have a few days off wiki. Anyway, I'm back now at least for a couple of hours. Your change with the dates looks fine. I see Nick has made a few comments that, if implemented, will change the article a little so I will wait until you've responded to him and then read through it again to complete a prose check. In the meantime, I tweaked the Commons page of File:IanSmith1990crop.png. Please review my changes and check that you are happy with them. The other image I wonder about is File:Ian Smith RAF.jpg. I'm wondering if the licence shouldn't in fact be "PD-UK-Gov" rather than "PD-Zimbabwe". What's your take on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The changes to 1990 are fine. The RAF picture I think should stay as it is, as we don't know for sure that it's an official military or government picture (as the licence would imply). It seems equally likely to me that Smith might have just had some pictures taken of himself in uniform at the end of (or during) his training. But I don't feel particularly strong about this and am happy to change it if consensus dictates. Thanks for this, have a great weekend —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that we can't be certain, your solution is probably the best one, I think. Anyway, I will continue my review below. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He was promoted to flight officer on 25 March 1943". Is this rank correct? You don't mean flying officer, do you?

• Woops! Well spotted. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Hurricane Mk IIC, serial KZ179, at 05:46 local time": is this level of detail really necessary?

• Suppose not, let's change it to "Smith took off from Idku at dawn in a Hurricane Mk IIC" —Cliftonian (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "three other Allied personnel—a Frenchman, an Austrian and a Pole". Are we sure that it was an Austrian? One imagines that there weren't too many Austrians that were serving in the Allied forces, so perhaps this is a typo?

• I was surprised too. I agree that it seems more intuitive to think it would be an Australian, but it seems to have indeed been an Austrian. The soldier in question is referred to as such in both the two main reference books (Berlyn 1978 and Smith 1997), and references are made in both books to the Frenchman, Austrian and Pole together as "the three continentals", so it seems it was indeed an Austrian. And from a logical standpoint, if it were actually an Australian, why would Smith not have been able to speak to him in English? —Cliftonian (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, sometimes I can barely speak English, so maybe not... ;-) One wonders at the story behind it, but no worries, thanks for your responses. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• in the newspaper and journal section of the References, it seems some of the newspapers use the cite journal template, when it might be better to use the cite news template;

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, is there a chapter title and page range for the Binda work? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The chapter is simply called "1965–1967", and it runs from page 46 to page 62. The information cited comes from a section of a few paragraphs subtitled "Run-up to UDI". Thanks for the helpful comments, hope you are well —Cliftonian (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, wait, no I see what's happened now. The cite book template has been changed by someone to change what the author and editor parameters do. Binda is the author and Cocks is the editor, but it's not a matter of Binda contributing a chapter to a Cocks book. Hold on, I'll change this —Cliftonian (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments As I noted on the talk page, this is a really interesting topic for an article, and hopefully sparks a trend. I have the following comments:

• "Ian Smith, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia from 1964 to 1979," - this is a bit clunky given that virtually everyone who reads the article will know who Smith was. How about starting with 'Future Prime Minister of Rhodesia Ian Smith..." or just chop the PM bit out altogether?

• I've changed to "Future Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith ..." —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Smith was shot down by enemy flak" - no need for 'enemy'

• Yes —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Smith was fascinated by the idea of being a fighter pilot, and particularly excited by the prospect of flying a Spitfire" - is this correct? I didn't think that the Spitfire was well-known until its role in the Battle of Britain.

• I was paraphrasing the source material, which is The Great Betrayal, page 10. On the one hand, these memoirs were written half a century later, but on the other, Smith kept a regular journal for most of his life, the result being that much is recalled as he wrote it down at the time. The source material for this part says: "I received some hope from an announcement that Rhodesia had been chosen as one of the countries to pioneer the Empire Air Training Scheme ..."—this occurred in 1940—"... My dream was to fly a Spitfire, so I consoled myself with the need for patience—but it did not come easily, and it was difficult to concentrate on such mundane things as academic studies". The arrangement of this paragraph seems to imply that his admiration for the Spitfire came only in 1940, after it became famous in the Battle of Britain (as you correctly say), but it isn't explicitly said. The Berlyn biography, The Quiet Man (1978), mentions Smith having a keen interest in the air force, so it does not seem to me completely impossible that he might have known of the Spitfire beforehand. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Southern Rhodesian whites in general were very keen to enlist; because it was feared that the absence of these men might adversely affect the strategically important mines, conscription was introduced to keep many settlers out of the military and in their civilian occupations." - this is a bit unclear. Rather than conscription, do you mean the broader system of manpower controls which many countries introduced? (for instance, Australia and the UK had almost universal manpower allocation schemes in which people were assigned to the military or high-priority civilian occupations, and many categories of skilled workers were effectively prohibited from joining the military)

• Again I based the wording on the source material. Both the autobiography and the Berlyn biography mention this and refer to it as "conscription". This may be simplified or colloquial wording, but other sources I've seen also seem to use the term "conscription", for example A. J. A. Peck in Rhodesia Accuses (1966), page 75: "... the official reason given for the introduction of conscription in Rhodesia was that too many Rhodesians sought to join up ..." George Henry Tanser's The Guide to Rhodesia (1975) also uses this wording, on page 38: "... so overwhelming was the enthusiasm of volunteers that, to keep key workers on the land and in industry, the Government had to introduce conscription in 1939." Smith comments in The Great Betrayal (on page 9) that it was "a unique situation: people were conscripted to keep them out of the security forces", so perhaps it actually was conscription. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Australian term for this was 'manpower controls'. Effectively everyone was conscripted in Australia from 1942, and the government had the right to allocate them to the armed forces or key industries. It would seem though that Rhodesia just just used 'conscription' (Rhodesia was far from alone in introducing such a system BTW). Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why did Smith talk to no less a figure than the director of manpower if he was trying to take a low-profile approach and hoping that his status as a student wouldn't be noticed?

• He doesn't say. Again, I was just going along with the source material, in this case The Quiet Man. Off the top of my head it might be possible that he hoped to avoid bureaucracy by going straight to the director of manpower himself, rather than entrusting his fate to a series of lower-ranking functionaries, any one of whom might check his background and notice his attendance at Rhodes. Of course this is just a possible explanation. As I say the source (The Quiet Man, page 46) doesn't say, it just says Smith "quietly came up here to Salisbury and I went to ... William Addison; he was the Director of Manpower, dealing with all of the call ups. I knocked on the door and went to see him—this was who it was, and I have never forgotten him." ... "There were no difficulties, said Mr Addison, it would be easy to fix [Smith] up." —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He had never parachuted before, but had been through the routine many times mentally" - I think that he would have received some training in this as well as part of his initial training course (from memory, pilots jumped off towers in parachute harnesses to simulate what they'd need to do if they bailed out)

• I think I misinterpreted the source material here. Smith writes that he "had often gone through the drill for such an emergency so there was no hesitation". I had taken this to mean that he had rehearsed the situation in his head, but thinking about it again I think he is probably referring to the kind of drill you described. I've changed this as it seems more logical. "He had never parachuted before, but had been often been through relevant drills ..."—Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can more be said about how Smith's reputation as a war hero influenced his reputation within the Rhodesian population? - this is hinted at.

• I will try to find more on this —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've been trying to add more on this and will continue to do so —Cliftonian (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Did it also have any effect on his military policies through the Bush War? (the Rhodesian Air Force was always pretty large and effective, which suggests it was well resourced).

• I will have a look through my sources to look for something like this —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have been looking and I have yet to find any references to Smith's wartime experiences influencing his policies during the Bush War. As you may know the Malayan conflict was a more prominent influence on Rhodesian military strategy during the 1970s —Cliftonian (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough; you can only go as far as the sources say, and this was mainly a land war. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• The obituary from The Independent notes that Smith wore a Spitfire pilot's tie until late in his life. This doesn't appear to be noted in the article, and can anything more be said about how his service as a pilot influenced his perception of himself?

• I hadn't noticed that; well done. I've also put in a bit about Jack Malloch's restored Spitfire, which Smith mentions in his memoirs as having been delighted by —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a minor quibble/suggestion, is 'career' the right word for the title? 'service' might be better given that Smith only appears to have intended to serve in the air force during the war. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the very helpful review! I hope my answers above are satisfactory for now; I will get onto the unfinished ones during the week. Regarding the last suggestion, I had been thinking about whether to use "career" or "service", and I ultimately settled on the former essentially for consistency (see here). I have no real problem with changing it to "service", but I will say that it might imply that he was drafted into the war, which he wasn't. He probably would have been had he stayed at Rhodes until he graduated his course, but that's academic. Anyway, I'll go with consensus on this last thing. Thanks and have a great rest of the weekend! —Cliftonian (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Either works ultimately. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support All my comments are now addressed. Again, nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

• "prime ministership": not in the dictionaries I checked. this and this give "premiership" as the word, but I think that's going to confuse some readers, so I'd reword without -ship.

• OK

• "conscription was introduced to keep certain settlers out of the military": How does conscription keep people out of the military?

• Changed to "manpower controls"

• "that bush...": At FAC, people will want "that bush ...", per WP:ELLIPSES.

• OK

• That's it; I didn't find much to complain about. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for these Dank! Hope you're well. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Reviewed this with alacrity at DYK, and glad to see it at ACR. Structure, referencing, coverage and image licensing appear fine. Aside from what I've copyedited, just a few minor points, none of which are deal breakers:

• I'm not sure "British Royal Air Force" is warranted; if it's there to emphasise that he served in another country's armed forces I guess it's fair enough, but otherwise I think the RAF is well-known enough to be mentioned without the qualification.

• I don't think it hurts to have "British" there for extra clarification. It also concisely makes clear to readers unfamiliar with the context that the RAF he was in was the British one, not a Rhodesian version (or indeed a South African one) —Cliftonian (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Pretty sure flags in infoboxes are going out of fashion; doesn't fuss me for ACR but may come up at FAC.

• I see no reason not to keep them for now, but I'm happy to go with consensus either here or at FAC —Cliftonian (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• "creditable academic student" sounds a bit odd to me -- do we mean he had a credit average or something like that?

• I was trying to say he was good but not excellent. Have changed to "commendable" —Cliftonian (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do we happen to know what he was flying at Idku, before he went on to Hurricanes?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think it says in one of the books but they're at home. I'll be there later on today so I'll have a look. Thanks for the review! —Cliftonian (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Berlyn says on p. 50 that he was doing a conversion course to Hurricanes, so I've put that he flew Hurricanes there —Cliftonian (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I'd like to take it to FAC and want to make sure I've got all the proper forms down for a mil-hist article. Still working on the campaignbox thingie - but it's coming. All help appreciated - it's been copyedited by Malleus, so it's had more than just my poor prose efforts. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on Battle of Hastings as we speak. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've updated File:Norman conquest 1066.svg which has made a significant difference to the file size and usability, but the image description could use some work: File:Topographic Map of the UK - Blank.png linked and some information given as a caption; what is the copyright status of the cropped swords? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know - we could probably lose them without any great loss if no one knows. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming to this really late, but could you (Grandiose) add dots to the end of the lines? They are very indistinct in thumbnail view. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Done on both fronts. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Grandoise. I'm pretty good with photographs, but actual graphic design stuff is something I suck at. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. You aren't getting much of a review here. I'll be happy to look at this when it gets to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Heh, I think that's the second time we've edit-conflicted at ACR today, Dan... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing this, Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• A few comments: - Dank (push to talk)
• "Native resistance led to members of the English elite having their lands confiscated; some went into exile.": Would this be accurate? "Some members of the English elite who resisted had their lands confiscated, and some went into exile."
  • In the end, most of the native elite slipped out of elite status - through confiscation, exile, etc. I'm afraid that your suggested wording doesn't quite convey that if they resisted, the end result was they lost their lands (a couple rebelled twice before losing their lands, but lose them they did.). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • How about this? "The English elite who resisted had their lands confiscated or were forced to flee into exile." - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I went with "The English elite who resisted had their lands confiscated and some fled into exile." - not all that had their lands confiscated went into exile. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I don't like "held directly of the king"; I don't think non-specialists will get the subtleties just from the "of".
  • Changed to "from". "Held of" is beaten into medievalists in our early boot camps/classes so it's almost impossible to prevent us from writing it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• "langue d'oïl": would French, northern French, or northern French dialects be too vague?
  • Linguists are just as obnoxious as the historians ... they would probably object as being simplistic or too broad (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Edward the Confessor ... succeeded to the English throne in 1042. This led to the establishment of a powerful Norman interest in English politics, as Edward drew heavily on his former hosts for support": I don't have any religious objection to the phrase "led to", it's just that when I ask people to rewrite it, it usually seems to fix something. In this case, "The Normans developed a powerful interest in English politics, as Edward drew heavily on his former hosts ..." would eliminate some ambiguity about where their interest came from.
  • The problem is if you say "The Normans" you imply that ALL the Normans developed this interest. It wasn't quite so, as it was only part of the Norman people (which was in a state of anarchy at the time, due to William's inheriting the duchy at a young age) which showed an interest in England - and the actual government didn't do much to help Edward, as they were too busy trying to keep Wiliam in power. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I got down to Tostig's raids and the Norwegian invasion. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Hi, Ealdgyth, it was nice to meet your namesake in this article... ;-)

• Prose-wise, completed my usual copyedit, though I found little enough to do. I'm not a big fan of "But" at the start of sentences, and always thought it was mainly an American thing, but I know it sometimes appears in Brit writing too so I'm not going to make a fuss about it... Outstanding points:
  • Recent historians have suggested figures of between 5000 and 13,000 for Harold's army at Hastings, and most modern historians argue for a figure of 7000–8000 English troops. -- What's the difference between "recent" and "modern" historians?
  • Twice more the Normans fled, these times feigned, -- Expression seems awkward, do we mean Twice more the Normans fled, feigning on both occasions or something like that?
    • How's "Twice more the Normans fled, both times feigned..." work for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • That works, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Henceforth, all land was "held" from the King. -- I'd gathered from the preceding sentences that William nominally held all land, so when you say "held" from the King I assume you mean "held by nobles at the pleasure (or on behalf) of the King" or some such. As it is, "held" from the King sounds like "withheld from the King", which I presume is not correct.
    • Well, it wasn't really "at the pleasure of the king" as the tenants had the right to pass it on to their heirs as long as they behaved. How does "Henceforth, all land was "held" from the king in feudal tenure in return for military service." work for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The extra info helps but I still think "held from the King" gives the impression of "withheld from the King", when what I assume we mean is more like "granted by the King" -- would that work, in fact? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Not really, because the king did not grant the lands again every time someone died - nor when a new king took the throne. Feudalism is one of the trickiest concepts to explain to non-historians of the period.... it's not simple, and it's very easy to oversimplify too much and mislead. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Can we say "held directly", as you do in the lead? I think that makes the meaning clearer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, and we do now. Good suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
              • Tks, adding my support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Structure and coverage look reasonable -- one-paragraph subsections are sometimes frowned upon but they seem to make sense here.
• References look reliable, and everything is cited.
• Image checks I may leave to others on this occasion -- assuming no issues there and subject to resolution of my queries above, I'll be happy to support this excellent effort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Images I've fixed what issues there were. Why is the first image of the body of the article left-aligned? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Because that's where it was when I started editing the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it over because, as it is quite tall, it crossed over the next header and so the readability was compromised (given I could see no obvious advantage to having it on the left). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Works fine for me. I removed the stamford bridge image as it was crowding things and was the least relevant here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• no alt text on images (not an ACR requirement),
• all other toolbox checks are green
• the prose reads quite well. There are several uses of "however" that I suggest you should reconsider, and many of the "but"s could be "and", as the purpose of the conjunction at that point in the sentence is not to suggest an unexpected contrast, implication or exception.
• the TOC is a bit long and creates a lot of whitespace. I suggest you collapse it using {{TOC limit|2}} at the end of the lead, that way it will only show the 11 section headings. Not an obstacle to A-Class.

An excellent, well-researched and sourced article. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've whacked at the "buts" and "howevers" some.. I did not really like the looks of the shortened TOC. IT's not really THAT long.... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - this is a great article, and one on a major topic. One question:
  • "fitzOsbern" - is this correct? I'm guessing it might just be some odd old Scottish name, but I just don't know. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's actually Norman - means "son of Osbern" and is a patronymic. Can also be seen as "FitzOsbern" or "Fitz Osbern" or "fitz Osbern". You'll also see it in Victorian naming occasionally. It's the origin of "Fitzhugh" and "Fitzgerald" surnames. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Huh, imagine that. I always assumed the Fitz___ names were Scottish in origin. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I believe (I can't put my hands on a sure reference for this, so take it with a grain of salt) that the "Mac" is the Scottish version. Just like "ap" is the Welsh, I believe. For more on "fitz" see... Fitz. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It looks good to me here are some specific notes but I don't see anything that would make me think its not A-Class material. I would recommend expanding some of the short sections before going to FA though.
• Lede summarizes the article and doesn't contain information that does not appear elsewhere. It does not contain references.
• All data is referenced
• References are clean and well formatted.
• I ran the article through AWB and no errors or typos are identified.
• Well written and clear
• Good Structure and has a logical flow
• Good use and placement of images
• Good references, no untrustworthy references or websites.

Great job! Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No. 81 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

My third RAAF wing nomination at ACR, following on from No. 86 last month. Back to a 'glamour' formation, this is the parent organisation for Australia's three squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets, and their operational conversion unit. Like 86 Wing, No. 81 has had multiple incarnations, three in fact -- during WWII and the occupation of Japan, the early 1960s, and the late-1980s till now -- which has made research a challenge, but I think it's finally pretty solid. I've expanded it since its recent successful GAN, so any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: G'day, Ian, good work as usual and not much stood out for me. Referencing is comprehensive and covereage seems good. I made a minor tweak to an image caption; please feel free to revert if you don't agree. I also tweaked one of the image description pages. I only have a few comments:

• in the lead, "the Hornets have been deployed for overseas peacekeeping missions". To which missions does this refer to? I couldn't seem to find any actual deployments in the body. My understanding is that they didn't actually deploy to Timor, but maybe I missed something...
  • Yeah, fair enough, I was looking for general wording to cover the Diego Garcia deployment + being on standby for Timor -- perhaps you or Nick can suggest something. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I had a go at rewording the article; please review and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Tks mate, the two ops really were different enough to require dedicated mentions -- I've tweaked but hopefully maintained your train of thought... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• in the World War II section, is it possible to include totals of sorties flown, casualties? Do these exist at all? 23:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Without the wing unit history sheets having been digitised, it'd mean checking the individual squadron histories in say Eather's ADF squadrons book or the RAAF Historical Section's fighter volume, to see if they mention anything. I'll certainly double-check my online copies of Odgers and Whispering Death to see if either mention casualties for at least a given point in time. Tks for review/support, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Tweaked/added material via Odgers, incl. two months worth of sorties and losses figures from Arthur's "balance sheet". Tks for getting me to revisit the official history -- had clean forgotten that I'd failed to make any reference to the wing's (non)involvement at Balikpapan. BTW, the other Pacific War history that references 81WG, Whispering Death, doesn't add anything to Odgers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • No worries, your changes look good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Great work Ian. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• The first sentence seems too broad, and may not be entirely accurate since No. 82 Wing began operating Super Hornets (which are arguably better air-to-air aircraft due to their excellent AESA radar and stealthier design)
  • I wouldn't disagree re. the Super Hornets' capabilities but unless there's other declarations to the contrary I think we have to go with the main purpose of the wing as stated by the Air Force, even if it might seem a little out of date. Pretty well all combat aircraft are multi-role and undoubtedly the Super Hornets have their air-to-air killing power and the Classic Hornets certainly have a secondary strike role, but the stated purposes of the wings still seem to be demarcated as they've always been. To use what I think is an apt comparison in more ways than one, the Phantom was a more powerful fighter than the Mirage, but it's not why we got it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that I phrased that comment a bit poorly: I'd suggest changing this sentence to something like "No. 81 Wing is the unit responsible for operating the Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF) F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft" given that the wing's responsibilities are broader than air-to-air operations. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, I get you -- actually that's not a bad compromise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The wing flew 1,125 sorties in October and November, dropping over 400,000 pounds (180,000 kg) of bombs, for the loss of 15 aircraft and 11 pilots" - yikes, that's an awful loss rate for a wing in the South West Pacific at this time (when Japanese fighters were non-existent, and their anti-aircraft defences generally not up to much). Do your sources explain why the wing suffered such high losses?
  • From memory a fair few aircraft generally crashed without any help from the opposition, but will check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Four from enemy action, one owing to weather, ten "unknown" -- at least at the time the report was compiled. Not sure how much that'd add to the article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • OK fair enough. That really is a shocking loss rate though (it would have been something like one in six of the pilots killed); I imagine that many of the pilots were inexperienced based on what I found when researching No. 78 Squadron RAAF's operations in this period (Odgers p. 240 if you'd like to see the reference for that No. 78 Wing unit). Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• The movements of the wing along the north coast of New Guinea in 1944 should be noted
  • Will review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Not sure which movements you mean, Nick -- I've recorded its relocations from Noemfoor to Morotai to Labuan, which I believew are all it did. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You're right: I missed that (despite searching for what I search were likely terms...) Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• "receiving an encouraging response" - this is a bit unclear. It would be better to say that lots of people volunteered to avoid any confusion.
  • Heh, 'twas just my turn of phrase... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Sources which discuss the formation of the 34th Brigade (Australia) for occupation duties in Japan typically note the depressing period in late 1945 when it was stuck on Morotai with no transport and no mission, leading to many of the volunteers deciding to accept demobilisation instead. Do any sources on No. 81 Wing note this unit having similar experiences at this time? (possibly not as the airmen and ground crew would have been kept busy converting to the Mustang)
  • Will check in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Reviewing a couple of sources it looks like BCOF and re-equipment probably acted as necessary morale builders. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• "No. 82 Squadron lost three Mustangs and a de Havilland Mosquito" - from memory, the two-engined aircraft which guided the fighters to Japan were provided by the existing Mosquito and Beaufighter-equipped squadrons before they disbanded
  • Believe that's the case, but the major sources generally omit the squadrons of the Beaus and Mossies -- will tweak to "an escorting de Havilland Mosquito" or words to the effect. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• "As the Japanese offered no serious resistance to the Allied occupation" - I don't think that the Japanese offered any resistance at all, especially by the time the Australians began to arrive
  • Stephens at least couches it in these terms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• "the last-mentioned operating two-seat F/A-18Bs in addition to the single-seat F/A-18A" - I think that the RAAF's three operational Hornet squadrons also are often issued small numbers of F/A-18Bs. http://www.adf-serials.com.au/3a21.shtml has examples of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You're probably right, after all OCU's generally seem to have single-seaters as well as trainers -- will see about rewording without losing mention of the B models somewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments are now all addressed Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tks for review and suggestions, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed for GA and have read through this again and am satisfied it meets the A class criteria. Fixed a typo. Anotherclown (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Many tks AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan McNicoll

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

After dwindling, half completed, in my sandbox for a couple of years I thought it was about time I returned to finish the article off. Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll had a distinguished career in the Royal Australian Navy, serving in the Second World War, as a liaison officer to the British nuclear tests off Western Australia in 1952, and captaining several ships, his career culminated with his appointment as Chief of Naval Staff in 1965. He later served as Australia's first ambassador to Turkey. The article just passed as GA, and I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class. Many thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. One comment: while I, and almost certainly everybody else here, know what Operation Husky was, some readers may not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and copyedit/tweaks, Hawkeye. I have tweaked the sentence to clarify that Operation Husky and the invasion of Sicily were the same thing. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support -- I reviewed at GAN so no issue with structure, referencing, coverage and supporting materials, including image licensing. Copyedited then as usual so satisfied with prose as I left it; not sure about the almost-Biblical "from whence" added since then but happy to wait for Dan's opinion on that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments - I could hardly fault this but for the following two bits:

• ...to undertake the long course at...: I would suggest replacing "the" with "a".
  • McNicoll's decision to specialise as a torpedo officer led to him undertaking the long course in this field, and I think in this case it would leave it vague if I were to tweak it to "a". I am willing to tweak the sentence if you still think this is necessary, though. Abraham, B.S. (talk)

Thanks for the explanation, it is not an issue for me so leave it as it is. Zawed (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• ...and igniting several depth charges on the sinking stern of King George V...: The King George V wasn't sinking, the Punjabi was.
  • I have substituted "sinking" for the more appropriate "damaged". Abraham, B.S. (talk)

Looks good otherwise. Zawed (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • Unable to check dabs, external links or Earwig at this time due to tool server being down. Will come back to this later.
  • Images all have Alt Text (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images are all licenced or have a valid fair use rat and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
  • A few duplicate links that should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • George Medal
    • Knighted
    • HMAS Australia
    • HMAS Kuttabul
      • I could have missed one, but I believe all of these are appropiately linked. The first three are linked once in the lead, once in the infobox, then again in the relevant section of the article. HMAS Australia is linked twice in the body of the article (first time under "Early life and career when he was briefly posted to the ship, and again under "Senior command" when he was CO of the ship), but I think this is appropiate given the amount of material in between. Let me know if you disagree, though. As for Kuttabul, I could only find it linked once... Abraham, B.S. (talk)
        • George Medal and Knighted are actually linked twice in the lead (the post noms) - that said its not a big deal in my opinion. Kuttabul is also linked twice (once piped as HMAS Penguin). This should really be linked to HMAS Penguin (naval base) instead. Not too fussed about HMAS Australia so its up to you. Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Done. Just for future reference, what tool are you using for repeat linking? Abraham, B.S. (talk)
            • I use the User:Ucucha/duplinks script. Anotherclown (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
              • Ah, okay. I've installed the script now. Thanks. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk)
  • "On his graduation in 1926, McNicoll was posted to Britain for service and further training with the Royal Navy...", consider more simply: "On graduation in 1926, McNicoll was posted to Britain for service and further training with the Royal Navy..." (minor nitpick - suggestion only)
    • No problem with this. Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
  • "Completing a twelve-month stint...", seems informal to me. Consider instead: "Completing a twelve-month posting..." or something similar.
  • "McNicoll's stint with the Royal Navy...", consider "McNicoll's posting with the Royal Navy...", or "exchange" or "detachment". Again stint seems too informal to me.
    • I think in some cases it is fine to use "stint", but I do most certainly get your point. I think most of these were put in during the GA tweaks. Have substituted all. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
  • "...King George V took part in several Arctic convoys during the Second World War...", "during the Second World War" seems redundant to me and could probably be removed.
    • I do get your point, but I think it clarifies when. If I removed the mention and changed the sentence to just "As part of the Home Fleet, King George V took part in several Arctic convoys." I think it leaves it a little vague (as in, did the ship take part in the convoys during McNicoll's posting with the ship? During the war? During the ship's service?). Perhaps if I changed the wording slightly to maybe something like "throughout the Second World War" or "throughout the conflict"? I know it is pretty much the same, but maybe a slight tweaking will work better. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
      • "throughout the conflict" works for me, although it is under the "Second World War" heading so I do think the reader would probably assume that already. Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • One would think so, but you never know... Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
  • "From April–May 1942...", suggest "From April to May 1942..."
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
  • Repetitive: "RA 51 was subsequently returned safely, though the German ships were not encountered.[18] King George V subsequently...", suggest removing one instance of "subsequently".
    • Thanks for spotting that. I have substituted the latter instance for "later". Abraham, B.S. (talk)
  • Informality here: "He completed a year-long stint with the Admiralty..." (suggest rewording as above).
    • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
  • "...a fortnight after the official cessation of hostilities...", "official" seems redundant here (suggestion only).
    • I think I only placed "official" in there since many people view the conflict as ending in August, as opposed to the officialy surrender and peace signing in September. You are right, though, and I have removed it. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
  • "...was subsequently made Captain (D)...", think "Captain (D)" should be "captain (D)" but I'm not 100% on this (see WP:JOBTITLES).
    • I could be wrong here, but I think the capitalisation is correct as it is an official position/appointment and aside from the rank of captain such as "Flag Officer Commanding HM Australian Fleet" is. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
      • See your point, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments and taking the time to review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • All my points have been addressed so I've added my spt. Really good work for what its worth. Anotherclown (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Bacher

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Next in the long line of Manhattan Project articles. Unless someone else comes to the party, this will take years. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: I did some minor copy editing, please check you are happy with my changes. Overall, I believe that this article meets A-class standards. I have a couple of minor comments about the images:

• "File:Robert F. Bacher.GIF": the image description page currently says "Date: 22 March 2013, 21:42:17", but shouldn't it be the date that the image was taken?
• "File:Bacher, Lilienthal, Pike, Waymack and Strauss.jpg" as above, this says "Date: 26 March 2013, 07:21:06", but shouldn't it be the date the image was taken?
• "File:Jean Dow Bacher Los Alamos ID.png", probably needs a date of creation if you have one;
• "File:Robert Bacher ID badge.png" as above. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• a couple of images need alt text [163]
• all other toolbox checks are green (dab, ext links, reflinks, redirects, earwig, and no overlinking) (no action required)
• suggest "and his wife Jean" in the lead
• what does "visitor" mean with respect to Edward Condon?
• suggest you actually mention Teller by name instead of just a reference to the "Super" bomb
• "200 inches" doesn't really work, it should be 200 inch IMO
• suggest "his wife Jean hadhaving died"
  • All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• CommentSupport
  • Technical review has been done above (no action req'd).
  • This doesn't quite sound correctly worded to me: "...on the Zeeman effect of hyperfine structure of atomic levels...". Not really sure what may / may not be wrong with it though (not understanding the physics aspects of the article I'm not sure of the correct terminology). Is it missing a plural somewhere? It just seems awkward to me (also repeated in body of the text). Would this work better: "...the Zeeman effect on the hyperfine structure of atomic levels..."?
    • Yes, there was a missing word. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing word here: "...Bacher moved back to Ann Arbor, where lived at home..."
    • Another missing word. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

List of sieges of Gibraltar

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

A slight departure from the articles I've brought here previously, but on a very interesting topic. Gibraltar is a tiny piece of barren rock off the coast of Spain, but its position at the western entrance to the Mediterranean and on the northern side of one of the narrowest gaps between Europe and Africa have given it military importance from the eighth century to the present day. The first settlers were the Moors of north Africa, who were relieved of it after some 600 years by the Spanish, who were in turn relieved of it by the English (who shortly thereafter became the British). Throughout its turbulent history, it has had an effect on world history utterly disproportionate to its size; the Great Siege was of course fought as part of the American War of Independence, but the Rock also played a key role in the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Castilian, and many other conflicts, not to mention the Reconquista. So there's something here for everyone, and I hope you enjoy reading. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport; high quality work, and a fascinating subject! :) I've done some light copyediting and made some comments below. As usual, these are just suggestions for your consideration!

• I'm sure you expected this but... the image placement is a bit jarring. I don't have a solution, or even strong opinion, but it did stop me on first opening the article.
  • You've lost me; what's up with the image placement? Or do you mean the huge centred image Prioryman added earlier? I quite like it, but it can be moved if it's an issue.
    • On my screen, it's the sandwiching of the text between the first two images followed by the big image + lots of white space. It just looks unusual, and I like my wiki articles ordinary dammit!! ;) It's a non-issue really, forget about it.
• Confederate; link?
  • I've had a look, but I can't find one; I don't think the War of the Spanish Succession is especially well covered on enwiki
• The first permanent settlers on the Rock ; I feel that on first use, this should be Rock of Gibraltar.
  • I can live with that
• The Spanish Reconquista began later in the eighth century, but the campaign (which eventually took 800 years to force the Moors back across the Strait) did not reach the Bay of Gibraltar until the fourteenth century.; I feel this whole sentence is a bit confusing. I'd make it two sentences, and start by explaining that later in the 8C the Spanish began efforts to push back the Moorish invasion. It might also be worth briefly noting in the previous sentence the extent to which Moorish actions from Gibraltar were successful (I know it's only backround, so not the end of the world).
  • I've re-worded it a little. The raids had varying degrees of success, but I think (OR alert!) they more a nuisance than anything else, but they were a good excuse to try to capture Gibraltar. Not that Catholics needed much excuse to fight Muslims in the mediaeval Spain.
• He sent an army under Alonso Pérez de Guzmán to take Gibraltar, which he eventually did after a month-long siege, and Gibraltar was settled by the Castilians for the first time; two different "he" I think? If so may I suggest He sent an army under Alonso Pérez de Guzmán to take Gibraltar. Guzmán's siege of the city lasted a month, and ended in success for the Castilians who settled in Gibraltar for the first time.
  • Good point. I've reworded it slightly.
• Just as a style issue. Would the table looked a bit less cramped if the description column was shrunk slightly?
  • By all means play around. I hate editing tables; it's a near miracle that this one works, but if you can make it look better, have at it!
    • I'll have a go :)
• The environmental legacy of military operations; does this need title caps for consistency?
  • Probably. Done.

That's all for now, I might go through and copyedit it a bit more later, but that'd really just be shifting letters for fun :) Its basically A-Class material at this stage. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I think I've addressed everything, but if there's anything else, just let me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, all looks good to me! --Errant ^(chat!) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• in the lead, more explanation is needed of what the "Confederate capture" was. Despite there not being a useful link (per discussion above), most readers think of the Confederacy in the ACW.
  • I've tweaed this and added an explanation of the confederates lower down
• Emirate of Granada is overlinked
  • Fixed
• all images are missing alt text (not a requirement)
  • Added
• there are a couple of bare links [164]
  • Fixed
• all other toolbox checks are green
• suggest you use the full "Henry IV of Castile" to avoid confusion with other Henry's
  • Done
• what is "deposed in effigy"
  • In this context it essentially means he was deposed in absentia, but "in effigy" is the term used in all the sources.
    • This is the same as the "Farce of Ávila", when they symbolically dethroned a mannequin dressed as King Enrique?
• "of the Franco-Spanish Bourbon dynasty"
  • Done
• the sorting aspect of the table is unnecessary and potentially annoying (try clicking on the name column and see what I mean).
  • Fixed
• not sure why Cranbery, NJ and Boulder, CO are linked in the refs
  • I usually link the palce fo publicaion unless it's well enough known not to need a link, and I think Oxford and London are wel-enough known that they don' needa link.
• I am not sure about the huge amount of whitespace created by the central image. I suggest looking at an alternative arrangement of the images
  • I'm not sure what can be done. It would be a shame to exclude the image or display it at such low resolution that it's useless just because it creates whitespace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments This article is in very good shape, and I have only the following comments:

• "four between Spain and Britain from the Confederate capture in 1704 " - you should probably briefly explain who the 'confederates' were here given that by far the most common usage is for the South in the US Civil War
  • Done (further down) I think.
• "Henry was deposed in effigy" - this is also not a common term - can it be tweaked?
  • I'm open to suggestions, but that's the term all the sources use
    • I actually have no idea what it means, to be honest. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
      • This part of Spanish history has extremely poor coverage on enwiki, but es:Farsa de Ávila explains it quite well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Plans were made for attacks on the Rock during World War II (Operation Felix) and the Falklands War (Operation Algeciras) but neither was implemented" - this isn't a great comparison. The Axis powers did in fact raid Gib during WW2, though the plan to occupy it was never enacted. The Argentines only intended to conduct a raid. Moreover, if the Argentine plan is mentioned here, the planned IRA attack should also be noted (not that it was anything like a siege either, obviously)
  • You're probably right; I've reworked it to just mention Felix.
• As a question, the article repeatedly refers to 'the first recorded siege'. Is there any reason to think that there would be unrecorded sieges? (probably yes given the sparsity of sources on pre-modern history, but I thought I'd ask) Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Given how spontaneous and haphazard some of the "sieges" were, it's possible that that there were others, but I've removed one instance of "recorded" because it's not intended to imply that there were others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments: to be honest, I don't know much about reviewing lists, so I only had a quick look:

• I'm not sure about the title of the subsection "List of sieges": isn't this largely repeating the name of the article/list? Maybe just change it to "Sieges"?
  • I thought about that but I think "sieges" is too imprecise; I could live with "sieges of Gibraltar" if you thought that was any better.
• "neither was implemented" --> "neither were implemented"?
  • Made moot by another edit
• "File:Gibraltar northern approach 1567.jpg": there appears to be a big red warning label on this: "{{PD-Art}} template without parameter: please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States". Are you able to address this?
  • Yes, fixed. Much as I love Commons, it's unbelievably complicated to find the right tag for clearly PD works.
• in the General references section, are there pages for the chapter by Rose that could be added?
  • Working on this, but it may take a while.
• the ref by Jackson is missing a year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - everything appears to be in order. This is an excellent list, good luck at FLC! Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article recounts the features and career of the 20 McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawks which were sold to the Royal Australian Navy in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The RAN operated these aircraft from its aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne until 1983, by which time ten of them had been destroyed as a result of accidents (killing two pilots). In the spirit of trans-Tasman friendship the survivors (and what was apparently an amazingly large supply of spare parts) were sold to the Royal New Zealand Air Force at a greatly reduced price in 1984, and were later upgraded to the RNZAF's highly capable 'Kahu' A-4 variant. Sadly two of the former Australian aircraft were destroyed in accidents during 2001, resulting in the death of a pilot. The article passed a GA nomination in mid-April, and has since been expanded and copy-edited. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I reviewed this article at GAN last month and have looked at the edits [165] made since then. Just a couple of minor issues:
• Australian Army is now overlinked
• the Grey 1998 (fn 15, 18-21) and Simms et al 2011 (fn 37, 43-44) citations don't point to the respective "Works consulted"

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your quick comments! I've de-linked the second use of Australian Army and fixed those citations. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Good to see this at ACR, never would've expected there'd be so many sources for it...

• As usual, let me know if I've misinterpreted anything while copyediting -- outstanding points:
  • Acquisition: Given there was a concern over Melbourne's size when it came to operating modern aircraft, probably worth mentioning that the Skyhawk was a very small package, so much so that it didn't even need wing-folding mechanisms -- I daresay your sources mention that somewhere but if not I can provide one from my library...
    • I've noted the concerns over the carrier's size in the first para of this section, but haven't seen anything which highlighted the Skyhawk's advantage in this regards - I'd appreciate it if you could add that in. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, just to confirm, it's from a general military aircraft book that doesn't refer specifically to the Australian situation, it'd simply be a bald statement re. the small size of the plane -- still all right? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
        • That sounds good. Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Done -- feel free to move, alter, or (at least in the case of the nickname!) discard as you see fit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Operational history:
    • "During this period pilots became familiar with flying the type and practiced combat missions and air-to-air refuelling" -- Air-to-air refuelling from...? I know the Skyhawk was capable of "buddy" refuelling, i.e. Skyhawk-to-Skyhawk, so if that's whats meant I'd spell it out as readers might think only of dedicated tankers, which we didn't have in those days...
      • Ah, you go into this later on... Maybe it's better to drop the first mention of aerial refuelling and wait till you describe it in detail... Or perhaps I'm being too careful -- your call...
        • I've added this in and also added in that these were the only Australian aircraft capable of in-flight refueling of this era; a little bit of repetition is unavoidable with articles of this type, I thik. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "The sale of Invincible to Australia was cancelled in mid-1982 following the Falklands War" -- Okay I was young at the time but I thought it was during the war, i.e. following the outbreak of the war; can you check?
      • The situation was a bit complex; Fraser wrote to Thatcher offering to release the UK from the contract on 1 June (while the war had about two weeks to run), but it wasn't until July that the UK confirmed that it intended to keep the ship, and wouldn't offer her to-be-completed sister ship Ark Royal as a replacement (until that time the RAN thought that the carrier would be substituted for Invincible). I've replaced the 'after' with 'as a result' given things were a bit less clear-cut (from reading between the lines it seems that the UK would have torn up the contract if Australia hadn't released them from it anyway). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Okay, glad to hear my memory isn't completely clouded... Yes, there's that about the UK government, on the other hand I recall the cynics suggesting that the Australian government saw the Falklands as a heaven-sent opportunity to get out of an expensive purchase while looking magnanimous instead of cheap... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's since been more or less confirmed. The Government was never all that enthusiastic about replacing the carrier, agreeing to do so mainly as Invincible was offered at a dirt cheap rate. Even then they never placed an order for any fixed-wing aircraft to operate from her, or even formally selected the Harrier for this role. The Fraser Government had pretty much decided to not go ahead with a replacement prior to the election (with the support of all the ADF leadership other than the Navy), and the incoming Hawke Government confirmed this by canning the project as one if its first actions. Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Structure, referencing, coverage and supporting materials look good; the number of good pictures is a pleasant surprise, though I wonder how some of them were obtained, particularly the catapult shot, which looks to me like a still from film or video footage. Anyway, all in all, a great effort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your comments Ian. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [166] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [167] (no action required).
  • Most images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [168] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are either PD or licensed and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [169] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action required).
  • There may be a word missing here: "Ten of the twenty A-4Gs were lost during the type's service with the RAN. This gave the type a poor safety record, but high loss rate was at least partially attributable to the intrinsic dangers involved with operating aircraft from an aircraft carrier." Perhaps it should be: "Ten of the twenty A-4Gs were lost during the type's service with the RAN. This gave the type a poor safety record, but the high loss rate was at least partially attributable to the intrinsic dangers involved with operating aircraft from an aircraft carrier."
    • I've been bold and tweaked this because I felt the sentence could be improved a little anyway now I see it again... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks Ian; I'd been struggling with that sentence. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this article is highly developed and well written. No major issues that I can see. Anotherclown (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your comments. I'll add the alt text now. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Artur Phleps

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently successfully underwent GAN and has subsequently been expanded and enhanced using a number of mainly German language sources. Phleps served in three armies, in two wars, was an SS Corps commander in the Balkans and was posthumously awarded the Oak Leaves to his Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. He was famously photographed with Kurt Waldheim (later UN Secretary-General and President of Austria) during Case Black in Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

First comments by MisterBee1966, more later

• I find the image icons next to the awards in the infobox too small to add value, especially for the German Cross. I suggest to remove them here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed them. I consider this particular issue an entirely stylistic one, which has no MOS or other guidance to drive it, but I have nevertheless followed your suggestion. Cheers. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• It was a suggestion, not a show stopper by any means, nor based on guidance. It just reflected my very personal taste, or bad eye sight. :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just ordered "Totenkopf und Edelweiß: General Artur Phleps und die südosteuropäischen Gebirgstruppen der Waffen-SS 1942-1945" [Skull and Edelweiss: General Artur Phleps and Southeastern European Mountain Troops of the Waffen-SS 1942-1945] ISBN 978-3902475572. I will comment and make suggestions as I read the book. I hope that is okay for you? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's great. I'm sure there will be some new material there. I try my best with my rubbish German, but that's one I haven't been able to get access to. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Early life" check WP:SURNAME. "Artur Phleps" I think the section should start with "Phleps" only MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• What does the guideline say about capitalization of German words? In German all German nouns such as Oberleutnant, Hauptmann, etc. are always capitalized. I believe that in English military ranks are only capitalized when they are mentioned immediately before the name of the person. The article, as it stands now, is not consistent. It uses lower case German ranks but also upper case German ranks, though they are not immediately followed by the name. I suggest using capitalized German ranks everywhere; at least this reflects the correct German spelling. Opinions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• the relevant guideline is WP:JOBTITLES. It says that ranks are common nouns and as such they are not capitalised, but if the rank is followed by the person's name it is capitalised. Because Waffen-SS ranks combine the use of initialisations like "SS", hyphens and proper nouns like "Waffen-SS" within ranks, it may be that we should adopt your suggestion and use initial caps for the rank in German but then follow the JOBTITLES rule for the English equivalent in parentheses when the rank is first introduced. I'm happy to implement that as a consensus position. I have thought about this rank issue quite a bit recently, and at least this is consistent and explicable to others rather than trying to have an exception for Waffen-SS ranks. The only place where I think the English equivalent should have initial caps (when not in front of the name) is in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I found one case of Kampfgruppe which I changed as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the same rule applies. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder, and this has nothing to do with this review here, you wrote that he was a confidant of Hube, commander of the 16th Panzer Division. The timing for this seems to coincide with Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz (an article which I have been working on for some time now) assignment to the 16th Panzer Division as well. Have you come across references that Phleps and Strachwitz had contact/communication as well? MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, I haven't come across Strachwitz in my research of Phleps, although it might be worth looking in Steiner if you have a copy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I received the book "Totenkopf und Edelweiß: General Artur Phleps und die südosteuropäischen Gebirgstruppen der Waffen-SS 1942-1945" [Skull and Edelweiss: General Artur Phleps and Southeastern European Mountain Troops of the Waffen-SS 1942-1945]. The book points to "Würfelspiele des Lebens. Vier Porträts bedeutender Siebenbürger: Conrad Haas, Johann Martin Honigberger, Paul Richter, Artur Phleps" ISBN 978-3875380118 which seems to include a more detailed biography of Phleps, which I ordered as well. Nevertheless here some info based on book I have: MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Parents: he was the third son of father Gustav Phleps, mother Sophie, née Stoltz page 96
• one brother became a doctor, the other a professor in Gdansk/Danzig technical university page 96
• school: attended evanvangelical Realschule in Hermannstadt page 97
• family: wife Grete, son Dr. Reinhart Phleps and daughter Irmingard page 111
• the Oak leaves were handed out by Himmler to his son SS-Obersturmführer on 24 November 1944 page 105

Have added all of the above. Thanks very much! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Dr. Reinhart Phleps was Bataillonsarzt (doctor of the battalion) in SS-Freiwilligen-Gebirgsjäger-Regiment 13, Kaltenegger page 15 MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I received Bergel's book now. Apparently he acted against direct orders in the battle at the Tisza against forces of Bela Kun during the Hungarian–Romanian war. For this he was court-martialed. However the proceedings concluded that his actions saved the Romanian forces and he was promoted to Oberst. (page 87) MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• After he published his book on logistics (Servicii si etape / Principiile fundamentale de organizare si functionare), he failed his test to become a general, in exactly those topics on logics in which he was an expert, logistics. (page 88) MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "...but after criticising government policy..." — Bergel (page 89) states that his criticism was done openly by calling the king a lier. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "...but he volunteered for the Waffen-SS instead..." — Bergel says, that the so called "Volksdeutsche", which Phleps was, were not allowed in the Wehrmacht, only the SS accepted them (page 92). Worth checking into?!
  • Great stuff, thanks very much! All added. The Volksdeutsche thing is possible at that early date, but I hadn't heard of it before. I'll look into it, but in the meantime I've included it and attributed it to Bergel. Just wondering if wither of those books have any more info on the first half of 1942 and the dates he might have been promoted to Oberfuhrer and Brigadefuhrer? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

Lead:

• This sentence needs revision. During the interwar period he served in the Romanian Army reaching the rank of Generalleutnant (major general) and being an adviser to King Carol until he was sidelined then retired for speaking out against the government. My suggestion: During the interwar period he served in the Romanian Army and reached the rank of Generalleutnant (major general) and also became an adviser to King Carol. After he spoke out against the government, he was sidelined and then forcibly retired from the army.
  • Done, good suggestion.

Between the wars

• and dismissed from the service in 1941. Slightly inconsistency with the lead, which says he was retired.
  • An error in my German translation I'm afraid, forcibly retired is closer than dismissed. Fixed.

WWII:

• ...enlisting under his mother's maiden name of Stolz. Do we know when he reverted back to Phleps - I assume his decorations were awarded under his actual name?
  • Good point. When he was appointed to command the 7th SS Division. I've added it.
• In July 1941 he was awarded the clasp to the Iron Cross (1939) 2nd Class. This is a clasp to the Iron Cross won in WWI? Is that "(1939)" supposed to be there?
  • It's the 1939 clasp to the Iron Cross (1914). Well picked up. I also added that the 1st Class was the 1939 for completeness.
• Two weeks later, SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS (Brigadier) Phleps... Do we know when he was promoted and what unit he was commanding at the time? (I'm guessing not, but thought it worth checking).
  • Sadly not.
• ...the two regiments and supporting arms... No antecedence for the two regiments. Does a German division only have two regiments, or was this simply the size of the division at the time?
  • This division only had two regiments. I have changed to "and with its two mountain infantry regiments" for clarity.
• ...but it was only a limited success. it was - they were.
  • Fixed.
• No duplicate links
• No errors found using Citation Error Report
• I am far from an expert on licencing of images but you might want to check File:Hans Herbert Macholz, Kurt Waldheim, Escola Roncagli, and Artur Phleps in Podgorica, Yugoslavia, 1943.jpg - is the World Jewish Congress really the author?
  • Long story. They were definitely not the original author, as the photograph was taken by the photographic section of the division. However, the people that obtained a copy of it and authenticated it were the WJC. They then published it and encouraged others to do so during the Waldheim affair in the mid-1980's. This version, which is from the Yad Vashem site, was shared with YV by WJC. It has been used extensively in books both with and without credit being given to the WJC (or anyone for that matter). PRODUCER added this one over the top of a NFR image I uploaded. I've gone back to the NFR one.

Zawed (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My comments all satisfactorily addressed, so adding my support now. Zawed (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Boy, judging from the lead image, this guy could have been a stand-in for Hitler at the end of the war...

• Made my usual copyedit, so pls check I haven't broken anything. One thing I notice as a general point is that you could employ more commas! I've added them as appropriate here but something to consider in future... Anyway, outstanding items:
  • First up, I'm not a big fan of using terms like "highly decorated" in the opening sentence, unless that's solely what made the subject notable. It's a bit like "Oscar-winning" in the first sentence of an actor's bio, which I think is a bit peacock-ish and generally frowned upon in WP.
    • Fair point, have deleted it.
  • Also the opening sentence is a bit long and should probably be split -- you could just drop mention of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves there, since you pick it up at the end of the lead.
    • Done.
  • Phleps was criticised by both NDH and German authorities for the harshness with which the evacuation was carried out. He was awarded the German Cross in Gold on 20 June 1944. -- Hard for me to imagine German authorities in WWII criticising anyone for harshness but I'll take your word for it! I wonder though how that reconciles with receiving an award shortly afterwards -- anything in the sources?
    • They didn't need anything extra to annoy the locals, by this time the Partisans were getting the upper hand.
• Other than the relatively minor points above, structure, coverage, referencing and supporting materials look okay, though I share Zawed's curiosity re. the Yugoslavia image attribution. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have replaced the image with a NFR one which accurately described the source, author etc. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • No dab links [170] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [171] (no action req'd).
  • One of the images lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [172] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images are all licenced or have a valid fair use rat and are appropriate for the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [173] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Wording seems a bit off here: "Following promotion to Oberleutnant (first lieutenant) he was successively transferred to the staff of the 13th Infantry...", might this work better as: "Following promotion to Oberleutnant (first lieutenant) he transferred to the staff of the 13th Infantry."
  • "After the war, and the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire...", consider more simply: "After the war the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dissolved..."
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "After recruiting, formation and training in the Banat...", not sure but I think this might work better as: "After recruitment, formation and training in the Banat..." (suggestion only)
  • Otherwise looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Ac, all addressed [174]. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Adding my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Henry I of England

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I'm nominating this article because it has recently been expanded, and covers an important Anglo-Norman ruler and military leader. It could use some more pairs of eyes over it, however, particularly on the prose. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• with lands stretching into South and North Wales - This should probably be shortened to just Wales, unless you want to make a distinction about Central Wales.

• There's a subtle difference, but I've simplified it. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Kingdom of France, etc. should be capitalized.
• This awkward: deployed to London Some other verb is needed.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• What's porphyrogeniture?

• I created an article for it and linked it. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• who was still returning from the Crusade - was still abroad?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Link to Winchester castle

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• low born individuals - low-born individuals

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Queen's chancellors? Henry and his queens' chancellors became bishops of Durham, Hereford, London, Lincoln, Winchester and Salisbury. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think queens' chancellors is right, as there were two queens and several chancellors, and queens isn't a proper noun in this context. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I should have been clearer. I was questioning if Henry's queens had their own chancellors because that's how I'd read the text.

• Yep - that's correct. I've tweaked to see if I can make that clearer. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Missing word, I think Amaury III of Montfort many other barons rose up against Henry

• Added in. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Breteil or Breteuil?

• The latter - fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Pictures all appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • My comments have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Well I don't need a second (or even a first, if it comes to that) invitation to consider prose... ;-) Undertook my usual copyedit so let me know if I've misinterpreted anything. Outstanding points:
  • Count of the Cotentin: the second para begins "During this period, neither brother seems to have trusted Henry" -- the previous para just mentions Robert and Henry, so I assume you mean William and Robert didn't trust Henry, but that should be clear, e.g. "During this period, neither of his brothers seems to have trusted Henry" or simply "During this period, neither William nor Robert seems to have trusted Henry".
    • Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Should "count" be capitalised in "count of Contentin"? I guess it comes down to if it was an official title or simply your own shorthand...
    • Capitalised. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Fall and rise: "potentially because Henry had possibly" sounds so uncertain as to be hardly worth mentioning, so perhaps you can reword...
    • Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "easily defensible" might be correct English but sounds odd, how about simply "easily defended" or "easy to defend"?
    • Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Should "treaty" in "treaty of Rouen" be capitalised? Same idea as "count of Contentin"...
    • Probably! Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sometimes you say "the king" and sometimes "the King" -- not too fussed either way but should be consistent.
    • Have checked through. A couple of mistakes, now fixed. The remaining examples are probably correct, as they're talking about the generic king, not the specific King. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Taking the throne: "seized the royal treasury that was being held there" -- "being held there" suggests it was a temporary measure for some reason; if not then "seized the royal treasury held there", or even just "seized the royal treasury" is sufficient.
  • Conquest of Normandy: "Henry married Juliana, one of his illegitimate daughters, to Eustace of Breteuil, and another daughter, Matilda, to Rotrou, the Count of Perche" -- I assume Matilda here is not his legitimate daughter Matilda; if so I think it needs to be "another illegitimate daughter, Matilda".
    • Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Whew, taking a break following Government, family and household... Hopefully more later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, tks Hc, glad to see you back here, 'cos it's a mammoth piece of work that should go all the way to FAC. All my comments so far have been addressed; will look at the rest of the article when I can and expect to support in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Now continued my review copyedit to the end of the article, so again pls check I haven't damaged anything. Outstanding prose/content comments:
  • Rebellion: You mention twice in the third paragraph that Juliana attempted to kill her father with a crossbow (doesn't everyone?) -- were there in fact two separate attempts (desperate girl!) because, if not, I'd rejig the para to merge the two mentions and avoid confusion.
  • Planning the succession: "It is uncertain whether Henry intended Geoffrey to have any future claim on England or Normandy, and he was probably keeping his son-in-law's status deliberately uncertain" -- Any chance we could avoid two "uncertain"s in the same sentence?
  • You've used a mixture of parenthetic dashes, e.g. ndashes in Succession crisis and mdashes in Death -- pls make consistent (incidentally, I'd expect to see spaces surrounding ndashes but not mdashes).
• Structure, coverage and referencing seem solid, though I'd expect to see the Ancestors diagram cited, unless all elements are sourced in the main body (I admit I haven't checked).
• I haven't checked image licensing but assuming no issues there, and pending response to the above queries, I still expect to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Crossbow - this may have been fixed; I can't see the second mention (although it expanded on in the footnote).
• Uncertains cropped.
• Ndashes fixed (I think, I often get this wrong). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• NB: I have a reference I could use for the Ancestors diagram, but I can't see a good way of actually adding a ref tag in terms of formatting (short of adding a reference to each name, which is going to look a bit odd. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Second crossbow mention was in fact the footnote -- got confused 'cos I was in edit mode at the time, sorry. Re. the ancestors citation, see Prince William, Duke of Gloucester for how DrKiernan and I have agreed it can be done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done, as per the Prince William model. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent; supporting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment, PD-100 would be clearer I think than the current PD-70 and PD-US (the latter is vague, and I think we'd really rather not rely on previous publication since that would be more open to challenge). Those historical files need PD-Art tags as well, I think, since thy're probably photographs (rather than scans). A couple of images are already licensed like this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Which ones do you reckon need the PD-Art tags? (I've never certain how this works...) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Co-ord comment: what is the status of this review? Sturm, Ian and Grandiose, have your comments been addressed? Hchc2009, are you able to let the reviewers know what has been done to rectify any concerns? As the review has been open for around six weeks now and it is still to receive a support, I am considering closing it, but I don't want to do so if you believe you have covered off on the above listed issues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No action has been taken on my suggestion, but I would be loathe to suggest it ought to be considered an oppose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto re. my points. I was planning to do more with this review but was awaiting responses to my initial copyedit/comments before proceeding. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

• Picking up where Ian left off:
• "the two kings agreed a truce", "to agree a peace settlement": Most non-Brits aren't clear on what this means (it doesn't mean "agreed to", exactly) ... my sense is it means they negotiated a truce or settlement.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "this was a prestigious match with the Empire": "match" in this sense doesn't usually take "with"; "this was a prestigious match" would work.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "onto the defensive": on the defensive

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Amaury III of Montfort many other barons": ?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "further barons abandoned his cause": more barons ..., or the barons further abandoned ...

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "despite Juliana attempting to kill": We're trying to avoid WP:PLUSING, so: "despite Juliana's attempt to kill". Also, "attempting" allows for the possibility of an ongoing attempt, which it doesn't seem to be.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Henry appears to have deployed scouts and then deployed his troops": repetition

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Calixtus, declined to support Louis": no comma

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "formally made peace on advantageous terms to the English King": ... on terms advantageous ..., and I agree with the comment above that consistency in capitalisation of "King" would be helpful, though it's not always possible.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I got down to Henry_I_of_England#Succession crisis, 1120–23. You didn't get much of a review here; you may fare better at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, lack of recent activity here by Hchc may be contributing to lack of reviews... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fair point, Ian. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Continuing. "the King being hit", etc.: Check for WP:PLUSING throughout. (It's not that PLUSING isn't good English so much as that, when editors reword it, the rewording is generally preferable, for one reason or another.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• I did some copyediting; feel free to revert. Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Have done another trawl for plussing. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • No dab links [175] (no action req'd).
  • External links all check out [176] (no action req'd).
  • Images all lack Alt Text so you might consider adding [177] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [178] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • Possible missing word here: "Robert joined the Crusade, borrowing money from William Rufus in order to do and granting...", do you mean "Robert joined the Crusade, borrowing money from William Rufus in order to do so and granting..."? Would also suggest removing "in order" as too formal. Consider instead: "Robert joined the Crusade, borrowing money from William Rufus to do so and granting.."
  • The paragraph that begins: "Matilda had been educated in a sequence of convents..." is a bit repetitive. At least three sentences that all start the same way "Matilda...". Perhaps reword?
  • Sentence construction through out the article can be a bit repetitive with numerous sentences starting "Henry...", often several times in a paragraph. Perhaps reword?
  • "... the conversion of communities of clerks into communities of Augustinian canons..." could possibly be more simply worded as "... the conversion of communities of clerks into Augustinian canons..."
  • "That" is redundant here: "Louis demanded that Henry give homage ...", consider more simply: "Louis demanded Henry give homage..."
  • issns could be added for the journals listed in the bibliography.
  • Otherwise seems like a well written and comprehensive account (although I'm not an expert on this topic by any stretch). Anotherclown (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Changes made. Is there a good search engine/database for ISSNs? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gday. Worldcat.org sometimes has them, otherwise I just do a Google search. I've added them now for you so all my comments have been addressed. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Cheers! Just added the alt text in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

SMS Schlesien

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yet another German battleship here at ACR (the light is visible at the end of the tunnel, though, since of the rest, probably only the "Ugly Sisters" will end up here - after that, who knows!). In any case, thanks to all editors who review the article, I look forward to working with you during the review process. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Structure, coverage, referencing and supporting materials (incl. image licensing) appear good to me.
• Made my usual prose edits so pls check I haven't misinterpreted or broken anything. Only one remaining query: Schlesien could barely make out a target in the darkness, as could several of her sisters -- the expression confuses me, do we mean that her sisters could or could not make out targets?
  • Should be better now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "pre-dreadnought", "post-Dreadnought": Your call, but it seems inconsistent. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Reworded the sentence to avoid that construction - how does it look now? Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Good. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Her armored belt was 240 mm (9.4 in) thick amidships and a 40 mm (1.6 in) thick armored deck.": Something's missing.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A few comments you may want to consider by MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ordered under the letter "R"; HRS volume 7 page 125
• christened by Fürstin Mathilde von Pless, speech by de:Robert von Zedlitz-Trützschler Oberpräsident of Selisia page 125
• "She was laid down on 19 November 1904 at the AG Vulcan dockyard in Stettin." HRS claim that the ship was built in Danzig by Schichau. page 124. Please check
• Armament at construction does not match for the SK-8.8 cm guns. HRS states only 20 guns, article infobox states 22 while text says 20
• Alfred Saalwächter was her commander from September 1927 to September 1928 page 125

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• In the lead: "Afterward..." makes it sound like after the war.
  • How does it read now?
• The lead, infobox and WWII section are not consistent regarding her fate. The lead says she hit a mine and partially sank but does not give her final fate, the infobox says her crew destroyed her in 1945, and the WWII section says she was scrapped insitu between 49-56. Please clarify.
  • Should be straightened out now.
• unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible...) she didn't have any 5.9cm guns and neither did Pinguin. Could you review your sources on this?
  • Hmm - don't know how 15cm got changed to 5.9cm. Odd.
• where were the torpedo tubes mounted in her hull, broadside amidships?
  • Added.
• suggest "and she had a 40 mm..."
  • Sounds fine to me.
• suggest you link Wilhelmshaven
  • Done
• "line of battle" has a duplicate link
  • Fixed
• suggest "of the naval war" should probably just be "of the war" unless the naval war is defined as starting at a different time from the war itself?
  • Sounds good to me.
• suggest "the ship was deployed to guard the German Bight to guard the area
  • Much better, thanks.
• suggest "followed in on 17–18 and 21–23 April 1915, of the month
  • Works for me.
• suggest adding a hyphen here "in-between"
  • I'm not sure it's needed there - might Dank have the answer?
• "Schlesien could barely make out a target in the darkness, as could several of her sisters", suggest "Schlesien and several of her sisters could barely make out a target in the darkness, as could several of her sisters
  • Sounds good to me.
• what is an "8-point turn"?
  • Linked to Boxing the compass - it's a 90-degree turn
• a query really, do ships marcH? I thought they steamed or sailed?
  • It's another way to put it. And for even more confusion, the Germans usually use the verb marschieren and derivations thereof (such as aufmarsch) for this type of thing.
• why no "SMS" for Von der Tann?
  • I usually don't use the prefix apart from the first instance in the lead (and of course for ships of foreign navies) - I've removed the one for Derfflinger
• suggest "considerably strengthened so they could to be used"
  • Sounds good to me.
• no alt text on images (not an ACR requirement)
• confirm all other toolbox checks are green (no action required)
• could you add a location to Leonard et al in the refs?
  • Added. Thanks for reviewing the article, PM67. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Happy with all responses. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Roza Shanina

Nominator(s): Brandmeister^talk

I am nominating this article for A-Class review for some feedback before future FA nomination (on April 3, 2014 there will be the 90th anniversary of Shanina's birth). The article is currently a GA and has been copyedited. Brandmeister^talk 16:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Support

• (although that was subsequently considered a likely exaggeration) Are you saying that it is not true?
• between 2 and 3 am when the doors were locked Were the doors locked between 2 and 3 am, or did she return then? Re-word.
• Keep the date formatting consistent. Prefer day first, as this is the one used in Russia.
• Major Degtyarev—the commander of the 1138th Rifle Division No, according to your source he was the commander of the 1138 cп (стрелковый полк = Rifle Regiment)
• References required for last paragraph of "Tour of Duty" and the two paragraphs in "Diary"

All in all, very well well done. For an FA, you'll probably want to get Dan K or another copy editor to smooth the prose a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done, thanks. Brandmeister^talk 23:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed to support. Hawkeye7 (talk)

Comments; I'm a bit pushed for time so some quick comments now, and more later!

• although diaries were strictly prohibited in the Soviet military,[38] there were some exceptions; so.. these exceptions were authorised? And Shanina's was or wasn't?
• I'm afraid you totally lost me in the East Prussia section with her changing tally. She starts with 42, then reportedly kills 5, and ends up on 46? I'm guessing what you're communicating here is that there were many contradictory/incomplete reports. Also, your dates jump back and forth in a confusing manner. I'd suggest working through it strictly chronologically.
• and her achievements were acknowledged particularly by Ilya Ehrenburg; where did he acknowledge them? In fact this whole sentence starts to stretch out - perhaps consider splitting it in two and expanding on the matter.
• In the same record she wrote that today she agrees to go "even to a melee combat" and that she had no fear; tense here is a bit confusing.
  • You've not quite sorted this one :) Sorry, my fault for being too vague. In the same record she wrote that today she; this makes no sense as presented in the present tense. You actually change the one past-tense word that was appropriate :)
  • Also; is this direct quote? some unknown force draws her to the front line; does she refer to herself in the third person?
• Consider reviewing user of -ly adverbs; often they can be removed or replaced with more specific words, to improve the prose.

More later. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done, will try to smooth the prose further. I couldn't figure out where exactly Ehrenburg acknowledged Shanina (probably in a war newspaper), but it was on Sept 17, 1944 according to one of my refs. Brandmeister^talk 11:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, interesting article. Good work on getting it to this point. It still needs a bit of work to take it to A-class in my opinion, though. The main issue, I think is the prose, which doesn't seem to flow naturally at the moment. I will try to list some of the issues that I see:

• the Early life section probably should mention her date of birth. Likewise, I think that the Death section should mention her date of death (unless I missed it, it only seems to be in the lead and infobox);
• "became eligible for the military draft, but Shanina was initially refused". Do we know why she was refused?
• "amid the hardships of World War II, that spilled into the Soviet land": uncited and sounds probably a bit too emotive for an encyclopedia;
• there is a mixture of US and British English variation. For instance "kilometres" (British), but also "honors" (US);
• date format: "2 April, 1944" --> "2 April 1944" per WP:DATESNO (there are a few instances of this that should be cleaned up;
• "2 and 3 am" --> "2:00 and 3:00 am";
• this seems like it is missing something: "Shanina was accepted in Vsevobuch for military training". Would this work: "Shanina was accepted into the Vsevobuch program for military training"?
• is there a reference for this: "Around that time she became a squad commander in the female sniper platoon"?
• not sure about the tense here: "would be backlit by sunlight and the sniper's nest becomes visible". Perhaps this would be smoother: "was backlit by sunlight and the sniper's nest became visible";
• inconsistent caps: "2nd Class Order of Glory" v. "1st class Order of Glory";
• is there a reference for this: "for bravery displayed in the East Prussian Offensive"?
• this is unclear: "was ordered to engage the female snipers in combat". Do you mean, "was ordered to commit the female snipers to combat"?
• "Shanina wrote that despite her wish to be in a safer place, "some unknown force draws her to the front line"". Did she really refer to herself like that? Perhaps you mean, "some unknown force draws me to the front line"?
• Medal "For Courage" --> the quotation marks seem out of place. Is the whole thing a proper noun and are the quotes correct?
• inconsistent presentation of dates: for instance - "September 20, 1944. Retrieved 2010-12-27";
• this seems a bit awkward: "Recalling the moment of receiving the death notification by Shanina's mother" Perhaps this might be smoother, "Recalling the moment Shanina's mother received notification of her daughter's death";
• "In 1964–65, a renewed interest in Shanina, largely due to the publication of her diary, arose in the Soviet press". --> "In 1964–65, there was a renewed interest in Shanina, largely due to the publication of her diary";
• I'm not sure, but I think "File:Roza Shanina.jpg" requires a Russian licence, indicating why the image is PD in its country of origin as well as in the US;
• as above for "File:Roza Shanina with badge.jpg";
• are there references for these statements: "Shanina kept the diary from 6 October, 1944 to 24 January, 1945." and "Several of Shanina's letters and some data from her sniper log have also been published."?
• "File:Roza Shanina, 1944.jpg": I'm not sure that you can maintain a valid fair use rationale for this image given that you seemingly have PD images of the subject already and this one doesn't provide anything that the others don't. Is it possible that the image is in fact PD? If so, then you would be able to use it without any dramas?
• inconsistent referencing style. For instance compare note 23 & 26 with note 25 & 27 etc.

If you can fix these issues, or make comment on them here, I'd be more than happy to take another look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, the majority is now fixed. The reference for "she became a squad commander" exists, I just have to dig it out again. Regarding the tense in "would be backlit by sunlight" I mean future-in-the-past tense. The reference for "bravery displayed in the East Prussian Offensive" is the commendation list scan on the right within the article. Concerning dates in references, WP:DATESNO allows for different representation of them for conciseness. Concerning "In 1964–65" I tried your suggestion, but it appears to distort the subsequent part "in the Soviet press..." The image licenses are now clarified. I think that the copyrighted pic falls under fair use because it appears to be the only known photo of Shanina in full height and as such has unique historical value. As for referencing style, I decided to use harvard where refs are located on different pages of the same book (except online sources, where there is abcd style). Elsewhere, where there's only one ref from one source, ordinary style is used. Brandmeister^talk 21:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• G'day, your changes look good. I made a few more tweaks (please check that you are happy with those and adjust as you see fit). Regarding the fair use image, I'm not sure that it is a sufficient claim just because it is the only available full height image. To be a valid fair use image, it needs to "provide critical commentary about her" (quote from the fair use rationale on the image). The article does not do this IMO (i.e. the article does not use the image to specifically illustrate a critical point). That said, its not really a battle I'm prepared to invest too much time on. Wiki's image licencing policies are vexing, and IMO subjective and unevenly applied, so I propose to agree to disagree on this point and move on. As such, if you can add the citation for the "squad commander" sentence and the bit about her portrait featuring in the newspaper (I've marked it with a "citation needed" tag), then I will be happy to support for promotion to A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• The requested refs are now there, other changes look good. Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 12:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Cheers, added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport. Very interesting article. A few initial comments:

• the Ustyansky District link is duplicated twice
• no dablinks, reflinks ok, earwig only hit a mirror (No action needed on these)
• checklinks indicates three dead links and timed out on two others [179]
• no alt text on images (not an A Class requirement, but suggested)
• foreign book titles need a trans_title field
• The citations in the lead are unnecessary, the lead should reflect the body, so these matters should be cited in the body where they are presented in more detail.
• I'm going to make some copyedits, feel free to revert them if they change the meaning.

I'll post some more when I've had a chance to go right through it.All done with the c/e.

• a citation is needed for "Several of Shanina's letters and some data from her sniper log have also been published."

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, done (web archive parameter added to dead links except ref 31, which wasn't archived, cache version seems to fail there as well, trans_title field added elsewhere, lead citations relocated). Brandmeister^talk 00:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well done, moving to support. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Australian contribution to UNTAG

Nominator(s): AWHS (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. I was one of the 600 Australian soldiers who spent six months of our lives in Namibia in 1989 and 1990. With the benefit of hindsight we did a great job and helped to bring peace to a small war-torn african country. It was one of the greatest wins the UN has ever had and I wanted to tell the story well. AWHS (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The article has just received a very good GA Review here Talk:Australian_contribution_to_UNTAG/GA1 with favourable comments.AWHS (talk)

Support Comments: fascinating article. I have no doubt that with a little bit more work it can be an A-class article. COI disclaimer, I am a former member of 14 Troop/7 Field Squadron (many years after this event, though). Content-wise I think that the article is very comprehensive, so I had a look over the article more from a style point of view. In this regard, there are a few things that I think need work, although these are mainly minor issues. I won't list them all, but will list a number of examples for you to use to then go back through the article yourself:

• you might consider using a table of contents limiter. This can be done by adding the following mark up code "{{TOC limit}}" in the lead;

I have edited the headings so that this is not necessary, I cut out several.

• in the Background section, is it necessary to break up the paragraphs with multiple main article templates? It might be more beneficial to either move them all up to the top of the section, or just embed the links as normal in the paragraph itself;

 Done. Fixed. I have cut out all except one, but added sub-headings.

• "It is notable that after leaving government Mr Fraser" --> "It is notable that after leaving government Fraser";

 Done. Fixed

• irregular capitalisation: "successful deployment of over 600 Engineers" --> "successful deployment of over 600 engineers" (improper noun here);

 Done. Fixed and all similar

• inconsistent style "World War 2" v "World War II";

 Done. Fixed to make this consistent

• capitalisation in headings should be sentence case, not title case unless proper nouns are used. For instance "The First 10 Years" should be "The first 10 years";

 Done. Fixed everywhere

• inconsistent: "Australian Contingent" v. "Australian contingent";

 Done. Fixed, I have gone lower-case everywhere except for full title 'Australian Service Contingent', this is consistent with the official history

• in some places you use single quotation marks and in others you use double. My understanding is that the MOS prefers double;

 Done. Fixed everywhere

• in some places you use italics to denote a quote; this should probably be changed to double quotation marks without the italics;

 Done. Fixed everywheere

• "included Second-in-command" --> "included second-in-command";

 Done. Fixed

• newspaper titles should be presented in italics, e.g. "The Canberra Times" should be The Canberra Times;

 Done. Fixed

• same as above for book titles, e.g. "Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations" --> Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations;

 Done. Fixed

• inconsistent caps: "the Resources troop" v. "the Plant Troop";

 Done. Fixed

• inconsistent presentation: "14 Field Troop" v "14th Field Troop"

 Done. Fixed

• inconsistent presentation of figures, for instance "60" but the "seventy-five" etc.

 Done. Fixed

• "the Australian army military monitors" --> "Australian Army monitors";

 Done. Fixed. I changed to Australian military electoral monitors (or monitors) throughout to be consistent with the Official History

• run on sentence: "During the deployment there were very few issues, one issue ..."

 Done. Fixed by rewording.

• the Citations seem to use a mixture of styles. For instance compare # 5, 6 and 19 to 1-4 and others;

Working on this, taking quite a lot of effort to harmonise the different styles of citations. I have discovered that some are incompatible. I am using the "sfn" format which seems the most appropriate.

 Done. Finished, this was harder than I expected and took a while, the citation style is now uniform throughout.

• in the Sources section, "Arlene Getz" probably should be "Getz, Arlene" for consistency of style;

 Done. Fixed in several places by using the first, last sfn citation template

• I will take another look when these have been covered off on. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much: Will get into this tonight. Great comments, all of them.AWHS (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. All fixed - ready for another review.AWHS (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day Max, the article looks great. I think the prose needs a little more work, though, so I will try to go through it over the next couple of days. I've made a few edits this evening, so please check you are happy with those. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, love your work. Very appreciative of your edits and assistance with prose (I am an engineer). AWHS (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• G'day, I just had a look at File:1989 Opuwo airstrip.jpg and on the image description page, I think that the date should be the date the photo was taken, not that it was uploaded. Are you able to adjust this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed. Thanks enormously for your edits which are very good.

No worries, it is a very interesting article; thanks for your work on it. I've added my support for promotion to A class. If you are considering taking this to WP:FAC, I'd suggest listing it for a copy edit at WP:GOCE, though, as I may have missed something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport: G'day Max. A few from me.

• In the lead, you seem to quote John Crocker without actually quoting him. The last part of the sentence is in the present tense.

 Done. I have added double quotation marks around the section and checked against the source to check that it is letter perfect.

• Probably worth mentioning in the lead that the overall mission sustained 19? casualties to place the lack of Aust casualties in context.

 Done. This was in Horner p 137

• "Overall, the UNTAG mission successfully assisted Namibia to become a democracy without the racial segregation of the apartheid system" - I think you need to make this clear, they assisted them without the apartheid system? Maybe "Overall, the UNTAG mission assisted Namibia to transition to democratic government after the racial segregation of the apartheid system" Not sure what you want to say here.

 Done. Exactly what you suggested. Chopped the rest out.

• I believe Mays (published in 2011) says it WAS possibly the most successful peacekeeping operation ever fielded, so not just at the time. The two references (I haven't got access to Horner right now) are published in 2011, so not just at the time I'm thinking.

 Done. I have added double quotation marks around what Mays said in the introduction (available online), and also added an exact reference and quote from Horner in the lead (page 142).

• introduce UN in parentheses after its first mention as United Nations, and use UN from then on

 Done. Changed United Nations to UN everywhere except quotes. I have changed other UN terms as well, there are quite a few e.g. United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, Secretary-General of the United Nations and various resolutions etc.

• insurgent/ counter-insurgent → insurgent/counter-insurgent

 Done.

• SADF is introduced in the body with being done in full and without a link (needs moving up from following para)

 Done.

• "the" South African Border War

 Done.

• link Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces

 Done.

• Namibian War of Independence is a duplicate link

 Done.

• at PLAN bases → against PLAN bases

 Done.

• "political activation" or political activism?

 Done. However impossible to check against the source online, only a 'snipped' view is available online. This makes sense.

• "recruiting personnel" or recruitment

 Done.

• "raiding white settlements and disrupting essential services" or raids on white settlements and disruption to essential services

 Done. Exactly as you suggested.

• it's a stylistic issue, but Soviet Union and "Soviet" works for me, people know who you are on about

 Done. Makes sense.

• once the acronym is introduced, use FAPLA

 Done.

• you can drop "the" from "to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 602"

 Done.

• the forces breakdown would work better in a table

 Done. I have used part of a campaign box with just the flag icons, names and strength, this seems to be the best way of illustrating this information since it is done at a point in time.

• "Resolution 2145 (XXI) which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 27 October 1966" or UN General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966

 Done. I have tweaked the refs for this para.

• "with the mission to assist" → with a mission to assist, or with the mission of assisting

 Done. I have changed this to include a quote from the actual resolution rather than a summary.

• Namibian Independence doesn't need a capital I

 Done.

• when you introduce the Special Rep, perhaps add who it was.

 Done. I have added him to the lead and linked him there Martti Ahtisaari

• The vote we abstained from, and the one we voted yes for, were they SC or GA?

Don't know the answer to this, hansard does not say. This is the hansard reference http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22hansard80%2Fhansardr80%2F1961-04-11%2F0137%22

Australia was not part of the SC at the time, so it must logically have been the GA.

I recall reading an article on trove that led me to this, will try and track it down again. At the time I was not as structured, and only captured the best sources.

Cannot locate a source for voting on the UN website, but Hansard is a notable source

• while a non-permanent member of part of the UN Security Council

 Done.

• a battalion group → an infantry battalion group

 Done.

• the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser → Prime Minister Fraser

 Done.

• "Malcolm Fraser" should be just "Fraser" after introducing him

 Done.

• who are Peacock (Foreign Affairs) and Killen (Defence)(most wouldn't)

 Done.

• row or argument?

 Done. I have kept row as per the quote, checked the source which says "row" on page 63 of Horner (who also uses quotes), added quotes around these few words as emphasis

• from 1983 (followed the) Fraser → continuing the policy of? and delete "before them"

 Done. Minor tweak

• Should Official History be in italics?

 Done.

• "commitment was unusual" → commitment was "unusual"

 Done.

• you introduce Hawke by surname then give it in full, I suggest you reverse that

 Done.

• Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War should be Vietnam

Someone beat me to this, fixed.

• for people of South Africa and Namibia. Some humanitarian assistance has also been provided, suggest "for the people of South Africa and Namibia. Some humanitarian assistance had also been provided"

 Done.

• the Officer Commanding → the Officers Commanding

 Done.

• suggest - Horner described it as "an extremely complex mission" in the Official History → In the Official History, Horner described it as "an extremely complex mission".

 Done.

• that all hostile acts were endedceased

 Done. I copied the ref here verbatim, but I agree that this reads better.

• order was impartially maintained

 Done.

• suggest deleting "to support Operation Safe Passage" here and mentio it later. Just saying they had to deploy as infantry is enough at this point

 Done.

• The Prime Minister of Australia said → Prime Minister Fraser

 Done. But it was Hawke not Fraser

• not sure why Australian Liaison Office is italicised

 Done.

• Headquarters, delete unit

 Done.

• "Australia asking Australia to reconfirm its previous commitment" needs work, two Australia's, reconfirm previous commitment

 Done. Horner says "reconfirmed its commitment" on page 76. Hansard was less specific. I have tweaked this http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1989-03-06%2F0025%22

• some reservations

 Done.

• white space in front of fn68

 Done.

• not sure about the italicisation of "Plan" and "Operation" see MOS:TEXT

not sure either, I have checked a few featured articles and they are not consistent either, e.g. Operation Camargue which is a FA uses Operation Camargue (in at least one place) and Operation Uranus uses Operation Uranus throughout. I cannot find a suitable reference either way. Happy to change this if you think there is a better way?

• link United Nations Headquarters

 Done.

• specify and link CGS (and name him)

 Done.

• Sydney-based

 Done.

• soldiers needs a terminal apostrophy

 Done.

• replace "The Australian Liaison Officer to the UNHQ" with "Hutchings"

 Done.

• link Advance Party

 Done.

• Learmonth is linked to the dab page, use RAAF Learmonth, same with Gareth Evans, use Gareth Evans (politician)

 Done.

• Major Hutchings

 Done.

• link Grootfontein at first mention

 Done.

• link Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

 Done.

• Holsworthy Barracks has a duplicate link, as do Bob Hawke and Prime Minister of Australia

 Done. I had left them in for the sources for the quotes, but have now removed them

• link Boeing 707

 Done.

• suggest "aircraft fromof the"

 Done.

• link all ranks (for Hutchings, Alexander etc) on first use

 Done.

• link Mortar (weapon)

 Done.

• you use PLAN and SWAPO interchangeably, I suggest all military references use PLAN, and political ones use SWAPO

Complicated, I have typically used the term used in the original source; PLAN in the history section, then PLAN bases, PLAN insurgents, PLAN soldiers, PLAN combatants, PLAN members, PLAN forces, etc. But for example Bob Hawke quoted "members of SWAPO" and Sitkowski talks about SWAPO infiltration, and almost all of the newspapers at the time talked about SWAPO casualties; SWAPO injuries, SWAPO returnees. Horner also talks about "wounded SWAPO" and "SWAPO casualties" in the Official History. I tried to reflect the original source rather than making it consistent. My thoughts are that this is less confusing. You are correct, at the time the terms were largely interchangeable.

• drop initial caps on "Headquarters staff" and "other Security Forces"

 Done.

• perhaps clarify that Mount Etjo is a game park outside Otjiwarongo

 Done.

• pay any role → play any role

 Done.

• try to dispense with uses of "however"

 Done.

• Minister → Defence Minister, or preferably use Gration and Beazley

 Done.

• only military units

 Done.

• suggest consistency in explanations of who was what. Some RAE officers have RAE after their name, others have their appointment or unit. Suggest sticking to appointments. If Steve, Mark and Pat were troop commanders, say that

 Done.

• link Ruacana, Oshikango, Oshikuku

 Done.

• then they would be escorted across the border north to the 16th parallel to their bases of confinement. - needs tweaking, to the to their

 Done.

• The operation wasdid not prove successful

 Done.

• by walking out → independently

 Done.

• survived → completed

 Done.

• without casualty → without any casualties

 Done.

• I suggest you attribute the ""training standards of the Australian Army and perhaps, a bit of good luck" quote to Colonel Crocker

 Done.

• drop initial caps for "Returnees" (and I suggest you don't need the parenthesised "returnees" the section heading

 Done.

• give UNHCR in full at first use

 Done.

• link "Council of Churches in Namibia" at first mention

 Done.

• suggest troop numbers should be in the form 9th, 8th etc, consistent with 17th Construction Squadron and general Commonwealth usage

 Done. This has caused some angst. Per the GA review and other review comments above, we have gone through the article and removed almost all references to "th" from troops etc. The actual citation where General Morrison calls the unit "17 Construction Squadron" I took to be the modern norm. However I have now gone back and changed this everywhere except in the actual text of the citation:

• ==> 17th Construction Squadron
• ==> 8th Construction Troop
• ==> 9th Construction Troop
• ==> 14th Field Troop
• ==> 15th Field Troop
• ==> 7th Field Squadron

• The South Africans continued to intimidate → The SADF continued attempts to intimidate the Australians

 Done.

• been brought back → returned

 Done.

• first contingent → ASC1 and second contingent → ASC2 (for consistency)

 Done. Tweaked. Sowry used 1ASC and 2ASC in the TIB. I can find no mention in Horner or anywhere that the abbreviation 1ASC was ever used when deployed. This is a term invented after the first contingent.

• suggest linking Heavy equipment for Plant

 Done. Good idea.

• just use Angolan government (FAPLA) and rebel (UNITA)

 Done.

• not sure why "dealing with the violence" is in scares, if it is a quote, please cite that sentence, but I don't think it needs to be in scares

 Done. This is a direct quote from Horner, p.123, I have mentioned Horner to introduce this quote

• suggest "the unit's structure" → that unit's structure

 Done.

• suggest "was deployed to make the first entry into a live minefield by Australian troops since the Vietnam War"

 Done.

• Construction engineering: including... isn't a sentence, suggest you construct it the same as the other bulleted points, and change the colons to periods in all sets of bulleted points

 Done.

• link Buffel at first use

 Done.

• "in stabilising a hostile but not physically violent situation" ditto above comment about scare quotes

 Done. I have rewritten this one to remove the quotes

• ASC's → ASC

 Done.

• injury and death, and even

 Done.

• engineering works tasks is a bit jargony, perhaps just "construction tasks"

 Done.

• link Tsumeb, Andara, Nobel Peace Prize,

 Done.

• Governments around the world linked the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to United Nations Peacekeepers in 1988 to the UNTAG operation. This is a quite likely, but it does need a citation to a source that actually says that

 Done. Fixed, cannot find the original reference that said this, so I tweaked the sentence, and added a citation for the Canada parliament as well.

• fromby Lieutenant General

 Done.

• suggest "The Australian contingent UNTAG was awarded a Chief of the General Staff Commendation. The award was presented to both contingents by Defence Minister Beazley at a parade in Holsworthy on 2 March 1990 held to honour those that had served in eleven UN and other peacekeeping operations."

 Done.

• This was a reverse of the arrangement for all subsequent UN missions in which the senior engineer was a civilian → On all subsequent UN missions, the senior engineer was a civilian

 Done.

• suggest remove one of the two uses of "standard" re: the M60s. Also, my recollection is that the 7.62mm L4 (Bren) was still in service as a "standard-issue" with some non-infantry units in the late 1980's, and that the GPMG was also in service as a section machinegun, so I'm not sure how "standard" the M60 was at that time.

 Done. Your recollection might be right. I only recall that it was a shock at the time for all concerned. There is no mention in the TIB. The MAG 58 was just coming into service at the time and there is some suggestion that some members of the second tour took the Mag58 but no references.

• Early in the deployment Lieutenants Burchell and Stanner were asked by UNHCR to conduct an unarmed reconnaissance by UNHCR without weapons

 Done.

• link Land mine

 Done.

• of variousthe mine protected vehicles

 Done.

• not sure what you mean by "recognised" minefields

 Done. I have removed this, it was redundant.

• link Anti-personnel mine

 Done.

• perimeter protection to → perimeter protection for

 Done.

• link Anti-tank mine

 Done.

• drop caps on Anti-tank mines

 Done.

• link Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia

 Done.

• explain "area search", a bit jargony, maybe just "minefield search" or similar

 Done. I simplified it.

• Colonel John Crocker → Colonel Crocker (or just Crocker)

 Done. I simplified it.

• offfrom the SADF

 Done.

• I assume you mean the Israeli Wolf Armoured Vehicle? Either way, drop the italics

 Done. Yes - looks exactly the same, assume this is it

• the Grootfontein Squadron Headquarters → squadron headquarters in Grootfontein

 Done.

• suggest moving (that did not explode) to immediately after grenade

 Done.

• suggest "repatriation entitlements"

 Done.

• conditions of service type

 Done.

• who was based in Australia is self-evident but where, in Sydney?

 Done. By simplifying, not sure where he was located so I have removed the reference.

• The purpose of quoting Nigel's letter is unclear, did he mean that he didn't agree with the upgrade or that he did?

 Done. Rejigged the introduction and added a small quote that refers

• suggest you put the references in two columns using {{refbegin|2}}

 Done.

• no alt text on images (not an ACR requirement)

 Done.

• there are one or two isbns that could be converted to 13 digit per WP:ISBN (not an ACR requirement)

 Done.

• otherwise toolbox checks are all green.

Wonderful news

Overall, an excellent article which just needs an large number of (mostly MOS) tweaking here and there. But, looking at the sources, I'm not sure about Brendan Sowry's work on a draft TIB being a reliable published source independent of the subject given he commanded the "little bears" on 2 ASC. Given he is mostly used for bare facts he is probably ok except for fn51 ("impartially"). John Crocker falls into that category too, but the only thing I would suggest for him is that the word "difficult" be removed from the sentence cited by fn43. I found this article particularly interesting as I trained and/or served with several of the officers mentioned. I'm done now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sowry made me think: the TIB was published without his name in 1995, but the draft dated 1992 had his name as author; so even though he was not mentioned in the final published version I retained his name as principal author. It was widely socialised at the time and included content from all the main participants. As you said I have only used it for bare facts, most facts are also cited elsewhere. Because it was a major work it made sense to include it. I did make an effort to cut out many of the refs to Sowry because it is not public and not as easily verified. AWHS (talk)

Thank you: Will get to these over the weekend. AWHS (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. All fixed or comments as appropriate.AWHS (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well done. Moving to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regards, AWHS (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [180] (no action required).
  • One dead link [181]:
    • Cuito Cuanavale revisited (info) [mg.co.za]

 Done. I have removed this link but retained the reference since it is referred to by other sources. I have added another linked source.

• • Images all have Alt Text [182] (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article - including some very rare original photography from the deployment which are excellent additions to the database (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [183] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • "The Australian Services Contingent was the Australian Army contribution to the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) peacekeeping mission to Namibia." When? Maybe add the date at the end of the sentence for context?

 Done. Good idea, fixed.

• • This is a little choppy: "A total of 19 UN personnel lost their lives in Namibia. The two Australian contingents achieved their mission without sustaining any fatalities, one of the few military units in UNTAG to do so." Consider merging into one sentence, for instance: "Although a total of 19 UN personnel lost their lives in Namibia the two Australian contingents achieved their mission without sustaining any fatalities, one of the few military units in UNTAG to do so."

 Done. Exactly as you suggested

• • "some of which extended 250 km into Angola....", you might consider using the {{convert}} template for measurements (suggestion only).

 Done. As you suggested (never done that before). I have used this now in several places for all measurements.

• • "In opposition the Soviet Union financially backed an estimated two motorised infantry divisions of Cuban troops..." Why?

Complicated, in effect this was part of the cold war. The US was also involved hence the Soviet involvement.

 Done. I have made a number of changes to the Background section to explain this.

• • Overall the South Africans don't fair particularly well in this article and I'm a little concerned about this heading into dangerous territory. I do not believe that this has been done deliberately, and accept that it is probably more the result of omission than POV. I think what is needed is more context though. At a glance the casual reader might be unclear of the main reasons for South Africa's involvement but presumably the South African government foresaw some security imperative or had some ideological reason for being in Namibia and for opposing SWAPO and the various African communist / Marxist / nationalist movements. Likewise FAPLA and SWAPO seem to be presented rather one dimensionally as independence movements, while the motivations of the Soviet Union and Cuba are summarized far too simply as coming to "the defence of the besieged Angolan Army..." Presumably their motives were nowhere near so benevolent. I appreciate that no other editor has raised these concerns, and that these issues are only the background to the Australian deployment and therefore shouldn't be discussed in undue detail. Not wanting to make a big issue out of this and won't oppose on the basis of these points but I think a few additional sentences are req'd.

Good point, let me think about this. They were at the receiving end of 15 years of international criticism and condemnation from Fraser, Whitlam and Hawke. I have been more restrained than Horner in the Official History who tells some unattractive stories and there were many more.

I cannot find a single newspaper article that portrayed a positive picture of SA involvement in Namibia.

To maintain a neutral POV I have now brought in the opinion of one of the UN political authors who was fairly complimentary.

I have also made more mention of the overall cold war aspect. This was the era of Gorbachev.

I have added a quote from Hearn that details that South Africa gave their consent, "The first characteristic of peacekeeping" etc; and also added a small para at the end of the UNTAG section, also from Hearn (UN politicial staff) about SA negotiations and consent etc and linked it to the success of the overall mission.

 Done. This is now more balanced.

• • "The UN process that led to the independence of Namibia commenced with UN General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966...", would this be more simple as "The process that led to the independence of Namibia commenced with UN General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966..."? (suggestion only)

 Done.

• • Generally should not have two wikilinks side by side. "In the Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations David Horner stated that the Australian Government...", might work better as "In the Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations author David Horner stated that the Australian Government..." (suggestion only)

 Done. Exactly as you suggested.

• • Some context is probably req'd here. "...Australian Government, led by Robert Menzies had been loath to criticise South Africa during the 1950s..." Why? One assumes Cold War politics and South Africa's anti-communist foreign policy was broadly similar to Australia's. Was this the reason?

 Done.

• • In the same vein what was the reason for the govt's change of policy in the 1970s and 1980s?

Not sure what you mean here?

• • Some inconsistency in date ranges, for instance: "...while a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 1985–86." and "...campaigning for an end to apartheid in South Africa (1985–1986)."

 Done.

• • This is a little repetitive: "Bob Hawke's government's continued support of independence for Namibia from 1983 continued the policy of the Fraser and Whitlam governments." Specifically use of "continued" twice in the same sentence.

 Done. Fixed.

• • These two quotes from Hawke and Beazley are very similar, to the point that I'm not sure it really makes sense to use them both. "Just prior to the deployment Prime Minister Hawke said in Parliament that "Namibia was a very large and important commitment for Australia, comprising almost half of the Army's construction engineering capability." He went on to say that "our effort in Namibia will be the largest peacekeeping commitment in which this country has ever participated. It may also be the most difficult." The Minister for Defence, Kim Beazley, noted that "the UNTAG deployment was (by a large margin) Australia's biggest peacekeeping effort yet, and it is probably our most difficult". Perhaps remove one.

 Done. I got rid of Beazley.

• • "...because of doubts concerning their partiality...", should that be impartiality"?

 Done.

• • This seems like hyperbole: "UNTAG was a massive operation..." 8,000 troops isn't really that big and their have been numerous UN missions with considerably larger numbers deployed. Suggest something like "UNTAG was a large operation with nearly 8,000 men and women deployed to Namibia from more than 120 countries to assist the process."

 Done.

• • This is repetitive: "The role of the Australian force was very broad for an Army engineering unit. The role required..."

 Done.

• • Some inconsistency in presentation of sub-units: "which contained two construction troops (8 and 9 Troop), 14th Field Troop". Probably should by "8th and 9th Troop", or "14 Field Troop". I'm not fussed as long as its consistent (except of cse in quotations which need to be left as is).

 Done. I have gone with the use of "th" everywhere except quotations.

• • this is poorly worded: "17th Construction Squadron, associated Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (workshop)..."

 Done. tweaked

• • "...one Royal Australian Air Force officer (Flight Lieutenant Craig Forster)." Is there a reason why Forster is notable enough to be mentioned by name? As his name doesn't appear anywhere else in the article I would suggest removing it altogether. I accept that RNZE and RACMP det comds could be named given the posn's they held, but mentioning by name the solitary RAAF officer seems to be unnecessary detail.

Horner thought this was noteable and put it in the Official History. It was quite unusual. I recall that he got quite a lot of press at the time. I could add more references but am trying to reference only the main newspaper articles.

• • You use the construction "Horner wrote that..." quite a bit and seem to be using it as a form of in-text attribution; however, as you make good use of citations the source of the information is already clear to the reader. As a general rule I only use "X wrote" or "Y said" sparingly and only because of the importance / authority of the person making the statement or to indicate a specific POV or opinion held by them. As most of the information seems to be factual rather than opinion you could probably ditch most of these and I recommend doing so.

 Done.I have got rid of more than half, left the ones which are a specific POV only.

• • Repetitive: "Within two weeks the UN had written to Australia asking Australia..."

 Done.

• • "After notice was reactivated the detailed planning recommenced, essentially from scratch...", consider instead: "After notice was reactivated detailed planning recommenced, essentially from scratch." (rm "the")

 Done.

• • "In October, the CDF formally tasked the CGS...", abbrev "CGS" needs to be spelt out at first use.

 Done.

• • "The main body then deployed by Boeing 707 aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force on 14 April...", suggest "RAAF Boeing 707 aircraft" instead.

 Done.

• • "Over the next three weeks it has been estimated that 251 PLAN combatants were killed for the loss of 21 members of the SADF and other security forces....", consider instead: "It was later estimated that over the following three weeks 251 PLAN combatants were killed for the loss of 21 members of the SADF and other security forces." (suggestion only)

 Done. Exactly as you suggested

• • "Six of the assembly points (AP's)...", should be "APs" (apostrophe is possessive).

 Done.

• • "Plant troop 2IC", abbrev "2IC" needs to be spelt out".

 Done. Tweaked, on reflection the correct term was Plant Troop Officer

• • "Colonel Donaldson, the commander of the British contingent...", do we know Donaldson's first name? If so it should be added.

 Done. Found this in the official history.

• • "There were some problems reported in the north when ex-Koevoet...", who was Koevoet?

 Done. Introduced them in the background section and added a reference, mentioned now in several places.

• • "It took up duty in Namibia in between September and early October 1989...", consider more simply: "It took up duty in Namibia between September and early October 1989." (rm "in")

 Done. Tweaked

• • This paragraph is a bit repetitive: "The Australian forces returned to Australia..." (Australia), "The contingent's equipment was returned to Australia" (returned to Australia), and "The last demolition task was undertaken at Ondangwa on 25 March and the last..." (last).

 Done. rewritten and edited

• • Inconsistent presentation of "machine gun" here: "M60 machine gun which was the standard section level machinegun".

 Done. Have rewritten this as the standard section level automatic weapon to avoid repetition

• • "Early in the deployment Lieutenants Burchell and Stanner...", should just be "Burchell and Stanner", rm rank fol use at first instance per WP:SURNAME.

 Done.

• • this is stilted: "were asked by UNHCR to conduct an unarmed reconnaissance. Permission was refused...", consider instead "...were asked by UNHCR to conduct an unarmed reconnaissance but permission was refused."

 Done.

• • "the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1RAR) battalion group deployment to Somalia during Operation Solace..." No req to abbrev 1 RAR as not used elsewhere, and "battalion group" is probably unnecessary detail given that it is not the subject of this article and could be removed (the casual reader already knows it was a battalion, and the distinction that it was a battalion group is probably irrelevant here).

 Done. Exactly as you suggested.

• • Operation Solace could be wikilinked.

 Done.

• • In the references: "Morrison, David (10 August 2012). Letter from the Chief of Army to the Officers Commanding 17th Construction Squadron. Army Headquarters, Canberra. p. 2. OCA/OUT/2012/R11944295." Should this just be "Officer Commanding" not "Officers Commanding"?

 Done. This is an old habbit, seems to no longer be done.

• • Some of the newspaper articles listed in the references are missing a few bibliographic details, including publisher, place of publishing and issn.

 Done. Fixed several of them.

• • Overall, this is quite a good article and its really good to see an event like this chronicled for history here on Wikipedia. Indeed I imagine this article is now probably one of the most detailed and accessible sources about this mission available. Congratulations are definitely in order. Of course I have raised quite a few issues above which need to be dealt with, but I don't see them as being insurmountable and hope they don't seem to critical. Happy to discuss / reconsider any point you want clarified or disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you: Great to hear that this is a good article. Will get started on these straight away. Excellent feedback. Horner wrote 90 pages about UNTAG in the official history (pp 53-143) which was a very good account. But you are right - his work is not accessible and requires trips to the library. Most of the news articles are not available online either (yet). Eventually they will all turn up in trove but for the next 26 years this is the most public document that exists. Regards, AWHS (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. All fixed or comments as appropriate. I have made a few fairly substantial changes, particularly in the introduction.

Those changes look good to me so I've added my support now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. This will be my first A-Class article. AWHS (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: Is "mid-importance" appropriate for this article, or should it be "high" on the project scale?

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No. 86 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Hmm, A-Class, A-Class... Let's see if I can remember how this goes... Oh, yes, my second RAAF wing nomination, following No. 82 last year. This one isn't quite as glamorous as the other, being transport rather than strike (although it did start out as an attack wing in WWII), but on the other hand it's probably the hardest-working formation in the RAAF, because practically no military deployment can operate without it. Not quite as long an article as No. 82's either, but then this wing was disbanded from 1964 to 1987 (you'll find the reasoning in the article), whereas No. 82 has -- uniquely I believe -- been in continuous existence since WWII. The article's recently passed GA, so pls have at it... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: G'day, Ian, I couldn't find much to fault with this one. I made a couple of minor tweaks (please check you are happy with those) and have the following observations:
  • is something missing here: "The squadron returned to Australia and the aegis of No. 86 Wing two years later..."?
    • Just using "aegis" in the sense of "control", since I'd used "controlled" in the previous sentence -- I'm not wed to it if you think we can do better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • the duplicate link checker tool reports that No. 77 Squadron might be overlinked. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yep, I left the second because it was previously mentioned under WWII but the article's not that big so I don't mind losing it. Tks for review and support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Can't see anything wrong with it. However: I can see at a glance that the 86 Wing crest dates back to before 1953, and so is out of copyright in Australia. If it was used in WWII, then no fair use rationale is required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've seen it painted on the nose of Dakotas in Korea -- you may find one of them adorning my upcoming article on No. 91 Wing RAAF... No idea if it was created during WWII though. Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer.

• A few suggestions:
• "tanker/transport": I don't remember what conclusion we came to in the previous article on what's the best way to say this.
• "then-Officer Commanding No. 86 Wing": I recommend omitting "then-" here. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Tks Dan -- took care of "tanker/transport" as we did for the Herc article (sorry I missed that earlier); I used "then" 'cos the OC had changed from the one originally mentioned and I hadn't noted the change-over ('cos I don't know when it happened) -- if you think that's being too careful, I'll omit it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If he was relatively new in the position, I'd say "the new"; if not, I guess what you have is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Operation Winter '94

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed a GA review and I would like to bring it to the A-class standard. Tomobe03 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments. Hi Tom, thanks for bringing this here, and sorry it's taken three weeks for anybody to comment. I've made a few copy edits, but the prose needs some work, especially in the background section. Some specific comments are below:

• Do operations leap 1 and leap 2 need to be bolded?
  • I'm not sure. Leap 1+2 were separate operations, performed as a follow-up of Winter 94. I appreciate that only the title of the article should be bolded in the lede on its 1st occurrence, but there are Operation Leap 1 and Operation Leap 2 redirects to this particular article, so I'm quite uncertain what to do. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's really a big deal, but be prepared for somebody to question it if you take the article on to FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• There are a lot of links in the background section; I've removed a few obvious ones, could you perhaps do an audit and see if you can get rid of some more?
  • I removed a couple of those too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• The prose gets a bit choppy in the second paragraph of the background section
  • Revised a bit, hopefully mending the situation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• was deployed to Croatia to supervise and maintain the agreement Which agreement? You mention a series of unsuccesful ceasefires, but not one particular agreement
  • Actually the article mentions Sarajevo Agreement in the preceding sentence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• What does The conflict largely passed on to entrenched positions mean?
  • Front lines largely stabilized (little ground changed hands). Rephrased to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• in the capital, Sarajevo and elsewhere Sarajevo is a subclause, so you need a comma after it, otherwise it looks like a list
  • Comma added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• As 1992 carried on, it controlled about 70% of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That doesn't make sense; do you mean to say that it controlled 70% by the end of 1992?
  • Yes. Rephrased a bit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• This was achieved through a large-scale campaign is a sloppy way to lead on from the previous sentence
  • Rephrased now. Could you have another look if this is a better solution?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• This was incompatible with Bosniaks' aspirations of a unitary state confronted by demands to partition the country. Doesn't make sense
  • Removed the confronted by demands to partition the country bit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• while extent of the territory it controlled did not change significantly until 1994. Again doesn't make sense, though it would if "while" were replaced with "but the"
  • Amended as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• In addition, [...] Furthermore, is repetitive and you do it again in the next paragraph
  • I think I got both fixed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• The VRS push failed though, as well as efforts to contain the advance You probably don't need the "though" and "as well as" should probably be "as did" if I'm reading it correctly
  • Amended as proposed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time and effort to review this article. I appreciate it very much and I trust the article will benefit from the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look over your changes and they look good. They've made parts of it quite a bit easier to read. It could do with a good proof read before it goes to FAC just to check for any lingering issues, but I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport Interesting article and from an initial pass looks in very good shape. I made some slight tweaks to the prose, please check these. Also: I can be nitpicky over reviews, so take some of these merely as suggestions :)

• My first comment is that the opening to the lead doesn't quite set the stage (I have no idea of the background to the Croatian War of Independence, so it would be worth setting the context more). Your background section is pretty long, but very little is summarised in the lead. A couple of sentences encompassing the overall situation, the protagonists and the broad aims surrounding the operation would be beneficial. In particular, I feel, it would be good to emphasise what each side was fighting for.
  • I had to think and try few versions of the addition on offline as I tried to strike a balance between being too terse and straying in to too much detail. I think I got some sort of balanced addition - the main problem being that if more than this is added, it gets increasingly complex requiring additional clarifications and resulting in the "background" of the size the article suffers from right now. Hope this is a sufficient improvement. What do you think?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Government of Croatia; No link?
  • Wikilinked now.
• By March 1991, the conflict escalated to war: the Croatian War of Independence.; seems contrived. Consider just say By March 1991, the conflict escalated into a war of independence.
  • Modified a bit. Since there are two wars involved - Croatian and Bosnian - I thought to keep the modifier. If you feel it is not necessary, I'll remove it though.
• the Agreement; not sure this is a proper noun (i.e. no caps needed)
  • Rephrased the passage. Could you take another look at it?
    • Ah, sorry I only meant the second "Agreement" (the first use is clearly a proper noun :)). But your rephrase is fine too.
• a new Bosnian Serb army. The Bosnian Serbs; are these the same group? It's unclear.
  • Yes they are. What do you propose as a clarification?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • As its the same group that's fine. I was just checking to be sure.
• Just as a general note - you utilise a lot of acronyms. I appreciate why, but it might be worth spending time going through the prose to see if you can replace some of them with more general terms (i.e. "the army" etc.) where grammatically appropriate. I won't oppose over that, but it might help things flow.
• I'm not sure how relevant the last paragraph to the background section is, does it tie into any other part of the article?
  • It is generally meant to provide context. The passage is actually result of the article's GAR. Do you have a proposal to amend it?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, if it were me I'd just cut all of the ethnic cleansing stuff on the basis it is a distraction and not directly related to this article.
      • Is this a dealbreaker here? I appreciate benefits of a concise background section - and the initial incarnation (pre-GAR, that is) did not contain that passage. It was introduced through the GAR process, after the reviewer pointed out the information was missing. I'm quite prepared to remove the info if need be, but I'd prefer to have a consensus formed by several reviewers either here or at a FAC (presumably following successful ACR). OTOH, if the passage is a dealbreaker, I'll remove it right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
        • No. As you say you've had two different viewpoints on it. Although I suspect FAC will raise the matter, which is why I mentioned it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
          • That's quite alright. I don't mind resolving the issue one way or another, as the matter is not central to the article topic - I'd just like to establish a consensus for either of the two options.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
          • The paragraph is now gone per consensus reached here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• neared the town's capture; this is a bit stodgy and also vague. We're they "near" geographically (which is the implication) or did they make ground in other ways?
  • The frontline was never too far from the town (say less than 5km). In this case, yes the two armies managed to advance geographically and inflicted losses on their opponent jeopardizing further defence. Rephrased a bit. Please have another look.
    • Much better!
• Bihać was seen as a strategic area; it was thought that its capture by Serb forces would intensify the war,; by who?
  • Added clarification.
• Following a U.S. military strategy endorsed by Bill Clinton since February 1993; I'm unsure if this is an example of US English, but "since" strikes me as the informal way of putting this. Is "in" more appropriate?
  • Yes it is. Amended.
• a series of meetings between U.S. and Croatian officials was held ; as above, should this not be "were"
  • Yes it should. Amended.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• You have a lot of words ending in "ly"; these can be vague and wishy washy, so run a search and see if they are really needed.(see [184])
  • Indeed there are many of those. I had a quick look and some could be avoided by rephrasing few sentences. Do you find any specific ones particularly problematic?
    • No, nothing specific. This is just general advice I often hand out in reviews :)
• Try and avoid too many semi-colons. Usually you can replace it with a comma or new sentence, for better flow/structure.
  • Removed some of them now. I'll take another look at those though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all for now :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy to support this now. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [185] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [186] (no action required).
  • A few of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [187] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
    • I think I managed those now, could you have a look if those are fine now?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images all seem PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [188] (no action required).
  • A couple of duplicate links that need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Cetina
    • Drvar
      • Duplicate links removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the article has some issues with focus - as the bulk of the article actually seems to be about events other than the title. Specifically I'm a bit unclear on the connection b/n Operation Winter and Leap 1 and 2. Were Leap 1 and 2 part of Operation Winter or were all three subsets of a wider campaign? If the later it might pay to refocus the article on the overall campaign in my opinion (i.e. rename and restructure - probably wouldn't require much rewording), including each operation as a separate 2nd level heading. Currently the name of the article and the structure you have chosen suggests to me (wrongly it seems) that Leap 1 and 2 were subsets of Winter 94. Confusingly you write "Operations Winter '94, Leap 1 and Leap 2 formed a unified military action" but then clarify that Leap 1 and 2 were separate and were conducted to exploit gains from Winter 94. Equally the background seems too large, outweighing the coverage of the actual operation itself.
    • I must admit I've looked at solution used before in the Operation Southeast Croatia in this respect. I chose to include Leap 1 and 2 in this particular article because they were offensives designed to improve Croatian Army positions reached in the Operation Winter '94 on a tactical level. They were not as ambitious in a strategic sense as the Operation Summer '95 which also exploited successes of the three preceding advances, but it also set a strategic objective of cutting the major supply line to the RSK capital. I still felt that the Leap 1 and 2 needed separate boxes as separate operations though. I wouldn't mind splitting the two Leaps away if there's such a consensus here. Simply retitling the article as a XYZ Campaign with a section for Winter '94 would not work really, as the campaign (with no particular name given by the Croatian Army or the HVO or the press) also included the Operation Summer '95, and possibly the Operation Cincar. In turn, I could 1) write an article summarizing the campaign (with or without Cincar per consensus reached on the matter), plus split the Leaps into separate articles or 2) split the Leaps with no campaign article (if the lack of name is an obstacle to such an article) or 3) leave things as they are or 4) demote Operation Leap 1 and Operation Leap 2 sections to subsections within a new section titled "Follow-up operations". I'm quite open for any course of action on this point per consensus, although option 4 appears a to be a simple solution offering a more clear solution regarding relationship of the three offensives. The remark about the three operations representing "a unified military action" was made by General Ante Gotovina, commanding officer on the ground in all those offensives.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Gday again. Given the issues with not having a name for the campaign I think option 4 sounds quite workable to me. At a later date you could consider splitting as well though (and keep a summary of Leap 1 and 2 in this one) and move the additional infoboxs to that location. Anotherclown (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Option 4 implemented.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Regarding length of the background section: Length of the background is (at least in part) an unfortunate consequence of the offensive being a part of two wars. While the battle was largely fought in Bosnia and Herzegovina (in a small part in Croatia), with immediate objectives directly related to the Bosnian War, the overall goal of the campaign was to weaken defensive position of the RSK and therefore a part of the Croatian War of Independence. Finally the battle was fought by Croatian Army and Bosnian Croat HVO, Winter '94 under nominal command of the HVO and de facto command of the Croatian Army, while the two Leaps were formally and factually directed by the Croatian Army alone. Review done by Errant above suggested removal of the last section of the background since it appears to be fairly irrelevant to the article coverage. We reached a conclusion there to seek advice of further reviewers on that issue, and since you pointed out that the background should be trimmed down, would you support his proposal?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes I agree with Errant's proposal here, although given the fact that it has already been considered as part of the GA review its a little more vexing. Probably best to see what others think first. Anotherclown (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Support for the removal duly noted. Will wait for a consensus to build as suggested. Trimmed the background section a bit, and if there is a consensus to remove the last paragraph, there's also the last sentence of the first paragraph that could go then too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Trimmed down further. Removal of the last paragraph of the "Background" section still remains a possibility though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Multiple infoboxes make the article look cluttered to me - could they somehow be included in an overarching infobox (suggestion only - would work if the main infobox focused on the overall campaign)
    • I trust this issue will be addressed through resolution of the Leap 1+2 remaining in the article or being split off per above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is poorly worded: "By March 1991, the conflict escalated to the Croatian War of Independence." Suggest rewording to something like: "By March 1991 the conflict had escalated, resulting in the Croatian War of Independence..." or something like that. Alternatively you could use a piped link for Croation War of Independence.
    • Amended per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Unclear what you mean here: "The HV cycled up to 9,000 troops in the area...", "cycled" seems like jargon to me. Consider rewording.
    • I meant to say that 9,000 troops were deployed to the area, although not all at once, but in several "shifts". I'm not sure what would be the right expression. Could you suggest a better solution?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Perhaps something like: "The HV deployed up to 9,000 troops in the area on rotation during the Operation Winter '94 (keeping no more than 3,000 – 4,000 troops on the ground at any time)..." Anotherclown (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Amended as suggested. Rotation is the right expression here, thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Jacobs, Steven L. (2009). Confronting Genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739135891 doesn't appear to have been used as a short citation so should be moved to a "further reading" section.
    • Removed altogether.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Overall this article is quite well written in my opinion and there are only a few minor technical issues which can easily be resolved. That said I'm concerned about focus and think this at least needs to be discussed before I would be comfortable with supporting. Happy to get opinions of other editors that disagree (in which case I will strike the cmt if there is consensus). Anotherclown (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for taking time to review the article. I have already attempted to address some of the issues you raised, but I need some feedback on the others as described above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The article is certainly more focused now given recent changes and I'm pretty happy with how it has advanced. I have had a another look and have a few final points:
        • I would still support removal of the last paragraph of the background section but its not a war stopper for me;
          • Removed per consensus reached by reviewers here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
        • fn 27 Calic 2012 doesn't have a corresponding long citation so pls add this;
          • Switched to a better source and fixed the issue in the process.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
        • still feel removing the additional infoboxs would be beneficial (am hoping someone else might have an opinion about this - if there are no takers in a couple of days I will change my vote to support though as its probably not a major issue if no one else is concerned about it). Anotherclown (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm inclined to agree, it would probably be better to remove the additional infoboxes, but I don't think it matters for A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Would it be an issue at a possible FAR?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Not sure - maybe just keep them and see if the issue gets raised at FAR? Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Will do that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added my support now however just one final point - the long citations in the "Books" section in the Reference lack a location of publishing. Could these also be added? Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Parameter added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport: I usually try to steer clear of reviewing articles from this era in the Balkans at GAN for perceived COI reasons, but I am happy to jump in here at ACR alongside others. I'm going to have a crack at a bit of c/e (as suggested) and some tightening up. I'll wait to see how my edits are accepted then list any remaining comments. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've had a crack at the lead. Let me know what you think, Tom? Feel free to change anything, especially if I have changed meaning. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for stepping forward. The c/e looks just great, no objections whatsoever.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • On a related note, could you venture an opinion on the proposed removal of a paragraph per proposal made by user Errant above?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you mind if I have a crack at the rest of the article? It might address a few of the outstanding points from other reviewers. Over to you though. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Not at all, please do so. Could you please also comment on the proposed removal of the last paragraph of the Background section (included per GAR, removal supported by most or all other reviewers here, I'm leaning towards removing it too)?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry Tom, I missed that. Yes, I believe it should be removed for the same reasons as Anotherclown et al. I'll get stuck in to the c/e. Feel free to revert the egregious screw-ups. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• The Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK), later established in those areas, declared its intention of integration with Serbia is very clunky, who declared it and when? Was it perhaps "The leaders of the Croatian Serbs, later formalised into the government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK), declared their intention to unify the territory they controlled with that of the Socialist Republic of Serbia. This was viewed as secession by the newly-elected government of the Republic of Croatia. (you might need to explain how the "Socialist" was dropped from the name but it was not yet a separate nation-state). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes that sounds better. Since the "Socialist" attribute was dropped, how about a piped link to Serbia? Also, I'd change the "Teritorijalna odbrana" to "Territorijalna obrana" for Croatian TO as that's the name in Croatian used before the 1990s too (per title of this TO manual).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Happy with that, but it is important to ensure readers understand that this is prior to the declaration of independence and ensure people understand that these were federal units at this stage. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • On the second thought (and after some checking), perhaps "Socialist Republic" should be used in the link - which might serve to indicate status of the federal unit, especially since it appears that Serbia dropped the "Socialist" attribute on 28 September 1990 (per Kelly, p.178). Of course nothing need be simple. In August 1990, it was Socialist Republic. At the time of Croatian declaration of independence (June 1991) it had already dropped the "Socialist", and by the time the RSK declared it separate from Croatia (December 1991), Croatia was formally independent (since October) and recognized by few countries (by Germany on the same day the RSK declaration was made).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
        • so long as it is correct and clear what the situation was at that time. I agree nothing is simple here, esp for readers not familiar with the place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
          • How about this: After two unsuccessful attempts by Serbia, supported by Montenegro and Serbia's provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo to obtain Yugoslav Presidency's approval of a JNA operation to disarm Croatian security forces in January 1991,(Hoare 118-119) and a bloodless skirmish between Serb insurgents and Croatian special police in March,(Ramet 384-385) the JNA itself, supported by Serbian and its allies, sought the federal Presidency to give it wartime authorities and declare a state of emergency. The request was denied on 15 March, and the JNA came under control of Serbian President Slobodan Milošević. Milošević, preferring a campaign to expand Serbia rather than preservation of Yugoslavia, publicly threatened to replace the JNA with a Serbian army and declared that he no longer recognized authority of the federal Presidency.(Hoare 119) By the end of the month, the conflict had escalated, resulting in the Croatian War of Independence.(NYT 3 March) The JNA stepped in, increasingly supporting the insurgents, and preventing Croatian police from intervening.(Hoare 119) In early April, leaders of Serb revolt in Croatia declared their intention of integration of the area under their control, viewed by the Government of Croatia as a breakaway region, with Serbia.(NYT 2 April) - I know this is a considerably longer version of the timeline, but it unambiguously points out the existence of the federation and establishes the JNA's degree of involvement in the politics. On the downside, if this is a usable version, the RSK need be spelled out later on (per chronology). The refs in round brackets would of course be replaced with proper ones. Is this too long? What would you change?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Looks good. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Implemented.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• and the JNA retreated to Bosnia and Herzegovina where further conflict was anticipated.[14] However, Serbia continued to support the RSK this is insufficient to explain the background on the JNA involvement. My memory is that the JNA did not withdraw for months and when they did they left the RSK with much of their heavy equipment, esp tanks, arty and heavy inf wpns such as 12.7 MGs and mortars. Once that is explained, the actions of Serbia could be detailed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. How about using the first sentence of the "Aftermath" section of the Vance plan article (modified as necessary) and the source offered there? Would that work?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • First couple of sentences. Armatta is an excellent source. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I'll address this right away, let me have a couple of minutes with the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Info added. I'm still struggling to come up with a solution for the "Socialist" issue above though. As soon as I conjure something up, I'll post here first for your feedback.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• The January ceasefire also allowed the JNA to hold onto the positions in East and West Slavonia, which were on the brink of military collapse Begs the question why, and needs explanation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Some explanation provided, could you verify that the piped link is not an WP:EGG though?.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Re Maslenica: I suppose there was some shooting at the time in Lika as well, but the offensive was really confined to Northern Dalmatia (as supported by Balkan Battlegrounds p.268).--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Just so as it says whereabouts. "Operation Maslenica" doesn't.
      • I've had a look through the whole article now, and while there are improvements that could be made in terms of the prose and explanations of the complex carrying-on that occurred, I believe it now meets the A-Class criteria with a slight question about the citation style. I suggest you go with one system or another. The system you are using, which appears to be a hybrid of ref names and sfn is still resulting in uncombined cites such as Ramet p.382. If you just use sfn you won't have to use named refs. The article will need a prose tidy and minor c/e if you are intending to take it to FAC. If that's the intention, once through here I suggest you leave it alone for a week or two and then go through it line by line with fresh eyes before nominating it for FAC. If you'd like a hand with that let me know? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over)
        • Thank you for your review and great help. I would like to take the article to FAC, so I'd really appreciate your help with preparation needed before that step is taken. I appreciate your advice re leaving the article alone for a while, and that's exactly what I'll do. I still have to implement Implemented one change you pointed out in the review above, and I'll look into the cite format issue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Ramet p.382 cite repetition fixed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, I only had a quick look, as it seems that the others have provided comprehensive reviews. I made a couple of tweaks and have the following comments:

• which English variation does the article employ? I see a mixture at the moment, for instance: "centered" (US); "Defense" (US), but "favourable", "Defence" and "kilometre" (British);
  • Was intended to be British English, I'll have a look at those shortly (avoiding edit conflicts with current c/e process).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed the two cited examples, but I'll check for more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• in the References, for the works that are chapters (the works by Bieber; Bjelajac & Zunec; Hoare; and Woodward), if possible, could you please add a page range? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

My series on U.S. generals continues with "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf. —Ed!^(talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Support

Infobox

• The article is written in a mixture of military (day first) and month-first formats. Pick one. (Make it military.)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• The relatives section of the infobox is for notable relatives. Remove his kids. But you can put his dad in.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Early life and education

• Norman Schwarzkopf was described by childhood friends as active and assertive, protective of his sisters and a skilled athlete. spent his childhood attached to his father Think there is a word or two missing here.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• narrarator Spelling error
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• When Norman Schwarzkopf was eight years old, his father returned to the military. You reckon World War II might have had anything to do with this?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• The family moved to Geneva, Switzerland in 1947, following military assignment. Not sure about this sentence.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• In 1946 when Norman Schwarzkopf was 12, he moved with his father to Tehran, Iran, where his father was a part of Operation Ajax, training the Iranian constabulary. In Iran, No, this is not correct; this refers to his later tour in 1951.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• He later said the time in Iran and with his father had a profound impact on him This is really awkward. so much so, I'm not sure what is meant.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Schwarskopf spelling
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Junior officer

• Commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Infantry Branch, Schwarzkopf spend October 1956 to March 1957
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Schwarzkopf was assigned his first overseas assignment; as a staff officer alternating with duties as a platoon leader, liaison officer, and reconnaissance platoon leader with the 6th Infantry Division. in Allied-occupied Germany. Misplaced full stop.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Schwarzkopf was promoted to captain in July 1961. and reassigned for Advanced Infantry School at Fort Benning for eight months Another misplaced full stop.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• He was originally intended to teach at the Military Academy for three years, however after his first year he volunteered for service in South Vietnam. West Point approved his request in Spring 1965 with the stipulation that he return and teach the remaining two years after his tour. Don't say "Spring 1965".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam War

• Schwarzkopf was promoted to major Schwarzkopf -> He
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• After an initial orientation at Military Assistance Command, Vietnam headquarters in Saigon, Extra comma after "Vietnam"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Schwarzkopf and his group fought continuously for several days, at one point braving heavy fire to recover and treat a handful of wounded South Vietnamese soldiers and escort them to safety Was this Schwarzkopf or his group?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• By 17 August the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade arrived Drop the U.S.
  • In this instance I thought it was necessary since I'm also mentioning specific ARVN units. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• On 14 February 1966, Schwarzkopf led a paratrooper assault on a Viet Cong position Was this US or Vietnamese paratroops?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• After ten months of front-line duty, Schwarzkopf was pulled from the front by MACV and reassigned as senior staff adviser for civil affairs to the ARVN Airborne Division. James Earl Jones from Gardens of Stone (lower your voice two octaves and repeat:) (lower) "There is no front line in Vietnam".
  • Hah hah. OK, reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• He was assigned as executive officer to the chief of staff at MACV headquarters, No, this is not correct.
  • Double checked. 'executive officer to the chief of staff at MACV headquarters' is an exact title from Pyle p. 36. Does another source contradict this?
• U.S. 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry, 198th Infantry Brigade at Chu Lai. Drop the U.S.
  • Again here, he was assigned to ARVN units during his first tour, so I thought it would be useful to clarify. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Rise to general

• Disenfranchised by the treatment of Vietnam veterans in the United States after the war, I don't think so. Look up "Disenfranchised" in the dictionary.
  • Ahh, wrong word. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• He underwent surgery at Walter Reed Army Hospital shortly after his return from Vietnam to repair longstanding back problems exacerbated by Airborne jumps. I think you mean "parachute jumps".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Promoted to Colonel, Schwarzkopf volunteered for an assignment in Alaska, de-capitalise "Colonel"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• The operation was plagued by logistical difficulties exacerbated by poor communication and cooperation between the different services in the operation. comma after "difficulties" but this will still need a copyedit.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• In spite of personal reluctance of the conflict, eh???
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• He eventually became convinced of the success of the operation, and felt it necessary given the legacy of the Vietnam War on the military. We're degenerating into gibberish here...
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • No, we still have problems with the text. In spite of personal reluctance about participating in the conflict, Schwarzkopf helped lead the initial operation aboard USS Guam, flying into St. George's on the second day of the operation. He eventually became convinced of the success of the operation
      1. What "personal reluctance" about participating in the operation? Fear of death? Reluctance to follow orders?
         1. Reworked. —Ed!^(talk) 03:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
      2. Was the initial fighting on board the Guam?
         1. Reworked. —Ed!^(talk) 03:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
      3. What do you mean by "He eventually became convinced of the success of the operation"?
         1. Reworked. —Ed!^(talk) 03:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
      4. How about an example of inter-service non-cooperation?
         1. Reworked. —Ed!^(talk) 03:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Following the invasion, Schwarzkopf returned to the 24th Infantry Division and completed his tour as commander of the unit. A division is not a unit. Just say "as commander".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• He was subsequently among those leaders who were criticized for the poor inter-service cooperation in the operation. Are you sure?
  • The source says he kind of got grouped in with the rest of them; it's the same source that says he had little to do with the actual planning. I was trying to establish that he learned from the mistakes of the Grenada operation and fixed them in Desert Storm. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• he was promoted to Lieutenant General de-capitalise "Lieutenant General"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• conduicting many high-profile spelling
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Bush then gave Hussein an ultimadeum Whatever that is...
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• struck quickly to cut of the Iraqi forces from the west of -> off
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• This leadership style was sometimes criticized by superiors who felt it reduced their ability to solve problems creatively. Whose ability?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• More to come... Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

CENTCOM

• When did he get his fourth star?
  • Source material indicates it was concurrent to, or shortly before, assuming CENTCOM command. —Ed!^(talk) 15:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Zagros Doctrine," a hypothetical ground invasion of the Soviet Union No, the plan concerned a hypothetical invasion of Iran by the Soviet Union, not the Soviet Union by Iran.
  • Ahh, typo. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Becoming more concerned with regional turmoil, Schwarzkopf became concerned Did he become concerned, or more concerned?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• We don't have a map of the CENTCOM area do we?
  • None showing the AOR for 1990 CENTCOM. The only maps we have are modern ones, where the CENTCOM of 1990 encompassed some areas AFRICOM is in charge of today. —Ed!^(talk) 15:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Gulf Waf

• Initially believing the Iraqi Army would only advance to the Ramallah oil field, Schwarzkopf was surprised to learn when the Iraqis captured Kuwait City. Learn what? And when did the Iraqis capture Kuwait City?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Fearing Iraq would next threaten Saudi Arabia No, Iraq already threatened Saudi Arabia; he feared that it would invade Saudi Arabia.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• He then called an emergency meeting with President George H. W. Bush He told the President to meet him?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Schwarzkopf arrived at the command in Riyadh on 25 August Which command?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Internally, Schwarzkopf worked to help coordinate the contributions of the different nations contributing military operations to the effort. I think you mean they were contributing military forces, not operations. And who was he helping to do this?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• While planning, Schwarzkopf remained in frequent contact with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell concerning his plans for the offensive Whose plans were these - Schwarzkopf's or Powell's?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• He devised an operational plan, dubbed "Operation Desert Storm," - - Schwarzkopf or Powell?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• British Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery's defeat of Nazi German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel at the Second Battle of El Alamein in World War II. First of all, "marshal" has only one L. Secondly, Montgomery was not a field marshal in 1942. Thirdly, Rommel was not a Nazi.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• When he took command of the Gulf War, he sought an entirely different strategy. Did he find it?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Powell dealt with him instead With Schwarzkopf or Cheney?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll say this much for the article: you sure put my hastily assembled post death intro for Stormin' Norman to shame :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'm a little sad I'm writing this up posthumously, especially given how recently he passed away. —Ed!^(talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment As a comment, you should really consult Thomas Ricks' new book The Generals which has a chapter on Schwarzkopf which is pretty critical of his performance during the Gulf War (in short, he argues that Schwarzkopf was capable tactically, but his war plan didn't take the strategic objectives of the war into account with the result that the Republican Guard was able to escape and that he did a poor job of handling the negotiations at the end of the war). It also has some material on his experiences in Vietnam. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd question, but do you happen to know the page ranges of the Schwarzkopf material in that book? I found a version on Google books that I could use, but the pages are omitted (they seem specifically interested in preventing use of the material for reference) [189] —Ed!^(talk) 15:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not: I borrowed it from the library and have long-since returned it. From memory the chapter on Schwarzkopf is about two-thirds of the way into the book, but there's also some material on his experiences in Vietnam earlier in the volume. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's on pp. 367-396. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I would add that you should also consult It Doesn't Take a Hero: The Autobiography of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf by Peter Petre. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked through it and considered it, but I found that there wasn't a ton there that wasn't already referenced in other sources. I didn't want to put too much of his reflection in the bio, per WP:PRIMARY. Is there a part of the article where I should add something from his book? —Ed!^(talk) 15:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I like to make use of all the available literature when I write an article, but if there's one source that doesn't contain anything new, I'll sometimes cite it for something relatively uncontroversial. Having said that, though, a biographical subject's thoughts on particular points of their career can be interesting. But I'm not familiar with the literature on Stormin' Norman (I do have his book somewhere, but I haven't read it), so his more interesting reflections might be covered in other sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In some cases though, like for Douglas MacArthur or Manhattan Project, there is so much literature that it is impractical to make use of it all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

SupportComments. This is an excellent and engaging article. I agree it's sad that it had to be written posthumously, but I guess true recognition only comes after death. With a little polishing, it should easily satisfy the standards for an FA and I hope you'll nominate it at FAC once this ACR is concluded.

• Born in Trenton, New Jersey, Schwarzkopf grew up in both the United States and Iran. I guess you're trying to avoid monotony here, but that phrasing makes it sound like he grew up in two countries because he was born in Trenton; also, do you need his place of birth in the lead?
  • Reworded a little. —Ed!^(talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• commissioned a Second Lieutenant Do you mean commissioned as, or is this perhaps an ENGVAR thing?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• After a number of initial training programs, Schwarzkopf interrupted a stint as an academy teacher, serving in the Vietnam War first as an adviser... doesn't make sense to me. The change in tense mid-sentence makes it really confusing
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• There's quite a big jump in the lead from batallion commander to division commander; I know it's a summary but do you think it would be worth mentioning some of the things he did in the meantime?
  • In terms of historic precedence, he didn't do anything worth noting in the lead before Division command. There isn't a ton of coverage about it anyway. —Ed!^(talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the links to Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and Saudi Arabia add much
  • They're first references so I think they work policy-wise. —Ed!^(talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• There are a lot of links in the first paragraph of the "Early life and education" section; perhaps you could cull some of them?
  • Tweeked a little. —Ed!^(talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• The prose gets a little choppy and repetitive in the "Junior officer" section, eg Schwarzkopf was assigned his first overseas assignment; in fact, the whole paragraph from that point could do with a re-write
  • I've done some rewording there. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• There's an apparent contradiction in [...] returned to West Point for one year to serve as an instructor in the Department of Mechanics.[37] He was originally intended to teach at the Military Academy for three years[...]
  • Made it more clear. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• What's MACV?
  • Comment: This is the sort of thing that I'd never notice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• The sentence On 28 May 1970, Schwarzkopf landed his UH-1 Huey when discovering troops of B Company who had stumbled into a minefield, where two officers had been wounded and two soldiers were trapped, fearful of setting off more mines. seems quite complicated; perhaps it could be broken up a bit or one of the subclauses put in dashes rather than commas?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• He returned to Washington for an assignment DC or the state? Both are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• criticized for the poor inter-service cooperation do the sources suggest whether this was fair or not?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• He then called an emergency meeting with President George H. W. Bush Surely even a four-star general can't just call a meeting with the POTUS?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• He also worked to minimize the culture clash among foreigners in sharia-dominated Saudi Arabia. Are there any noteworhty examples? Also, is sharia a proper noun?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• I won't duplicate Hawkeye's comments about Monty, but I'll just acknowledge them; I fixed the typo and linked to the article on the British rank
  • Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Do the sources say anything about how he was at leading a coalition with large numbers of foreign troops? Or what any of the coalition partners thought of him as a commander?
  • Saudi Arabia thought well of him, but that's the only one I can find. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Do we know why the promotion to General of the Army of Chief of Staff never happened?
  • He just didn't want to do it. The sources say he was asked but that he just wanted to retire. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Might be worth adding soemthing about that to the article—as it is, it reads like he was passed over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Queen Elizabeth II knighted Schwarzkopf the knighthood would be honorary as he wasn't a Commonwealth citizen; if it were a British article I'd mention that it was a KCB, but I can see why you wouldn't think it important here
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• After the invasion, though, he changed his stance, indicating that UN weapons inspectors found. Did you forget to finish that sentence or something (we've all done it)?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'll second Hawkeye's question about who Powell was dealing with

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Fixed. Thant's everything. Thanks for your review and your patience. —Ed!^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries. Real life gets on top of us all from time to time! Happy to support, but I'd quite like to see something added about his not being promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I've added it in there. —Ed!^(talk) 21:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comments: Support overall very good article, a few comments and suggestions though. Apologies if any of this has been covered above:
• "While serving as Commander of United States Central Command, he was commander of all coalition forces" Is there a good way around the "Commander ... commander" here?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest checking for places where you could replace "Schwarzkopf", I noticed this in the lead and Junior officer sections.
• Check for consistency with comma usage after dates, i.e. "In January 1952, the younger..." vs "In December 1969 he gained his first field command..."
  • Did a look over and removed some of those. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The family moved to Geneva, Switzerland, in 1947, following a new military assignment for Herbert Schwarzkopf.[20] He followed his father, whose military service took him to ..." I'm not sure it's clear who the "He" in the second sentence refers to here.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The couple would later have three children; Cynthia, born in 1970; Jessica, born in 1972; and Christian, born in 1977." Is the first semicolon correct here?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Might want to note that the United States Military Academy and West Point are the same thing.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Would "and briefly the Frankfurt High School in Frankfurt, Germany." make sense here?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• " and in the fall of 1974 became deputy commander" I think the MOS recommends against the use of seasons like this.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• "assignment as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans at The Pentagon." Should "The" be capitalized here?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Did he ever comment on the war in Afghanistan like he did about the second Iraq war?
  • Nothing that made any press, anyway. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• "He was subsequently among those leaders who were criticized for the poor inter-service cooperation in the operation." This sentence reads somewhat awkwardly to me.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• "He was critical of the lack of a reconstruction plan after the initial invasion, feeling the invasion did not take into account" some repetition of "invasion" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. That's everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 03:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me, happy to support. Great job. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to all for my slowness getting back here. I've started a new job and I've been extremely busy. I fully intend to respond to all comments here as soon as I can. —Ed!^(talk) 10:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Niels Bohr

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Yes, another mad scientist. Maybe not as famous as Fermi, but also a Nobel Prize winner, who worked on Tube Alloys and the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
• "One of his sons, Aage Bohr, was also a physicist and in 1975 also received the Nobel Prize." I wasn't convinced that this belonged in the lead.
  • Dropped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "but was not as accomplished a player as his brother Harald Bohr, who played for the Danish national team at the 1908 Summer Olympics." ditto
  • Dropped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Bohr developed the Bohr model of the atom with the atomic nucleus at the centre and electrons in orbit around it, which he compared to the planets orbiting the Sun. " - the "with" implied to me that the reader knew that the model was; I was wondering if "the Bohr model of the atom, positioning the atomic nucleus at the centre and electrons in orbit around it," would read better
  • They all learned it in school, and it is still the image most people have of an atom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "He worked on the idea in quantum mechanics that electrons move from one energy level to another in discrete steps, not continuously." - "the idea" suggested a similar, prior definition. "One of his contributions to quantum mechanics was a theory that...", or "He helped develop a theory within quantum mechanics that..."?
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "zirconium" - worth linking
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "During the 1930s, Bohr gave refugees from Nazism temporary jobs at the Institute" - being picky, they weren't refugees from an ideology, but rather from Nazi Germany or the Danish authorities.
  • No, I really do mean from the Nazi ideology. Not from the Danish authorities, and not necessarily from Germany. Most were German Jews, but there were communists like Klaus Fuchs. Nor were they all escaping Germany; Enrico Fermi fled Italy, Edward Teller fled Hungary, George Placzek fled Czechoslovakia and Stanislaw Ulam fled Poland. Some simply didn't want to put up with the Nazis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "He had a sister, Jenny, who was two years older, and a brother Harald, who was two years younger. " - the older and younger bit felt odd, probably of the coincidence of "two years" having to be repeated.
  • Re-worded: " He had an older sister, Jenny, and a younger brother Harald."
• "played a number of matches for the Copenhagen-based Akademisk Boldklub, with Niels playing goalkeeper." - repetition of "played" "playing"
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "In 1905, prompted by a gold medal competition, sponsored by the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, to investigate a method for measuring the surface tension of liquids that had been proposed by Lord Rayleigh in 1879, Bohr conducted a series of experiments, using his father's laboratory in the university, familiar to him from assisting there since childhood, because the university had no physics laboratory. " - a really long sentence, worth breaking in two.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Harald became the first of the two Bohr brothers to earn a master's degree, for mathematics in April 1909. Although he was older, Bohr took another nine months to earn his. He had to submit a thesis on a subject assigned by his supervisor." - it's unclear from this section why the comparative academic success/speed of the brothers is important to Niels' life history.
  • It's just a yardstick for comparison. Bohr was bright, but not fast. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Earlier in 1910 Bohr had met Margrethe Nørlund, sister of the mathematician Niels Erik Nørlund." - Probably worth some commas - "Earlier, in 1910, Bohr had met..."
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Bohr resigned his membership in the Lutheran Church on 16 April 1912, and they were married in a civil ceremony at the town hall in Slagelse on 1 August. " - sorry to ask the obvious question, but do we know why?
  • It's not clear from the sources. Partly just to have a secular wedding; but there was an obvious rejection of religion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • To elaborate: The Lutheran Church in Denmark was an established church. They would have had to marry in a church.Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• " Years later, his brother Harald would similarly leave the church before getting married.[11] They had six sons." - again, unclear why Harald's loss of faith is important to Bohr's history. I'm assuming that "They" is Bohr and wife, vice Harald and his wife?
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• A bit more to come. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Final bits from me:
• "In 1911, Bohr travelled to England, where he met with J. J. Thomson, of Trinity College, Cambridge and Cavendish Laboratory. " - "the Cavendish Laboratory"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "His three famous papers, which became known as "the Trilogy", were published in Philosophical Magazine in July, September and November of that year." - were they famous before they were published, or did come after publication? As written, it suggests the former.
  • Added "later". They became famous after they were published. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "were formally introduced to the king" - I think "King" would be correct here (it is standing in for the King's name)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Bohr was able to then declare that the as-yet-undiscovered element 72 was not a rare earth element, but an element with chemical properties like zirconium." - unclear if this means that element 72 had chemical properties - as does zirconium - or if it had chemical properties similar to those of zirconium. If the latter, "zirconium's" would clarify the sentence.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "BKS theory was perhaps" - second "perhaps" in a row. "possibly"?
  • Removed both. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The provocativeness of the theory" - "provocativeness" didn't quite work for me. Would "originality" work?
  • Removed. "Provocative" appears in the next sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "A turning point was the introduction of spin by George Uhlenbeck" - "turning point" and "spin" made me smile. Perhaps a different phrasing is required?
  • A clear example of a Freudian turn of phrase on my part. Aaaargh did it again. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In 1914, Carl Jacobsen, the founder of the Carlsberg breweries, had left his mansion, Aeresbolig, to be used for life by the Dane who had made the most prominent contribution to science, literature or the arts." - "bequeathed" rather than "left" would clarify the meaning of the sentence early on.
  • Godd idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "he had some "disagreement with Kierkegaard's ideas." - I think the MOS doesn't like wikilinks inside quotes - but I could be wrong.
  • As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader. In this case the quote is just a snippet so I have paraphrased it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• "to prevent the Germans from discovering Max von Laue's and James Franck's gold Nobel medals, Bohr had de Hevesy dissolve them in acid. In this form, they were stored on a shelf at the Institute until after the war, when the gold was precipitated and the medals re-struck by the Nobel Foundation." - this really impressed me. I'd never realised. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [190] (no action required).
  • External links check reveals one dead link [191]:
    • The coins and banknotes of Denmark (info) [nationalbanken.dk]
      • Repaired. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Images lack Alt Text [192] so you might consider adding it (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
    • Hate ALT text. Never understood why it could not be pulled in from Commons so you one have to key it in once. Anyway, done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Agreed, its painful. Anotherclown (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool isn't working again but Google searches reveal no issues with copyright violation [193] (no action required).
  • Some duplicate links which need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • George de Hevesy
    • Old quantum theory
    • Max Born
    • quantum mechanics
    • Harald Høffding
    • Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
    • Lise Meitner
    • George Placzek
    • James Franck
    • Bohr model
    • hydrogen
      • All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems a little informal: "The next month, Bohr headed down to Leiden...", perhaps "Bohr travelled to Leiden..." instead?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Some inconsistency in presentation: "Second World War" and "World War II"
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems a little awkward: "He died at his home in Carlsberg on 18 November 1962 of heart failure." Perhaps consider "He died of heart failure at his home in Carlsberg on 18 November 1962." (minor nitpick - suggestion only).
    • Don't see the problem, but done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there a word missing here: "He was cremated and his ashes buried in the family plot Assistens Kirkegård in the Nørrebro section of Copenhagen, along with those of his parents, his brother Harald, and son Christian...."? Do you mean "Copenhagen cemetery"?
    • I don't write this bit, but surely, everyone will mentally read Kirkegård as "Churchyard"? Anyhow, changed to "cemetary". Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of the references need to be modified to use title case. For instance "Aaserud, Finn. "History of the institute: The establishment of an institute", "The coins and banknotes of Denmark. Danmarks Nationalbank. 2005. ISBN 978-87-87251-55-6. Retrieved 7 September 2010." and "Aaserud, Finn (2006). "Niels Bohr's mission for an 'open world'". In Kokowski, M.. Proceedings of the 2nd ICESHS. pp. 706–709. Retrieved 26 June 2011."
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: interesting subject. A few suggestions from me:

• "and a promoter of research in science" --> "and a promoter of scientific research"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• "a friend of his father's" --> "a friend of his father"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Although he was older, Bohr took..." --> "Although he was older, Niels took"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• "He had to submit a thesis on a subject assigned by his supervisor. In Bohr's case, his supervisor was Christiansen, and the topic was on the electron theory of metals". --> "He had to submit a thesis on the electron theory of metals to his supervisor, Christiansen."
  • No, that won't work. I've re-worded differently Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• "and was intrigued by a paper of Darwin's on electrons" --> "and was intrigued by a paper Darwin had written on electrons";
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• this seems to be missing something: "Balmer's formula worked was corroborated by the discovery of additional spectral lines". Perhaps, "Balmer's formula worked and was corroborated by the discovery of additional spectral lines"
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In the first paper of the Bohr was". Perhaps "In his first paper, Bohr..."?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Re-worded
  • I stopped at Quantum mechanics as it is late here. I will come back tomorrow. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added my support. I made a few more tweaks, please check you are happy with them and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Serbian State Guard

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently successfully undergone GAN and has had some tweaks to bring it up to what I consider A class standard. The SDS were effectively the armed forces of the Serbian puppet government in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia during WWII. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for GAN. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the review, Dan. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: I made a few minor tweaks, please check that you are happy with those. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I revised one of your edits regarding Nedic's resignation, but otherwise all good. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, looks good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [194] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [195] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [196] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are either PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [197] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action required).
  • Minor grammatical nitpick with this caption: "One battalion of the SDS was based in each of Belgrade, Kraljevo, Niš, Valjevo and Zaječar." Specially "each of" doesn't quite sound right to my ear. Possibly reword? (suggestion only)
  • Usual attention to detail from this editor, no major issues that I could see. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (P)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Another one of these lists. I believe it includes all the most recent A-Class and Featured List Class recommendations made by fellow editors for a number of lists of Knight's Cross recipients. Please provide feedback. Thanks for your time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support I have reviewed several of these lists for ACR and FAC in the last few months and this article incorporates all of my recommendations from previous article reviews. Well done once again. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Support; even I, in my most nitpicky state couldn't find anything to improve before support :)

• Random, unimportant comments:
  • last name; for some reason use of this felt stifled, rather than "surname"
  • Oak Leaves and Swords; 32 presentations were made posthumously; I think the semicolon here is misplaced - do these two clauses relate to each other (i.e. were all of those posthumous awards to those who received the higher honours only)? As you note 32 Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and 32 posthumous awards - a reader might get confused.
  • The sequential numbers greater than 843; a little confusing given what you said earlier (The same numbering paradigm...) suggested the numbering for higher grades was also officially endorsed. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying.
  • No sequential number in the table? Given the importance you attach to it in the prose that seems odd.

Great article. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Support This is yet another excellent article in this impressive series. I have a few minor comments though:

• "Tasked with the leadership of the II./Grenadier-Regiment 407" - how does this differ from being the unit's commander?

• Sorry for having to point to the de:M.d.F.b. (German Wiki) article here. Tasked with the leadership denotes the temporary assignment of a person until the "official" commander is appointed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Rifle grenade launcher in the 7./Fallschirmjäger-Regiment 6" - the term 'rifle grenade launcher' is normally applied to the weapon. I'd suggest replacing this with 'rifle grenadier' or similar Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• His German position was Gewehrgranatenschütze which translates to "rifle grenade shooter/launcher". I am open to suggestions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Conte di Cavour-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [198] (no action required).
  • External links check out [199] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text [200] so you might consider adding it (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation [201] (no action required).
  • Some duplicate links which need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • casemates
    • Malta
    • Naples
  • "These ships were the first full class of dreadnoughts in the Regia Marina...", which ships?
  • typo here: "took longer to produced...", should be "produce".
  • "Shortly after the end of the war...", which war?
  • This is repetitive: "Two of the existing propeller shafts were removed and the existing turbines...", existing twice.
  • "Casualties included 21 officers and 227 enlisted men...", killed? wounded? or both?
  • Note 7 is missing a page number.
  • Otherwise looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support Nice article, bear in mind I am a lay reader when it comes to ships, so some of my comments may reflect this :) Many are just suggestions/nitpicks so don't consider them gospel.

That's a good thing because fresh eyes can pick up stuff that we experienced types think that everybody knows.

• Completed during the war, none of the three ships saw action; Leonardo da Vinci was sunk by a magazine explosion in 1916 and sold for scrap in 1923; sentence is fragmentary and a little confusing (the implication is they never saw action, ever). I suggest splitting it up and rephrasing.
  • Rewritten.
• , but the first dreadnought; this is awkward. Perhaps , although the dreadnought Dante Alighieri had been completed in 1913.
  • Done.
• So when were they built?? The construction section makes no mention of dates! Perhaps you could rephrase the first sentence to incorporate this & address the previous bullet point?
  • Addressed in the lede.
• You use intended three times in a short space within the first paragraph of the construction section. Is there a more elegant way to phrase this?
  • Good catch. How does it read now?
• Conte de Cavour; di or de? You use them interchangeably throughout...
  • Ehh, Romance languages, they're all the same! The Italians consistently fail to follow the French spellings that I'm used to.
• AA guns; first use of this acronym I would suggest using the "anti-aircraft (AA) guns" and link somewhere relevant.
  • Agreed.
• I linked Levant, but is this the most appropriate word to use? No strong opinion, especially now it is linked.
  • It's what my source uses.
• The sisters began an extensive reconstruction program in October 1933; oddly phrased.. as inanimate objects how did they begin a program? Perhaps "entered"
  • "Entered" has the exact same problem as inanimate objects find it difficult to enter anything. Ships are usually anthropomorphized, especially when they termed she, so I think this is OK and better than the alternatives.
• Admiral Andrew Cunningham, commander of the fleet; Just for specificity I'd suggest that you use "the British commander" here.
  • You don't think that mention of the British Fleet in the previous sentence is enough to tell the reader that he's the British commander?
    • You also refer to the Italians in the same sentence. I understood what you meant, but did scratch my head on first scan. That's all. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• which made a small turn and increased speed to throw off the Italian's aim at 1600; missing commas? which made a small turn and increased speed, to throw off the Italian's aim, at 1600
• forcing four boilers off line as their operators could not breathe which reduced the ship's speed to 18 knots; again, some commas missing here I think?
  • Agreed.
• Repairs to Giulio Cesare were completed; this is rather sudden, we were only just escaping the brits! :) Where did they go after disengaging?
  • Clarified.
• Consider reviewing the use of -ly adverbs, in many cases they can be either removed, or replaced with more specific words.
  • I'll keep that in mind.
• Following the end of the war, Giulio Cesare was allocated to the Soviet Union as war reparations in 1949; "war" is vague, and then you drop in a specific date. I would simply start with "In 1949" and consider linking to Paris Peace Treaties, 1947.
  • What candidates for "war" are there? It serve to transition the reader from wartime experiences to postwar. Good idea on the link.

Otherwise, excellent work. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with your tweaks and/or explanations :) so have a support! --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Yet another excellent article on a BB class. I have the following comments:

• "although the first dreadnought, Dante Alighieri" - to be a bit pedantic, I'd suggest adding 'Italian' before 'dreadnought' to avoid any confusion
  • Then we're both pedantic.
• "Both ships supported Italian operations during the Corfu incident in 1923" - what did this involve?

It's linked, but an Italian general was murdered on Corfu and the apology offered by the Greek gov't was rejected. The Italians landed troops and bombarded the main city there to get satisfaction. Sources are contradictory about who did what and I didn't want to get into it here, as that's better dealt with in the individual ship histories, IMO.

• • OK, but saying that BBs only 'supported' something sounds a bit odd in my view given how powerful these ships were (even though they sometimes did sail around in general support of something or other), so I'd suggest trying to be a bit more specific by the time this goes to FAC - saying something like they 'cruised in support' is an improvement, and 'covered' is better still. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• "to throw off the Italian's aim" - this possessive apostrophe reads oddly given that the BB's guns were being served by multiple people ('Italian ship's aim' might work better)
  • Agreed.
• The lead says "She escaped to Malta after Italy surrendered and continued in her role as a training ship for the rest of the war" but the post-surrender training role isn't described or referenced in the body of the article Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Good catch, deleted the bit in the lede. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

James Moore (Continental Army officer)

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is a comprehensive and detailed overview of the life of one of North Carolina's five Continental Army generals. Though not much information exists (that I've been able to dredge up) concerning his life outside of the military, and though some central facts (like his birth year and death date) remain somewhat uncertain, I believe this article is thoroughly-researched. I appreciate the reviewers in advance for contributing their time. Cdtew (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment: FN31 isn't linking properly, and there are no citations to Clark 1896. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Done: Oops. Should be Davis Bellas 1896 Cdtew (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: I missed your comment about Clark 1896 -- it actually is cited, in the note accompanying Fn43. I couldn't figure out a way to link from within the "ps=" field of the ref, but if you know a way, I'm all ears. Cdtew (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's possible to do that by using {{harvnb}} within the ps field; I'm not sure if there's a nicer way, but this at least is functional. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Done: That has to be the coolest trick I've learned all year. My deepest gratitude! Cdtew (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Support -- bit surprised this hasn't attracted more reviews...

• Completed my usual prose copyedit, no outstanding issues as far as I'm concerned.
• Structure and supporting materials, incl. image licensing, look okay.
• Referencing-wise I haven't done a thorough check a la Nikki but nothing leaps out as questionable, except you have a harv error on FN43.
• Content/detail-wise, it looks fair to me but I'm not an expert in the area so will try to get round to a spotcheck of sources at some later stage if nobody else does.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Response: Ian, thanks for the notes. I am surprised this hasn't gotten much yet as well. Even a terse no or some constructive criticism would be nice. I suppose its what I deserve since I've been too busy with work lately to review anything myself. Harv error on fn 43 is fixed. Cdtew (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Tks, supporting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

SupportComments. To my surprise (the American War of Independence isn't a topic that generally captivates me) I found this article quite interesting. It's engaging and well written and covers somebody whose contributions may not have been the most famous of his day but are certainly worthy of note. Thanks for bringing it here. I have just a few comments and queries:

• Were his siblings older or younger?

• Done as much as I can - Maurice was 2 years older, and that's in the source, but Rebecca was about 4 years older -- I just can't find a valid source confirming that. As is often the case with this era, the wife was just an afterthought in most of the historical writing. I'll keep digging for a date of birth in a verifiable source.

• A link would be helpful to explain what "militia" means in this context

• Done

• Does the link to brother-in-law add much?

• Done - Probably not, removed.

• Highland Scots loyal to the Britain the Britain?

• Done

• The British Army and Navy the British navy is the Royal Navy

• Done

• Is "upriver" a single word? I've never seen it used that way, but then we Brits tend to be fond of hyphens in cases like this
  • If I can butt in, I understand "upriver" to be standard AmEng... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I guessed it would be an ENGVAR thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Any relation between the subject and Moore's Creek Bridge?

• Nope - At least, none that I can tell. The creek was named after "Widow" Elizabeth Moore, who apparently was of no relation to the wealthier Moores.

• the Loyalists attempted to cross over the creek in the early morning hours of February 27 Might be worth reminding the reader of the year here

• Done

• after the attempted British assault at Battle of Sullivan's Island At the battle? Or would "at Sullivan's Island" be better?

• Done - I think I'd meant to pipe in Sullivan's Island, which is what I did.

• Anne, Moore's wife, died within a few months thereafter should probably be "within a few months" or "a few months thereafter", but not both

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done - Went with "a few months thereafter."

HJ, thank you for your comments. It's a little late where I am, but I will address your comments and critiques fully later today. Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a good few hours behind you so take your time, and I'll pop back when you're done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that covers most of your comments. Thanks for taking a look! Cdtew (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you for broadening my horizons. :) Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think he was interesting, you should see his colleague Robert Howe (soldier), an article I just did a complete rewrite and expansion for this past month. He was really fascinating - womanizing, duels, and constant battlefield failure ftw. I've still got to add a small section on Howe's suspected treason attempts, but luckily its been languishing at GAN. Anyways, thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport

• My internet connection is currently unreliable so I have not been able to do the usual technical review.
• is this right? "...as the Cape Fear was unsuited to mass cultivation ...", → "...as Cape Fear was unsuited to mass cultivation..."

• Done - The Cape Fear is a river and a cape, but the cape isn't talked about much, if at all, in present parlance. Instead I was using it to refer to the river, much like "the Thames", "the Nile", or "the Amazon". I've changed this instance, though, for clarity, to read "the lower Cape Fear".

• "...During that conflict, Moore, a captain at the time...", perhaps consider "...During that conflict, Moore, still a captain..." or something similar (suggestion only).

• Done - Changed to "During that conflict, Moore was captain of a company he led to South Carolina"

• "...whose port had been closed by the Boston Port Act to all commerce in 1774..." → "...whose port had been closed to all commerce in 1774by the Boston Port Act."

• Done!

• "... Moore led his command upriver along the south bank of the Cape Fear...", perhaps "... Moore led his command upriver along the south bank of Cape Fear..."

• Not Done - See my reasoning for keeping it the same, supra.

• "Moore would be one of only five North Carolinians to achieve the rank of brigadier general or higher in the Continental Army." Would be or was? "Was" seems more correct to me.

• Done!

• "... in the main channel of the Cape Fear south of the city..." do you mean "... in the main channel of the Cape Fear River south of the city..."?

• Done - this does make it clearer. Sometimes using the common shorthand goes a little too far.

• "...which order was confirmed by the Continental Congress on November 16...", consider more simply "...which was confirmed by the Continental Congress on November 16..."

• Done!

• Sorry it's taken me so long to address these! My responses are above, indented under your comments. Cdtew (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• By the way, the comments above were from User:Anotherclown.

• Technical review as fol:
  • No dab links [202] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [203] (no action required).
  • Images all have Alt Text [204] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images all seem PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [205] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action required).
    • Added my support now (and a signature!). Anotherclown (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently successfully undergone GAN, and I have made further improvements to bring it up to A-Class. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Small comment (I haven't gone through the whole article): in the Demographics section, maybe the data should be presented as a table? Inkbug (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • G'day again. I've substituted a table, let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It is much clearer now. However, the sentence after the table can probably be incorporated into the table itself as a "total" row, and sentence after it is missing a period (and maybe should also go in the table). Inkbug (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Done, except for the Prekmurje data. There is not a lot of data on Prekmurje alone, but this gives readers an idea of the relative population split between the two Mura regions. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd probably add numbers to the total row and percents to the total column, but besides that it looks good. Inkbug (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
          • The total row looks good, but what about the total column? Can you give a total for all of the minorities in all areas? What about the percent of all minorities in each area? Inkbug (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• References: I've cleaned up the links to Google Books. A number of other issues:
  • Mojzes is missing an ISBN, as is Jordan, Golubović, and Cseres – does the ISBN just not exist, or is it just not there? If it doesn't exist, do they have some other id?
    • Fixed, one had to have a oclc.
  • "Books" heading – since all of the refs are books, it seems redundant.
    • Fair enough.
  • Do publishers and locations get linked?
    • Per Template:Cite book, a. only if relevant, b. not usually.
  • At least some of the authors have Wikipedia articles, and should probably be linked.
    • Done.
  • Inkbug (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Footnote 61 – the link is not working. Inkbug (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • just had to specify which Portmann book. Thanks.
• "Districts" section: Are those all of the districts? If so, then it is not "Some examples". If it is only examples, then maybe you should convert in into prose and include only one from each county or something like that. Inkbug (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've clarified that they are all the districts involved and I think it is important to include the lists because of the contested nature of the territory between Hungary and Yugoslavia (Serbia/Croatia/Slovenia). Cheers.
    • Hi. It looks a lot better now, but the words "some examples" are still there. Inkbug (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • But they are examples of the renaming of towns, not examples of the renaming of the districts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Then the words "Districts of" in the title of each table are confusing. If I understand correctly, it should say "Bács-Bodrog County" without "districts of". Inkbug (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Footnote 27 doesn't mention "magyarize", and therefore the quotes are probably unnecessary. A link to Magyarization should probably be added.
  • You are correct. It mentions the imposition of a "Hungarian pattern" but I thought "Magyarisation" was tidier. I have quoted Lemkin then used the linked term a couple of paras later where it is used by Tomasevich.
• Footnote 30 doesn't seem to support the sentence. Inkbug (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, you are right. The page in question only uses "Southern Territories". I have substituted p. 631 (per the infobox) which uses the exact phrase. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The two instances of footnote 42 can be combined.
  • Thanks, done.
• In the Demographics section, it might be useful to mention the number of people in each of Yugoslavia and Hungary before the occupation, just to give a sense of scale. See also my comment above (from 22 March) about the table. Inkbug (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify? I haven't done the totals in the table because these are the "significant minorities", not all of them, so the numbers aren't complete. For example, there were Roma, Jews and others in the territories, but they are not included in the table. The only source I have been able to find for the 1931 census results is Ungvary, and everything he provides is there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If there is no other info then it is fine. Inkbug (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Good work! Inkbug (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the comprehensive review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

SupportComments. I thought I'd have a look at this, but you'll have to bear with me—Balkan history is interesting, but not something I know a great deal about. This is a very well written and by the looks of it meticulously researched article. I have just a few comments and queries:

• Would the date be better in the first sentence?

• by moving the present-day sentence to the end of the lead, the timing of the occupation is brought forward in the lead. I think it reads a lot better now, thanks.

• Do we need the present-day political status of these areas so soon in the article? An idea of the geography is obviously useful, but I'm not sure the modern politics is useful so soon, especially given that many of the borders in the Balkans have changed or been the subject of disputes over the last 70 years.

• agreed, see above.

• newly-formed—you don't need a hyphen after "-ly" adverbs

• done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is it worth noting that that "Independent State of Croatia" was a "puppet-state of Nazi Germany" (according to the WP article)

• good point, done.

• "brutal" is a strong term and the measures that follow that adjective don't seem especially brutal by the standards of the time; it's also used twice in quick succession

• I've substituted "harsh", and removed the second one, overly dramatic.

• so–called "Recovered Southern Territories" Do you really need the "so-called" and the scare quotes?

• removed the so-called, left the scare quotes.

• Hungary enlarged its borders Is that the right term? That phrase makes it sound like the border increased in size, which presumably sin't the issue at hand.

• good point, I've changed it to territory.

• You say The Hungarian authorities immediately introduced genocidal policies, but then go on to talk only about deportation, not killings; a claim like that needs to be backed up by examples

• it is Lemkin (who coined the word genocide) that uses this term to describe the imposition of a Hungarian pattern in the territories. Deporting Serbs and Jews, replacing them with Hungarians, etc. Also, deporting Serbs to the Independent State of Croatia was a likely death sentence given the Ustasha terror at the time.

• Well the "-cide" suffix implies killing rather than homogenisation by other means, so is genocide the right term in this instance?

• Do we know why the Germans opposed the mass deportations?

• they had enough on their hands dealing with the Serb refugees from the NDH and didn't want any more, I suspect, but neither Tomasevich or Pavlowich specify the reason.

• Forced labour was also used by the Hungarian authorities against the Jews Is forced labour something one uses? Also, out of curiosity, was it just Jews who were subject to forced labour or were other groups included?

• reworded.

• almost all of the remaining Jews in the occupied territories Why "almost"? Were some spared?

• good point, it is not actually stated in the text, I've removed it.

• "massacre" is a term I'd be very wary of using in an encyclopaedia article

• it is frequently used in the academic texts to describe mass killings.

• It is, but the style of writing for an encyclopaedia isn't the same as that for academia. But as long as you've thought about it and you're not just using the term off-the-cuff, I'm satisfied.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

all done, do you think I should quote Lemkin about the genocidal policies? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess if his definition involves measures other than killing; anyway, it's a fairly minor issue so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Harry! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: looks well researched and comprehensive, and the images seem appropriately licenced, but I am a little concerned about the prose. I've listed the main things that leapt out at me, but I think it might need a full run through. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with:

• the article seems to have a mix of British and US English, for example "defences" (British), but also "maneuvers" and "Defense" (US). Please test and adjust for consistency;
• in the lead, perhaps vary the language here: "The occupation commenced on 11 April 1941 when 80,000 Hungarian troops crossed the Yugoslav border in support of the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia that had commenced five days earlier." (two insstances of "commenced" in the same sentence);
• in the lead, this might be tighter: "The insurgency was to a large extent concentrated" --> "The insurgency was mainly concentrated"
• in the lead, perhaps reword slightly: "with the result that some 85 percent of the Jews in the occupied territories were killed during the war" --> "resulting in the deaths of 85 percent of the Jews in the occupied territories."
• the language could possibly be varied here: "Due to the support Hungary received from Germany for these border revisions, Hungary established even closer relations with Germany" (two mentions of Germany, seems repetitious);
• perhaps this could be tighter: "On 10 April 1941, Horthy issued a declaration to the effect that Hungary " --> "On 10 April 1941, Horthy declared that Hungary..."
• "The rapid maneuvers of the German army during the invasion" --> "The German army's rapid maneuvers during the invasion";
• perhaps vary the language here to avoid repetition with the preceding sentence: "There was some resistance to the Hungarian forces from Serb Chetnik irregulars" --> "Serb Chetnik irregulars fought isolated engagements..."
• "News of the success of the Hungarian armed forces in Yugoslavia were welcomed" --> "news...was welcomed";
• this paragraph has a punctuation issue and is a little awkard: "Despite the very limited fighting during which..."
• in the Geography section, is there a citation for this: "Prekmurje consists of flat agricultural land in the south and hilly country in the north."?
• the hyphen should be removed from "newly-formed";
• inconsistent capitalisation "Hungarian Parliament" v. "Hungarian parliament";
• "Hungarian occupational regime did manage to" --> "Hungarian occupational regime managed to";
• "Despite this, Serbs and Croats that had lived in the territories prior to 1918 did retain their citizenship rights" --> "Despite this, Serbs and Croats who had lived in the territories prior to 1918 retained their citizenship rights";
• "In September 1944, the workforce of the Bor mine were forced" --> "workforce...was";
• "followed by expulsion to the NDH or Serbia" (has the abbreviation NDH been introduced?)
• "Less than a year of the beginning of the occupation" --> "After less than a year of the occupation..."?
• "The operations were ordered by Lieutenant General Ferenc Feketehalmy-Czeydner, Grassy, Colonel László Deák and Royal Gendarmerie Captain Márton Zöldy but..." --> "The operations were ordered by Grassy, Lieutenant General Ferenc Feketehalmy-Czeydner, and Colonel László Deák and Royal Gendarmerie Captain Márton Zöldy but..."
• "Roma people" probably should be linked;
• "Partisans formations" --> "Partisan formations";
• sometimes you use italics for "Wehrmacht" and sometimes you don't. This should probably be consistent;
• this seemed contradictory to me "persecutions targeted against one part of the local population" and then "Victims of the communist regime were of different ethnic backgrounds";
• "Prof. Dr. Sándor Kaszás from Novi Sad University in his book Mađari u Vojvodini: 1941–1946 [Hungarians in Vojvodina: 1941–1946] (Novi Sad, 1996)" --> "In his book Mađari u Vojvodini: 1941–1946 [Hungarians in Vojvodina: 1941–1946] (Novi Sad, 1996) Prof. Dr. Sándor Kaszás from Novi Sad University..."
• some of the endashes seem incorrect, and probably should be replaced with hyphens, for instance: "Well–educated ", "less–desirable", "lower–level non–Hungarian", "mid–1942", "government–in–exile",
• in the References, some of your titles use title case and others don't. For instance compare Abbott with Eby;
• in the References, "Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd" --> "Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange". The advice I've seen at FAC is to drop things like "Ltd" or "Pty" etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, AR, all addressed. The only one I didn't make any changes to was the title cases in the Refs. In order to get them consistent with some external rule (see Inkbug's comment at the top), I changed them so they were all consistent with the capitalisations on Worldcat. Do you think that is the wrong way to go? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • G'day, sorry to be thick, but I couldn't find where this was mentioned above. Could you perhaps recount the gist of the argument? To be honest, it is only a small matter of style, and I won't oppose over it. Anyway, I've made a few tweaks myself. Please review and adjust as you feel necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I've bumdrummed you there. I'm thinking of another article that Inkbug reviewed recently. I'll go through and fix em. thanks very much for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Done now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [206] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [207] (no action required).
  • Images all have Alt Text [208] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [209] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action required).
  • Language here is a little repetitive: "expelled them to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, Independent State of Croatia and Montenegro, ultimately expelling..." (expelled and expelling), perhaps reword one?
  • "On 12 April, the Hungarian 1st Parachute Battalion captured canal bridges at Vrbas and Srbobran." Was this an airborne operation? I imagine the Hungarians probably haven't done many so it would be fascinating if it was (all assumption on my part).
    • apparently it was an airborne op, but I haven't yet located a reliable source. Here's what I have found [210]
      • Interesting, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Hungarian troops killed between 1,122 and 3,500 civilians during these initial operations, including some ethnic Germans." Do we know why the Germans were killed? Accident or deliberate? Possible motive?
  • The final sentence in the Geography section is missing a citation. Can one be added?
  • "At first, these territories were placed under military administration." Which territories (its a new section so needs to be clarified IMO)?
  • "In Bačka and Baranja, the Volksdeutsche and Hungarian authorities contributed to significant losses amongst the local Serbs...", this seems a little euphemistically worded to me. Consider instead something like: "In Bačka and Baranja, the Volksdeutsche and Hungarian authorities killed many of the local Serbs..." (or something like that).
  • "... usually followed by expulsion to the NDH or Serbia...", abbrev NDH needs to be introduced at first use.
  • This is awkwardly worded: "Less than a year of the beginning of the occupation, in January 1942, the Hungarian army and gendarmerie massacred...", consider instead: "In January 1942, less than a year after the beginning of the occupation, the Hungarian army and gendarmerie massacred..."
  • Full ranks and titles should be used for consistency with the rest of the text: " Prof. Dr. Sándor Kaszás from Novi Sad University..." and "Capt. Márton Zöldi, were first tried in Hungary...."
  • Overall an excellent article. I've made a few edits so pls check I haven't changed the meaning of anything you wrote and revert if req'd. Anotherclown (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    • All done. I think the Hungarians were just a bit anxious and trigger-happy (re: the Volksdeutsche being killed), although there was no love lost. Nothing specific in sources though. I've addessed your query about the paradrop above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • G'day all, I've had to head off into the bush for a few days, won't get this sorted till Wednesday night at the earliest. Sorry about the delay. Regards,Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Looks good. Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

USS Kearsarge (BB-5)

Nominator(s): Inkbug (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently passed GAN, and I believe it meets the criteria. Inkbug (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Source comment: no citations to Alden, Yarsinske, "Two Admirals in the East", or "Go to Meet the Prince". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Alden ref was in the article before I started working on it, so I left it in, but I removed the rest. Inkbug (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• This is a little awkward: In 1920 she was converted to a crane ship, in 1941 she was renamed to Crane Ship No. 1, and she served in that capacity until she was sold for scrap in 1955. Perhaps something like: "She was converted into a crane ship in 1920, renamed in 1941 and sold for scrap in 1955" left out a few bits, but you should be able to get the drift.
  • Is it better now? Inkbug (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Scrap, Congress should be linked in the lede.
  •  Done Inkbug (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Kearsarge had two double turrets, with two 13-inch (330 mm) guns and two 8-inch (203 mm) guns each, stacked in two levels. Still not happy with this phrasing, although I'm still at a loss how to better express things.
• How many engines? Normally for ships of this period, it was one engine per propeller shaft.
  • I hope it is clearer now. Inkbug (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Not fond of the phrase "harveyized steel waterline armor belt" Can you rephrase? Waterline armor belt of Harvey armor, or somesuch?
  • Is this better? Inkbug (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• "for the first time" is redundant because we already know that she's just been completed.
  •  Done Inkbug (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• I believe that no spaces are supposed to be used in front or behind long em dashes, but check WP:DASH to be sure.
  • There aren't any em dashes in the article (only en dashes, which do need spaces around them). Inkbug (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete the "the" in this: met the King Carlos I
  •  Done Inkbug (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Hyhenate 13 inch gun as a compound adjective.
  • What do you mean? Is this in the infobox or in the main text? Inkbug (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• More detail on role in Great White Fleet needed. Places visited, etc.
  •  Done Inkbug (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Did she do anything in Vera Cruz other than drop off the Marines?
  • Nothing that I know of. Inkbug (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Why all the "and"s? such as Indiana and Alabama, Savannah and Chicago, and Pennsylvania.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Inkbug (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [211] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [212] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding [213] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    •  Done although I would be grateful if someone can check the text I added, and tell me if I did it correctly. Inkbug (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [214] (no action required).
  • A couple of duplicate links need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Caribbean Sea
    • Hornet
      •  Done Inkbug (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems a little redundant to me: "Her keel was laid down by the Newport News Shipbuilding Company of Newport News, Virginia...", maybe just "Her keel was laid down by the Newport News Shipbuilding Company of Virginia..."?
    •  Done Inkbug (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "...sponsored by Mrs. Herbert Winslow...", perhaps wife of Herbert Winslow" instead?
    •  Done Inkbug (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "With over fifty years of service, she is the US battleship with the longest service time." Tense seems a little off here. The ship was sold for scrap so I assume no longer exists.
    •  Done changed to "was". Inkbug (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • " As flagship of the European Squadron, she sailed from Sandy Hook on 3 June, on her way to Kiel, Germany." What year? As its a new section I think this needs to be clarified pls.
    •  Done Inkbug (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is repetitive: "On 18 August 1918 Kearsarge rescued 26 survivors of the Norwegian barque Nordhav which had been sunk by U-117, bringing the survivors to Boston." Specifically use of "survivors" twice in the same sentence. Consider instead "On 18 August 1918 Kearsarge rescued 26 survivors of the Norwegian barque Nordhav which had been sunk by U-117, bringing them to Boston..."
    •  Done Inkbug (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The ship's post World War I career is covered fairly lightly, but I'm assuming this is due to the fact that it did little of note. Can anything further be added or is this reflective of the literature (happy to strike cmt if it is)?
    • I'm not an expert, but I didn't see more in my sources. Inkbug (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • In the references: Alden, John D. (1989). American Steel Navy: A Photographic History of the U.S. Navy from the Introduction of the Steel Hull in 1883 to the Cruise of the Great White Fleet. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-248-6. This isn't used as a short citation so should be moved to a "Further reading" section.
    •  Done Inkbug (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this article looks in good shape to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Inkbug (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment: generally looks good to my uneducated eyes. I made a couple of minor tweaks and had a look at the image licences. Most seem fine, but I think that "File:BB05 Kearsarge BB06 Kentucky USN photo www.navsource.org.jpg", probably needs a date, and, if possible, the specific url that links directly to the image in the navsource website added to the description page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Inkbug (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• "With over fifty years of service, she was the US battleship with the longest service time.": At the time, or still today? And, reading quickly, I don't see this mentioned in the text. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Moved to main body and reworded. Inkbug (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• "This was claimed to be a problem": Although I don't think the style we've developed requires in-text attribution for everything that even might be an opinion in historical narratives, "claimed" probably does require it.
  •  Done Inkbug (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• "))": avoid these, throughout
  •  Done Inkbug (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• "She was christened on 24 March 1898, on the same day as her sister, the Kentucky. Kearsarge was christened by the wife": Four things here (see if you can spot all four!) ... none is wrong but I think we prefer it this way: She was christened on 24 March 1898 (the same day as her sister ship, Kentucky) by the wife - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Inkbug (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Kearsarge became flagship of the North Atlantic Squadron, sailing down the Atlantic seaboard and in the Caribbean Sea. As flagship of the European Squadron, she sailed from": This will make some readers pause to wonder if the article contradicts itself, or if she was somehow flagship of two squadrons. "Reassigned as flagship ..." is one fix. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Inkbug (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• I got down to Service history. I see this has already been listed for promotion; gratz. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Inkbug (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

D-Day naval deceptions

Nominator(s): Errant ^(chat!)

A small but, I feel, complete article about the three tactical naval military deceptions employed on the eve of Operation Neptune. It recently passed GAR and I am nominating it for A-Class review to get some more feedback (and with an eye on FAR, though I know it is a little short). I recently started the mammoth task of brining all the Operation Bodyguard related articles to at least GA standard, and this is the first to go through the process. (a prose ce from someone would be nice, as I am the only major author so far) Errant ^(chat!) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments - Interesting work. Some comments:

Infobox:

• Ops 'B' is mentioned in "Planned by" field but not in main body of article. Likewise RNR - perhaps add a line to the Glimmer and Taxable section, assuming it is supported by the refs, stating that the HDMLs involved were crewed by RNR personnel.
  • Will figure out how best to present this :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Date refers to 5 June, but times are for 6 June.
  • Not sure how to fix this. Obviously the boats left England on 5th, but conducted the operation on the 6th. What's the convention here? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I would just have the dates. Zawed (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead:

• Link Normandy on its first mention in the lead; the other areas that were the location of dummy fleets are linked. I would also suggest linking chaff as I think there will be readers that don't know what it is. ✔
• "were successful, due..." I think the comma should be deleted. ✔

Background:

• 2nd para - link Normandy (the place). ✔
• London Controlling Section - used twice before changing to the abbreviation (which has no antecedence). ✔
• When was the decision made to initiate Taxable and Glimmer? Later in the article, there is reference to training of the squadrons in May.
  • Not sure. I guess I could get the planning documents from the archive and find out. But there is no real discussion in the source. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Glimmer and Taxable:

• Link Cap d'Antifer and Royal Air Force ✔
• are the boats of the 1st para of this section the ships of the 3rd para?
  • Tweaked the wording to hopefully clarify this --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• A word is missing here: "merge in seamlessly avoid" ✔
• "the larger of the two...": "the larger of the two "operations"? ✔
• "with an expanded crew of up to 14" - needs to make clear this is referring to each bomber, not the squadron. ✔
• "available, instead each bomber carried a second pilot who rotated flying." Needs rephrasing; perhaps the comma should be a full sentence, and refer to rotating flying duties. ✔
• "the small ships" as opposed to the big ships? Suggest deleting "small". ✔
• No aircraft losses?
  • I'll check --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Big Drum:

• "naval deceptions, however was not supported by chaff-dropping bombers". I find the comma and "however" awkward and suggest rephrasing. Perhaps: "naval deceptions but did not involve the RAF." ✔
• "the western most portion of the fleet". I suggest amending this to read "invasion fleet". ✔
• What happened to the fleet of HDMLs? Did they all return safely like the other operations? ✔
  • Interesting question, I'll double check! --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It would be useful to have, since the other fleets are mentioned as returning safely. Zawed (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Added some info to note they made it back. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Impact:

• "quite ineffective, very little.." Seems like there is a word missing in the middle of that quote. ✔
• "bomber squadrons indicating...": indicated? ✔

Bibliography:

• Some refs include pages numbers eg. Barbier, p. 268 ✔

That's all I've got at this stage. Zawed (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks! I've addressed a lot of these points and will come back later with the extra info you suggested (if its in the sources). Some comments/queries in line. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No probs. Your changes look good - but I have just noticed most of the refs don't have publishing location. Zawed (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Locations added, I don't see anything in the sources as to whether all the bombers made it back, nor when it was initiated (other than the dates they started training). --Errant ^(chat!) 10:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking over your changes to this article as a result of my comments and they look good. One thing I had overlooked (sorry) is an explicit start date for Glimmer/Taxable in the main body of the article (to support the use of 5 June in the infobox). I've gotten carried away and have amended the opening sentence of the 4th paragraph of the "Glimmer and Taxable" but please check that my changes are supported by the references. If not, you may want to revise my change (or maybe move it elsewhere in the article). Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me :) thanks!! --Errant ^(chat!) 22:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding my support now. Zawed (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. This a relatively short, but interesting and well-written article. I had a good read through, but I'm afraid I couldn't find anything to criticise! Nice work, Tom, keep the articles coming. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Harry! --Errant ^(chat!) 06:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [215] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [216] (no action required).
  • Most images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding [217] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [218] (no action required).
  • One duplicate link that need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Newhaven
  • "Allied command decided that this would be too noisy...", I'm assuming "noisy" is not used here in its literal sense. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean? (suggestion only)
  • "Taxable, the larger of the two operations, was carried out by eighteen small boats..." should be "18" per WP:MOSNUM
  • Beevor, Anthony (2009). The Battle for Normandy. Penguin UK. ISBN 0141959266 needs place of publishing.
  • Otherwise excellent. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I think I've addressed the points you raised :) --Errant ^(chat!) 06:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Godley

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently undergone a GA Review and I think it is a suitable candidate for an A-Class review. Godley played an important role in NZ's military history; he was the commandant of the NZ Military Forces from 1910 to 1914, and played an important in ensuring the NZEF was prepared for the Great War. While a good administrator and trainer, he was definitely not one of the great field commanders of WWI. Zawed (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. There have been no changes to the prose since I reviewed this for WP:GAN. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments A few points on the prose, as per below:

• "He served in the Boer War and afterwards served in a number of staff positions in England." - repetition of served.

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "the New Zealand government appointed him as commander of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force which he led for the duration of the war in addition to his other military commands." - it's unclear from this what his other military commands were, as they haven't been mentioned yet.

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• " His mother was a niece of Admiral James Bird" - it isn't clear what the significance of this is to Godley's life.

I think this was part of the reason for Godley's initial interest in the Royal Navy - but this isn't explicitly stated in my sources. I have removed the sentence anyway. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Godley intended to enter the Royal Navy but later changed his mind " - "later" is superfluous here

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "he volunteered for service in Mashonaland to assist in the suppression of a rebellion in the province" - unclear if this means that his service involved assisting in suppressing the rebellion, or that his reason for volunteering was that he wanted to assist in the suppression.

Not actually sure which one applies; I have revised the sentence to go with the former, which happened regardless of whether he specifically volunteered to suppress the rebellion. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1898 Godley attended Staff College at Camberley but following the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899, volunteered for service in Africa" - what does the "but" mean here? Did his volunteering curtail his staff college course?

It did; have revised. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "He remained at Aldershot until 1903 before " - several "before" constructs (see previous sentence)

Revised. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Considerable inroads were made in the quality of the weaponry provided to the military." - I wasn't sure that "inroads" worked well here; you could probably lose the sentence, given the detail that comes after it.

Combined the two sentences and removed "inroads". Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "By 1914 the Territorial Force had some 30,000 men who would be involved in divisional level training camps (just two years previously, the infrastructure of the force was such that only battalion level camps could be achieved)." - what does "would be involved" mean? (e.g. were they involved in the future? Or does it mean "could be"?) What does "infrastructure of the force" mean? (is this the size of the camps they had available, or comms, or equipment...?)

Revised this section - by infrastructure I was referring to the size of the force and the logistic constraints at the time. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "He anticipated that Imperial Germany would be the likely enemy and envisaged deployment to either Europe or possibly Egypt to counter the likely threat to the Suez Canal in the event Turkey aligned itself with Germany." I'd suggest "He anticipated that Imperial Germany would be the likely enemy and envisaged deployment to either Europe, or possibly Egypt, to counter the likely threat to the Suez Canal in the event Turkey aligned itself with Germany."

Revised. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Godley's arrangements proved fortuitous for when the First World War began, a New Zealand occupation force was quickly assembled to occupy German Samoa." Is "fortuitous" right? Surely the reason for needing an occupation force was because it had been previously agreed by Godley that NZ would occupy German Samoa?

Fortuitous in that due to his efforts, the occupation force was quickly assembled. But I see what you are getting at; fortuitous may not have been the best choice of words as at present it may suggest it was lucky, which is the opposite of what I intended. I have revised the sentence. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Nor was his coordination of offensive operations sound; during the August offensive, his lack of oversight allowed one of his brigade commanders, Brigadier General Francis Johnston, a British Army officer on secondment to the NZEF, to vacillate over the reinforcement of the Wellington Infantry Battalion once it was in tenuous possession of Chunuk Bair." - A long sentence, worth breaking in two.

Have revised (and slightly expanded). Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Godley's II ANZAC Corps consisted of the Australian 4th and 5th Divisions along with the ANZAC Mounted Division and it took over the defensive duties of the I ANZAC Corps" - a comma, possibly after Mounted Division, might help here.

Done. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Godley oversaw intensive training of both formations." - "the intensive training"?

Done. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• " In late 1936, Godley was considered for appointment as the governor of New South Wales but this did not eventuate" - I'm not sure about "eventuate" here. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Have revised. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hchc2009, thanks for taking the time review this article. I have responded to your points above. Let me know if my revisions aren't satisfactory. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [219] (no action required).
  • External links check out [220] (no action required).
  • A couple of the maps lack Alt Text [221] so you might consider adding it for consistency (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).

Alt text for all images now present. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool doesn't seem to be working at the moment - google searches reveal no obvious issues with copyright violation [222] (no action required).
  • Some duplicate links which need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • First World War
    • New Zealand Expeditionary Force
    • II Anzac Corps
    • general
    • Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath
    • colonel
    • Egypt
    • Australian Army
    • General
    • Brigadier General
    • I ANZAC Corps
    • Western Front
    • Australian 3rd Division

Fixed all of these. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• • "He was also chief staff officer to Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Plumer[2] and commanded the Rhodesian Brigade." I'm unclear what you mean here. Are you saying Plumer commanded the Rhodesian Bde or that Godley did? A staff officer is not a commander but works for a commander on his staff. Perhaps you mean Godley was COFS to Plumer and later commanded the Rhodesian Bde?

Rephrased. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• • "The NZEF was intended for service on the Western Front but was diverted to Egypt while in transit, following the entry of Turkey into the war." Turkey should be wikilinked at first mention.

Done. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• • "he also effectively took over responsibility for the administration of the Australian Imperial Force (AIF)", abbrev "AIF" should be introduced at first instance. Anotherclown (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, all comments addressed. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Completed my usual copyedit, only things remaining as far as I'm concerned are:
  • "and instilled professionalism in" in the lead -- seems a bit peacockish to me there (works okay in context in the main body) so I think you could remove and leave the rest of the sentence as is.
  • In the succession boxes at the end I have a feeling you should be using sentence case for "New Command", "Post Disbanded", etc, not the current title case.
• Structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials look good -- I'll take AC's word for the image licensing.

Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (M)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this work (should) includes all the most recent A-Class and Featured List Class recommendations made by fellow editors for a number of lists of Knight's Cross recipients. I therefore hope that this here list is at the same quality level. Thanks for your time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport. I contributed to the successful ACRs of two of the most recent of these lists (G) and (L), and to the successful FLN of (A) and all of my comments from those reviews are reflected in this article.

• no duplinks, no dablinks, checklinks ok, reflinks ok, earwig ok. No action needed.
• the portraits in the RH column need alt text. Action needed.
  • done but I don't believe this to be an A-Class criteria. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not so sure it isn't (it requires images to have succinct captions, and if you follow the links you get to the WP:ALT page which states that for "images that link to their image description page, the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent). Regardless of whether that is strictly true or not for A class, I thought it would help given you have started taking this series to FA. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• suggest you convert the ten digit ISBNs to 13 digit per WP:ISBN.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Moving to support, well done on another list article of very high standard. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Support This excellent article easily meets the criteria - great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Support -- for the simple reason that I can't see any reason not to; the template is well and truly in place, and I don't see where this has deviated from it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Vojislav Lukačević

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for ACR because it has recently (Jan 13) undergone GAN review and has had further checks and tweaks. Not much is known of his early life, but this is common among Chetnik commanders who were often company-grade officers (captain or major at best) in 1941 when Yugoslavia was invaded, but rose to command the equivalent of a brigade or more of insurgents during the ensuing four years. Given history is written by the "winners" and they "lost" it is not surprising that more detailed records of their early lives are not available. I consider it is now ready for ACR. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Nothing else is known of his early life.", "The location of his remains is unknown." – These seem to be claims that should require a citation.
  • A good point. Of course, no source actually says that, it's just that the available sources don't talk about it. I included those sentences because I have found that some reviewers insist that such information be provided, and this was a way of explaining that there just isn't anything available. I have deleted them both.
• What is the relationship between the sections "Massacres of Muslims", "Case White", and "Collaboration with the Germans"?
  • They are appropriate headings for the main theme of the section content which (now) follows the chronology. Can you clarify?
    • Looking at it again, the "Massacres of Muslims" section seems to totally separate from the other two, but isn't "Case White" a single case of general "Collaboration with the Germans"? Inkbug (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Not really, it's wider than that and goes to general collaboration with the Axis in general. At Konjic, which was the most significant engagement his Chetniks were involved in during Case White, he collaborated with the Italians, NDH forces and the Germans (in their case, for the first time). His collaboration with the Germans only really consolidated after the Italian capitulation in September 1943, which is what the next section focuses on.
        • OK. Inkbug (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• The section "Collaboration with the Germans" talks about November 1943, September 1943, and December 1943 – Shouldn't it go in chronological order?
  • Too right. Fixed.
• Even in the period between 1941 and 1945 we are missing info: What happened between April 1941 and February 1943? Between September 1944 and July 1944 1945?
  • To the first part of the question, not much according to the sources. I did add in a mention of fighting with the Partisans in Herzegovina in summer 1942. For the second part can you clarify the month/year period you mean?
    • Sorry, I meant 1945 – i.e. do we know what happened between his capture by the partisans and his trial? Inkbug (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Inkbug (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• • The short answer is no. It would have been ugly but nothing reliable has been recorded in sources I've read.

• More comments:
• The links to Google Books can shortened by a lot (just the id of the book is necessary).
  • I'm not familiar with that, could you point me to how to do it?
    • User:PRODUCER fixed it. Inkbug (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Footnote 2 – the link doesn't work.
  • Good pick-up. Somehow I missed it when I converted to sfn.
• Footnote 3 – the pages cited don't deal with the coup.
  • Again, good pick-up, missed it by one page...
• Footnotes 10 and 11 – where do these citations say that in Case White the Chetniks were legalised auxiliary forces under Italian control?
  • Good point, not sure where that came from, I have reworded the sentence, rm the Pavlowitch cite and corrected the Tomasevich one.

Inkbug (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Footnote 11 – can you give a more exact page number for the numbers of troops?
  • Added.
• Footnote 12 – the source doesn't mention Lukačević or the 1st Proletarian division. However, the source does detail what dates the offensive was on – "held the town for seven days" should probably detail which seven days they were. In addition, from the current article it sounds like they were defeated after seven days – is this true? Inkbug (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The "weak attack of two battalions of the 1st Division" mentioned in Tomasevich is a reference to battalions of the 1st Proletarian Division. Tomasevich introduces the 1st Proletarian as being involved in Case White/Weiss on p.236 and he is merely using shorthand here. Lukacevic is identified as being the commander of the Chetnik troops in Konjic in the footnote at the bottom of p.239. The battle of Konjic started with the two battalion assault of the 1st Proletarian on 19 Feb and the last Partisan assault by the 3rd Assault/Shock Division was on 26 Feb. The Partisans were unable to capture the town and withdrew. I have added this detail per the citations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • A lot better now. Inkbug (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Footnote 19 seems to be covering only the sentence before it. What is the reference for the sentences "In mid-November 1943... Hans Felber"?
  • Added.
    • Sorry, but I don't see anything related in the ref you added. Inkbug (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I think I'm losing it. I now have the book in front of me, it's pp321-323. Fixed.
        • I'm trusting you – I can't access those pages in the Google Books preview. Inkbug (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I added a Roberts cite to it as well which covers similar ground.
• Bajina Bašta (by footnote 19) is mentioned twice, which is in the source also, but I think is redundant.
  • It's 50/50, but I've taken it out.
• How does footnote 20 support the claims about Operation Kugelblitz?
  • Good question, it didn't. But it does now. I have no idea what went on with these citations.
• Footnotes 22 and 23 don't work. Inkbug (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It was the year of publication. I have a copy of the 1973 1st ed, but I think someone else substituted the 1987 3rd ed details in the ref section... I've now made all the Roberts citations and the book the 1987 version.

• Footnote 26 – not there either.
  • It works now. Or did you mean something else?
    • I don't see the content that is being referenced in the source cited. Inkbug (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • His attendance at Peter's wedding, you mean? I have added addition pages from Roberts citing travel to Cairo and corrected Peter's wedding day.
• Footnote 30 – probably can give exact date of October 19. Inkbug (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Done.

• Comment: All of my concerns have been addressed. However, since out of 20 refs I checked (I don't have access to the other sources), there were problems with 5 of them, I won't support the nomination until all other refs (notes #1,4,8,9,15,17,27,28,29,31,33 from this revision) are checked by someone else. Inkbug (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. There certainly have been some gremlins on this one. I will check them all myself again to try to eliminate any remaining ones. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I have now checked every citation and added several so that most individual sentences are now cited. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: since my last comments, a lot of references have been added. I still have not checked all the references, and it would be nice if another user would look at the citations (especially the ones not available on Google Books), but I think the article is a lot better now. Inkbug (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose/structure/referencing/supporting materials -- I can't pretend this is my area of expertise so my copyedit and review concentrate more on prose and readability, with some good faith assumed re. content given Peacemaker's track record in the area. Generally it reads well, image is licensed appropriately, referencing seems sound, and while one could wish for some more detail here and there, I think that's adequate. My only query is re. "legalised auxiliary forces under Italian control" -- what exactly do we mean by "legalised" here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian. Interested in areas where you think more detail could be useful. The term "legalised" refers to their relationship with the Axis, in this case the Italians. Essentially some Chetnik leaders agreed to act on behalf of, or in cooperation with Axis forces. Some basically continued to be local warlords, and didn't align themselves with anyone. The ones who did align themselves with the Axis are the ones that Tomasevich refers to as "legalised". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Mmm, I understand the explanation but in the context of the article I think it'd read better if you just dropped "legalised" -- not a big enough deal to affect my support though. In terms of more detail, I'm primarily thinking of the early life section, but you probably guessed that -- we only have a couple of lines on the first 30 years of his life. As military bios are my stock in trade, I understand the information may simply not be available from reliable sources. Given this is MilHist ACR, the focus is his military career and I think that's covered in reasonable detail, but if it were my article I might not take it to FAC unless I could flesh out the early life a bit. The other thing I'd liked to have seen would be a quote or two by or about him, that might give a bit of insight into the personality. Again, that may not be available and it doesn't affect my support of a well-presented article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian, I sussed that might be it. I have scoured everything I could find with the veritable fine-tooth comb, and PRODUCER has looked into the sh sources and so far, bugger all that is reliable (some self-serving rot of course, but I've studiously ignored that). Ultimately, some of these guys were less-than-notable CAPT/MAJ at the outbreak, became notable as Chetnik commanders, then ran for their lives or died ignominiously and alone at the end, so there is no-one to write about (or know/care) what school they went to or what their old man did for a job. It just isn't available. For what it's worth, as a mid-level Chetnik commander he won't go to FAC on my watch. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [223] (no action required).
  • External links check out [224] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text [225] so you might consider adding it (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
    • Added anyway.
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool doesn't seem to be working at the moment - google searches reveal no obvious issues with copyright violation [226] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action required).
  • "They engaged in cooperation with the Axis powers to one degree or another by establishing modus vivendi...", should this be "a modus vivendi..."?
    • Strangely, modi vivendi actually. I have amended it.
  • "where he became aware of the activities of Mihailović...", full name fo Mihailovic should be used at first use to formally introduce subject per WP:SURNAME.
    • He is introduced in the lead, but I have added the full name in the body as suggested.
  • "In the summer of 1942, Lukačević and his Chetniks fought the Partisans in Herzegovina." Do we know his motivations for this (and for collaborating with the Axis / attacking muslims etc)? I'm assuming they were political (anticommunist, retention of monarch?) and racial or something like that (I'm not very familar with Balkan history so the politics of selective collaboration / fighting the partisans / limited resistance etc are a little unclear and I feel could probably add to context of the article).
    • A combination of Great Serbianism, monarchism, anti-communism and ethnic chauvinism. But in the case of the fighting against the Partisans in Herzegovina in 1942, the source does not ascribe motivation.
  • Incorrect presentation of names in a number of places per WP:SURNAME, for instance "Colonel Bailey", "Brigadier Armstrong", should just be "Bailey" and "Armstrong" removing rank after formal introduction with rank and full name at first instance.
    • Good point, done.
  • "Lukačević attempted to independently contact the Allies in Italy." Do we know why (I can assume the motives but I'm wondering if they are articulated in the literature)?
    • Have added a quote from Tomasevich that explains he was trying to change sides.
  • Otherwises seems quite good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Cheers, thanks for the review. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "in part of the Pljevlja county": Pljevlja is a town, I think, so I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's a bit complicated. I linked to the town because Pljevlja used to be a district and is now a opština of Montenegro. But prior to that it was a bit on/off as the name of an administrative division in Yugoslavia right back to 1918. Even before that it was a district of the Kingdom of Montenegro. So it is associated with the area around the town in general. Looking at the source (Tomasevich) it isn't clear what timeframe he is using for the names, as they appear to be a mix. Do you think I should just use the "modern-day ..." approach for clarity? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I might say "near Pljevlja" or "around Pljevlja", and the same for Čajniče and Foča.

• • wording adjusted. Thanks for the review Dan. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently undergone a successful GAN and has had some incremental improvements through that process. It was the sister division of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (an article which is now FA). In the confusion and desperation that ruled the Balkans in late 1944 and 1945, this division never reached more than brigade size, but elements of it fought the Red Army in southern Hungary in late 1944. It was disbanded when its Bosnian Muslim members mutinied, realising that their German sponsors would leave them to the tender mercies of the Yugoslav Partisans and Russians. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is an excellent example of how to write an article on a short-lived unit: great work. I have the following comments:

• "the division never reached full divisional strength and never saw action as a formation" - repetition of 'and never'
• "did fight briefly" - 'fought briefly' lets you trim an unnecessary word
• The material starting with "On 28 May 1944" needs a reference
• "A small number of reliable Bosnians from the division were used as replacements in the 13th SS Division, and the division was formally dissolved on 31 October 1944" - this is a little bit confusing: I'd suggest replacing the final use of 'the division' with 'the 23rd SS Division' or similar
• The order of battle only identifies combat units - did this division not have any logistics, signals, or other units which reported to the divisional HQ? Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Nick, I think I might be starting to get the hang of unit articles. All done except the divisional combat support and CSS units. Williamson doesn't provide a list (and neither does Ailsby per [227]) and although there are books that provide a full list, I'm not comfortable using them. They are mostly Stackpole Books, like [228], and while the information about Kama looks ok and conforms with other reliable sources, I've just steered clear of it at this stage. It is unlikely many of the CS and CSS units would have been properly formed given the time available and lack of manpower. I expect they did their best to make up the mountain regiments and guns to get some combat power together quickly rather than bother too much with the tail end. Do you think I might use the Pencz book (just to expand the ORBAT)? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be an OK source for the order of battle given that it's not open to any interpretation. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. ORBAT expanded using Pencz.

Support My comments are all addressed. Sorry again for not following up on this sooner. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for reviewing! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Support

• About the only thing that I could ask for, and it may not be available, would be detailed info as to which battalions were actually formed, even just for training.

• No joy on this one, unfortunately, but see below for the strength state in September 1944. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• And are more detailed strength figures actually available? It's pretty clear from what you have provided that it never approached the 12,000-odd men of its TO&E, but it would be nice to know how many men were on strength, even if untrained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good point Sturm. I neglected to check Pencz when Nick and I discussed using him for the ORBAT. He provides a strength report figure of 10 Sep 44 of 3,793. I've added it to the body.

• Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Storm

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed a GA review and I trust it complies with or is close to full compliance with all A-class criteria. Tomobe03 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I only had a quick look, but will come back and have a longer look when I get a bit more time. I have the following initial comments:

• "File:Operation storm map.jpg": the source on this is currently listed as Wikipedia. I think that this will need to be changed to the original CIA source, preferably with the page number of the book it came from;
  • Updated sourcing. The map (and all other maps in the book) are supplied in a separate slip-case, but the maps are numbered and accessible through the Library of Congress, with the numbering visible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• there appears to be a mixture of US and British English. For example "kilometre" (British), but "centered" and "maneuvers" (US). Please check for consistency throughout the article;
  • The examples put forward have now been addressed, will look for more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• inconsistent time format: compare "5 in the morning" v "16:45" v "5 am" (please make this consistent per MOS:TIME);
  • the examples are now addressed, will look for more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• inconsistent presentation "Second World War" v "World War II";
  • Changed to "Second World War".--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• the duplicate link checker tool identifies a few examples of potential overlink: Kordun; Gospic; Korenica; Ogulin; Karlovac; Glina, Croatia; Petrinja; Krvatska Kostajnica; Suna, Sisak-Moslavina County; Saborsko; V Corps (Bosnia and Harzegovina); Vojnic; Una (Sava); Petrova Gora; Bosanski Petrovac; Dubrovnik; Bill Clinton; ethnic cleansing; Kosovo. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Huh, that's quite possible even though I tried to avoid overlinking (except if a link occurs in the lede and then once more in the body prose). Is the duplicate link checker tool available online? I'll sift through those manually, but any automation may speed up the process. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Checked all the examples - all of those were overlinking. Fixed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the tool can be found here. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• G'day, I've had another look and to be honest I think the prose needs work. Apologies, I had a crack at the Background section, and normally I would try to keep going but I found it quite difficult to understand what was going on so I had to stop. For instance, some things that I am seeing in the Prelude are:
  • " Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) and the RSK neared the town's capture" --> perhaps " Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) and the RSK neared the town's centre"? or " Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) and the RSK closed in on the town"?
    • Rephrased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • this seems to raise a few questions rather than answers: "In November 1994, the Siege of Bihać, a battle of the Bosnian War, entered a critical stage as the Bihać was seen as a strategic area, and it was thought that its capture by Serb forces would intensify the war and worsen the division of the United States on one side and France and the United Kingdom on the other, advocating different approaches to the preservation of the area". The Bosnian War? In the last section the war that was being fought was the Croatian War of Independence; did another war break out? It was "thought"? By whom? What does "preservation" mean? Why was it important and why did the US, UK and France have an opinion on it?
    • I tried to add some sort of explanation of the changing attitudes of the three to the war, and explain significance of Bihać to the international community, as well as the UNPROFOR security issue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "In addition, it was feared that Bihać..." Feared by who?
    • Hopefully clarified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "In a meeting of Croatian and US government and military officials held on 29 November 1994..." Again, it is not clear why the US was involved at this point. You mention the Washington agreement later, but maybe it would make sense to introduce it earlier. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, that makes more sense. Reordered now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I've had a run through the prelude section now, but there were a couple of things I wasn't sure of, so I have marked them with clarification needed tags. Please review these and adjust as necessary;
    • One of the two is addressed now, the other one presents me with a problem. Multiple sources (Avant and Dunigan used in the article, but also Goulet here, p.257, note 13, etc) note the speculation about extent of the MPRI involvement, but they are all vague when attributing those to "many analysts" or "some" or "few" who hold that opinion. Goulet does however also mention "many press reports" as source of the speculation, but a search of the NYT turned up a single [article by Leslie Wayne from 2002 (NYT used as an example as it covered the war quite extensively compared to other foreign newspapers, apart from those in neighbouring countries). That article says "In 1995, MPRI started doing so, teaching the fledgling [Croatian] army military tactics that MPRI executives had developed while on active duty commanding the gulf war invasion." while quoting Lieutenant General Soyster denying that claim. Sekulić (book published in 2000, also used in the article) does not mention MPRI at all, which is odd since the book specifically analyzes the war and Operation Storm from a point of view of a RSK army officer. The claim put forward by Wayne is lately repeated frequently in Serbian media (for instance this report cites MPRI contract for training of officers, but claims that besides that the MPRI supplied Croatia with "sophisticated weapons such as UAVs", and "helped [Croatia] develop plans for Operation Storm, or even developed the plans completely on their own" without going into detail on how did the author come to such a conclusion (except for the officer training bit). What is problematic here for me is that the speculation seems to be well documented, but its attribution is quite vague - and I'm not sure how to handle that. Any suggestion?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
      • G'day, I can't load most of those sources from this part of the world, so unfortunately I can't interpret what they are saying, but my advice here would be to change the sentence to something like this: "It has also been speculated in several sources, including an article in the New York Times by Leslie Wayne and various Serbian media reports, that the MPRI may also have provided doctrinal advice, scenario planning and US government satellite information to Croatia, although MPRI and Croatian officials have denied such claims." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Clarification added and referenced (Wayne article and a Serbian TV report used). I followed a lead found in note 117 of Avant source in the article about an article published in The Observer in 1995 (Invisible US Army defeats Serbs) and found the article (presumably faithfully) archived here. This may arguably be the oldest possible report of such MPRI involvement, but it is equally vague. It states "One Croatian officer said: 'They lecture us on tactics and big war operations on the level of brigades, which is why we needed them for Operation Storm when we took the Krajina. At the beginning of the war, we had no real army. Every man was a hero and thought he could win the war by himself. The Americans taught us to change all that.'" Now, the statement comes off as pure boasting fairly common for the region during the war - both sides often claimed wonderful capabilities of their armies clearly intended to intimidate the opponent, probably the best documented such effort by the HV was display of the SA-10 system at a military parade in Zagreb shortly before Operation Storm. The system was later revealed to be about 10-20% complete and entirely inoperable, but was intended for display and intimidation only [229]. Moreover, it is interesting to see how "they lecture us on tactics" developed to "doctrinal advice and scenario planning". All things said, I trust nothing further need be added to the article about the subject.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Much clearer now, thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • also, this isn't grammatically correct but I wasn't sure what was meant, so I left it alone: "After numerous and often uncoordinated development of the plan..." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Rephrased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, much better. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Ok, I've had a go at the prose and made a few changes. Please check that you are happy with those and adjust as you see fit. A couple more points I couldn't deal with:
  • the infobox says "560-742 soldiers killed", but the article does not provide the number 742 in the body;
    • Indeed. I have no idea where that came from, probably copy-waste. Removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • the first sentence of the lead is quite complex and probably would be best if it could be split somehow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Broken up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I took a look at your copyedits, and found no objections. I had to copyedit a couple of additions made by another editor though as those were lifted verbatim from a source. Could you please have a look if I messed up something?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
      • G'day, I made a couple more tweaks. I think the article would benefit from a bit more copy editing (particularly if you are thinking of taking it to FAC), but come Sunday I am heading away until mid-April, so I won't be able to spend any more time on this article. As such, I don't want to stand in its way, so I have added my support. Good luck with the rest of the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your time and effort reviewing and improving this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: Just a few issues:

• "Serbian: Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija or JNA) [...] the Croatian National Guard (Croatian: Zbor narodne garde or ZNG) [...] the Croatian Army (Croatian: Hrvatska vojska or HV) [...] Army of Republika Srpska (Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian Vojska Republike Srpske or VRS [...] Croatian Defence Council (Croatian: Hrvatsko vijeće obrane or HVO) [...] Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) [...] Croatian Air Force (CAF)": Specific language(s) used in the article is/are already specified in the lead. No need for unnecessary repetition. Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija should be italicized. ARBiH and CAF do not have their name in the local language as with the others.
• "Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK) [...] Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia (APWB)" Military formations have the local names, but proclaimed states do not. Why?

• Actually those translations were introduced by a GOCE copyeditor currently having a go at the article, and were not there originally. I'm not sure that those add to the article at all - after all, all of those terms are wikilinked with translations made available over there. Even before your review here, I was seriously considering removing those translations (except of course for the operation Storm itself and any other translation that might be warranted or adding to the article in some other way). Would you recommend such a move?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd suggest removal then. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• "which brought in UNPROFOR." should be "which brought in the UNPROFOR."

• Fixed.

• "Siege of Bihać, a battle of the Bosnian War,": Too vague, should elaborate a bit on the details and include ARBiH and APWB involvement.

• I included the ARBiH role in the sentence on the Bihać siege. APWB is mentioned in the orbat section since its role is generally secondary (as an "ally" or entity vitally dependent on the RSK since the previous ARBiH offensive in the pocket. Do you think more is needed or would that be giving it an undue weight?

• Looks good. You should add "Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH)" since its now the first instance of "ARBiH". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• You're right, I missed it. Added now.

• "the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia (APWB)—a sliver of land": Recommend "the Fikret Abdić-led Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia (APWB)—a sliver of land" or mention of Abdic during Bihac siege sentence.

• Fixed per suggestion (copyedited in situ).

• "Washington Agreement was signed, ending the Croat–Bosniak War": The Croat–Bosniak War isn't previously mentioned. Some context is needed.

• Noted briefly in the background section - I did not elaborate much as the war is tangentially significant to the battle at hand.

• "the attack shifted the the HV's and HVO's": Extra "the".
• "the 99th Brigade, reinforced by the the 143rd Home Guard Regiment's Saborsko Company,": Extra "the".

• Fixed both instances of extra thes.

• "The defeat of the RSK led the Serbs in Bosnia to realise that a settlement in Bosnia and Herzegovina must be negotiated as soon as possible": Recommend "Bosnian Serbs" instead.

• Amended per suggestion.

• "International reactions to Operation Storm quickly evolved from emotive arguements": Should be "arguments".

• Yea, that's a typo. Fixed.

• References: Should be alphabetized. I'd recommend splitting the "other sources" mini section into a "documents" section for UN, ICTY, and US documents and a "reports" section for the HRW reports. The "Narodne novine" works could be split between the two depending on their nature (legal doc or report). Also perhaps remove the unnecessary "retrieved" info.

--◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The book references are supposed to be alphabetized as is. The other two sections are sorted chronologically. I don't mind alphabetizing them, but what would one use to alphabetize them? Author information is not available everywhere, especially in terms of "other sources".

• I believe the standard is to use the work's title during alphabetization when there is no author. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Placing those ahead or following those works with author data known?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Like so. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Alphabetized.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant to break up the "other sources" group further down since none of those would include more than a dozen items or so and I wonder what would be gained that way. It's not that problematic to regroup those, but I'm unsure what would be a "report" and what would constitute a "document" (speeches, ICTY judgements, UNHCR operations profile etc.) - legislation would be easy to distinguish, but where would the UNCRO ref (second from the top in the subsection right now) go? My concerns here are primarily related to possible arbitrary interpretations where should specific refs go, for little gain. I could be wrong on this but I thought to bring this up here before I change anything.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. Perhaps the section could be just renamed to "International, governmental, and NGO sources"? It's more encyclopedic than "Other sources". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Renamed so.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the "retrieved" info - I remembered that in an earlier review of a totally different article that issue came up, but I unfortunately do not remember which article was that or how that was resolved. I don't particularly care for that info (accessdate parameter), but not knowing what to do, I looked up the Battle of Vukovar FA and found the parameter used there. Granted, something may have changed in the criteria or MOS since its promotion - I simply do not know that. If the parameter is not needed at the FAC, I'd be happy to remove it and lighten the article's byte count, otherwise I'd prefer to keep it. Do you know anything specific to that effect?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I just consulted the FA you recently successfully co-nominated, and seeing it entered the FAC without those, I'll remove the accessdate parameters shortly (in a single edit to allow reverts if need be).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC) ---- Done now!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd also suggest removing the wikilinks of all the publishers and limiting authorlinks to their first instances to avoid unnecessary repetition. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think I got all iterations of the links. Is it necessary to remove all publisher wikilinks, or all but one (current state of affairs in the article)?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's up to you. I personally don't link any publishers. Also on the topic of Google book links, I only use them when a preview is available otherwise they're pointless and I amend "&printsec=frontcover" at the end of the urls to direct readers to the front cover rather than Google's summary page. There's no established MOS on that so again it's up to you. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Right, I'll leave them as they are for the time being then. I think I've touched upon all the issues you raised so far, except I have to recheck overlinking in the references section once again just to make sure.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Changed to support. I had a look at the inline citations and recommend for future editing that you use "{{sfn}}" rather than "{{harvnb}}" as it makes it less tedious since you don't have to manually form reference groups. Regardless, impressive work. Good job. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll have a look into use of the sfn template.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking time to review the article - I'll fix these in two days - I'm fairly tied up tomorrow. Hope that's alright.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, not a problem. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• What are the green arrows on the map in the infobox for? Needs caption in general

• The green arrows represent advances of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Changed map image to include key. Would another form of caption be preferable?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• The key could work if the original image were bigger. Can you ask the uploader for a bigger version? I have to strain to read the key on my 27-inch monitor, which isn't good. If bigger image becomes available, I's suggest adding a caption saying something like Croatian forces (in yellow), Serb forces (in red), etc. Right now, it's useful to see how the attack progressed in general, but not for specific units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll see what can be done on a short notice and get back here on that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• A considerably higher resolution image of the map is now used. Previous version was 684 × 1,248, now it's 2,732 × 3,518. Could you please view this version to see if it's any appreciable improvement?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Caption is added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• The Bjelovar corps were included - Capitalize corps and change "were" to "was"

• Fixed both.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Define AOR

• The abbreviation is already spelled out once in the lede and once more in the orbat section (the 1st instance in the main prose). Do you have something else in mind?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• So it is. Maybe I only had one section loaded whenever I searched for earlier uses.

• How do you disable a road? Perhaps demolished, damaged, destroyed?

• Fixed.

• This isn't clear: That night, the town of Hrvatska Dubica was evacuated by the RSK troops and the civilian population across the Sava River, which represented the regional border with Croatia. A rephrasing of some sort, perhaps, or maybe rearrange the sentence?

• Broken up in two sentences and edited for clarity.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• This article is massive; I wonder if it shouldn't be broken out into 3 or 4 articles, possibly one per Croatian corps, each with their own map of the sector. You're giving very detailed, low-level, accounts of each day's actions, but I really can't track any of this stuff which I find very aggravating. I think that the appropriate level of detail for this article is X Corps made x progress in this area while RSK counterattacks caused X units to withdraw, etc. Much more general; tracking companies and platoons is not the job of an overall job like this. Take a look at the Battle of Kursk article for one idea as to the proper level of detail for an overall battle article. What we have here, I think, is a bunch of articles that should called Operations of Croatian X Corps during Operation Winter, etc., all lumped into a very good overview. I'm not going to oppose if you decide not to take on the extra work of breaking this article up, but I would strongly urge that you give it serious consideration as the detail is kinda mind-numbing, especially without reference to maps.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm quite reluctant to do that just now, but I was seriously entertaining such an idea - on one hand I'd like to present detailed information (not necessarily in a single article) while on the other I'd prefer greater clarity. I'll take a good look at the example you pointed out (Battle of Kursk) and try to formulate an idea how to approach this. Would you mind if I drop you a line and ask for help then?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [230] (no action required).
  • External links check out [231] (no action required).
  • A couple of the maps lack Alt Text [232] so you might consider adding it for consistency (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool doesn't seem to be working at the moment - google searches reveal no obvious issues with copyright violation [233] (no action required).
  • Some duplicate links which need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Zagreb
    • area of responsibility
    • Velika Kladuša
    • Croation
      • Removed the first three, could not find the last one though (looked at everything starting with "Croatian")--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is awkwardly worded: "It was a decisive victory of the Croatian Army (HV) attacking across a 630-kilometre (390 mi) frontline against the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK)." Consider instead something like: "It was a decisive victory for the Croatian Army (HV) which attacked across a 630-kilometre (390 mi) frontage against the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK)."
    • Rephrased per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "and was declared completed on the evening of 7 August, despite significant mop-up operations against pockets of resistance lasting until 14 August...", consider rewording to "and was declared complete on the evening of 7 August, despite significant mopping-up operations against pockets of resistance lasting until 14 August."
    • Rephrased per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "The operation was built up on HV and HVO advances gained during Operation Summer '95 when strategic positions allowing the rapid capture of the RSK capital Knin were made...", consider instead: "The operation built on HV and HVO advances during Operation Summer '95 when strategic positions allowing the rapid capture of the RSK capital Knin were gained..."
    • Rephrased per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is poorly worded and I don't quite know what you mean: "later be cited as a pretext for the Bosnian War." Perhaps reword.
    • Indeed. The sentence is now broken in two, and the resulting text amended a bit to clarify. Could you take another look at that bit please?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "deployed at three main axes of attack..." → "deployed on three main axes of attack..."
    • Amended.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • dates for nights should use a slash (i.e. /) not a dash (i.e. -), per WP:MOSDATE.
    • I think I got all of them changed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • informal language here: "did not exploit the opportunity to smash the bridgehead." Consider instead "did not exploit the opportunity to destroy the bridgehead."
    • Rephrased per suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "while the RSK was represented by Colonel Bulat...", rank should be removed following formal introduction at first mention per WP:SURNAME.
    • Removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There is quite a bit of information about CAF involvement in the operation, including numbers and types of aircraft, but little about the Serbians. Is there anything available about what aircraft they operated for example?
    • Looking at it, the information does appear to be missing, but there was little activity by the RSK air force - none to be exact except a helicopter deployment in Velebit area (presented in the text) and VRS air force raid of Kutina (also presented in the text, including aircraft types and results of the raid). I imagine the RSK/VRS air force was used so sparingly mainly because of the NATO no-fly zone enforced over Bosnia and Herzegovina and little SAM cover following US airstrikes coinciding with the beginning of the offensive. In fact it is quite possible that the RSK could not distinguish properly Croatian from NATO aircraft (as the former would approach from Pula AFB in Istria and the latter from Aviano AFB, using very similar if not identical approach routes). None of this can be reliably source though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Regarding types of aircraft operated by the RSK, the 105th Aviation Brigade represented the entire RSK air force. Even though the wikilinked article claims 12 J-21s, a couple of G-2s and a handful of Gazelle helos and largely antiquated assortment of additional fixed wing craft - the article is generally unreferenced. Marijan cites captured RSK documents confirming absence of MiG-21s, J-22s and G-4s, but not what's actually there (p.286). There's very little reliable information available on actual composition of the 105th Brigade, but I'll have a look and add relevant info.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • there are a couple of "when" and "why" tags in the article where additional information is probably required.
    • Addressed. The "why" was impossible to answer using the source, so rephrased, and a date was provided for the "when". In the latter case, "by November 2010" was used instead of "in November 2010" because the source is not quite clear on the change happening in or before November 2010. I'll look into that further though and amend as appropriate.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • A lot of references are missing a place of publishing, can these be added? Anotherclown (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course. I assume that applies to the books, but not the news. What about the other types of documents?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Changes look good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Charles Inglis (engineer)

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

I have been working on this article for quite a while and it is now as complete as I feel I can make it. I would like to take it to FAC eventually as it would be the first biography of a civil engineer to become an FA (I think a few mechanical and aerospace engineers have made it). This nom was prompted by a recent discussion with Dank on my talkpage and, whilst its last PR was almost a year ago, he has agreed to copyedit it during the A-class review. I hope you enjoy reading the article - Dumelow (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• I don't understand what this bit is saying: "[The new bridge] was introduced in 1941. The Inglis remained in use with the army for some time owing to a lack of resources for new bridge types, and some units, such as the 1st Canadian Infantry Division, were still being introduced to the Inglis Bridge in 1941."

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Dank which I agree with. I have reworded the section about the Inglis and Bailey bridges to clarify. The basic idea I was trying to convey was that the Bailey Bridge was introduced to replace the Inglis Bridge but because there were few resources to allocate to Bailey production the Inglis remained in use in rear areas and with the Canadians. Hopefully this comes across better now - Dumelow (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Support. I can't judge whether it's comprehensive, but it certainly seems so and it's a very interesting, informative, and well-written piece. Having walked over the Inglis bridge in Monmouth and taken an interest in the relevant display in the local museum while working on the Monmouthpedia project, I couldn't resist taking a look at this. I do have a handful of comments, which are below:

Thanks for taking a look HJ. I didn't know about the Monmouth museum, I must take a look if I am ever down that way (and walk over the bridge of course!). I will try to work through your points below today - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• He was not expected to survive – do we know why or what was wrong with him?

Unfortunately the source (Baker 1943) only says: "His mother died eleven days later and he was hurriedly baptized in the drawing room a few days after his birth as he was not expected to survive." so I am none the wiser - Dumelow (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; I was just curious, but I can't complain if it's not in the sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• It was during this time that he began his lifelong study of vibration and its effects on materials, particularly bridges – was it this that sparked his interest, or was it something he'd been interested in before?

Again it is not really clear from the source ("At this time, however, he also began a study, which lasted throughout his life, on the subject of mechanical vibration") but I would suspect (but cannot prove) that it arose from his involvement with the design of the bridges on the District line extension which would have required him to check the suitability of the bridges under various imposed vibrations - Dumelow (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• In 1901 Inglis was made a fellow of King's College – by my maths, that would make him about 21 at the time; that seems very early in his career to be receiving honours. Was that unusual?

He would have been 26 that year. Once more the sources do not clarify this. I am not overly familiar with the workings of Cambridge colleges but I think the position of research fellow was often granted to those who undertook research in association with the college even when on a temporary and unpaid basis. I guess that he perhaps used some of the facilities of his alma mater in writing his paper on the balancing of engines - Dumelow (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

So much for my maths! Just as well I'm not an engineer! ;) Your explanation sounds plausible; I'm more used to hearing "fellow" in the context of prestigious learned societies (which is what made me think it was very early in his career), but it would make sense that it had a slightly different meaning in a university. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Do you really need five citations after the first serious modern work on the fracturing of materials?

I think that must have arisen after several earlier sentences were merged together. I have pruned it down to three - Dumelow (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whilst the bridge was produced in limited quantities from 1940 it was largely replaced by the Bailey bridge introduced in 1941 – does that mean the Bailey bridge was introduced from 1941 or the Inglis bridge was produce in limited quantities from 1941? You need another comma or two I think, but where depends on the desired meaning.

I intended the former. I have added a comma after "Bailey bridge" which I think helps clarify this - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Much better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• a fact that troubled Inglis – what troubled him about it? —HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he felt that the War Office didn't appreciate that his design still had potential. The quote from the source is "His designs were very little used in the second World War, a neglect which he felt rather keenly...". Perhaps there is a better way to phrase this in the article? - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, "troubled" in that context implies that he thought there was something wrong with the Bailey bridge; your comment suggests he was disappointed that his design was replaced without perhaps realising its full potential. Assuming it's the latter, you could just say that (or words to that effect), or replace "troubled" with "disappointed" or similar.

Yes that is a much better way to put it. I have made the replacement - Dumelow (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Support; Very interesting chap :) some comments:

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the article - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• he was elected head boy and received a scholarship..; there is a slight implication he received the scholarship because of being elected head boy. Is that the case?

I hadn't intended to imply a connection (it isn't noted in the sources, though it could be one of the things they looked for when awarding scholarships). I linked them as both occurred in his final year at Cheltenham College. Is there a way to keep them in the same sentence without using "and"? - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Inglis was 22nd wrangler; I had to click the link to find out what this mean't. Perhaps make a note?

I have tried to do so, hope it makes it a bit clearer. I am sure that Oxbridge etiquette was designed to confuse the rest of us. - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• he remained for a fourth year, achieving first class honours in Mechanical Sciences; I'm not sure this follows on from the previous fragment, unless I am misunderstanding the initial fragment.

He received a bachelor's degree in the Mathematics tripos after three years but chose to remain at Cambridge for a fourth year to study the mechanical sciences tripos. Perhaps there's some way I can clarify this? - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• He was also a follower of the Cambridge University Rugby Union team, watching their matches at Grange Road; is this of particular significance? I'm not suggesting it's removal, just curious.

I included it in the context of his sporting achievements to show an interest in watching sport and not just participating. It is of no particular relevance but I think it helps to flesh out the character of the man - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

--Errant ^(chat!) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, that all looks OK to me :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Continuing the Manhattan Project series, I present one of the most famous of all scientists. Recently overhauled this article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: interesting article, although I couldn't help but feel very dumb reading it, but that's my issue, not yours ;-). Anyway, I made a few tweaks; please check you are happy with those. Also, I have the following points:

While rebuilding the article on Robert Oppenheimer, I had to contend with a lot of material people had added about his private life and political beliefs. But that was unbalanced; the guy was a scientist, and the article needed to reflect that. Same with Fermi, and the result is that if the readers click on the links, they will find a rich world of articles like X-ray crystallography and tensor. From a HPS POV, the reader will probably be familiar with the physicists of Germany, but the achievements of those in Italy may come as news.

• "...embracing the new ideas line relativity coming from Germany" (I wasn't sure about the terminology "new ideas line relativity")
  • Typo. Should be "like". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• these three sentences all begin the same way: "Corbino hoped that the new chair would raise the standard and reputation of physics in Italy. Corbino also chaired the selection committee,[23] which chose Fermi ahead of Enrico Persico and Aldo Pontremoli.[24] Corbino also..."
  • Probably needed to be re-worded anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• I wasn't sure about the wording here: "He also mused about what is now referred to as the "Fermi Paradox": that with the billions and billions of star systems in the universe, one would think that intelligent life would have contacted our civilisation by now".
  • Okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I had a go at rewording it. Feel free to revert if you don't agree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• slight inconsistency in presentation: compare Note 30 (p. XXXIX) to Note 68 (pp. xix–xx). AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments Fine and interesting article.

• Should the title of Un teorema di calcolo delle probabilità ed alcune sue applicazioni be given in English first and the the Italian name using {{lang-it}} template or not? (The same applies to other such instances in the article, of course.) I'm not sure about application of MOS in such instances, so this comment may have more to do with my ignorance, but I thought to check with you anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't see it as being much of an improvement, but done. All the translations are mine, so meh... Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• The MOS advises (although it does not require) spelling out unit names and using {{convert}} template to indicate the measurement in other relevant units of measurement (if any). Would it improve the article to spell out kilograms in "Leó Szilárd obtained 200 kg of uranium oxide, allowing Fermi and Anderson to conduct experiments with fission on a much larger scale." and provide indication of the measure in pounds?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Manhattan Project was carried out in metric back in the 1940s. Since everybody understands metric, while most are unfamiliar with imperial, the use of the convert template caused more confusion than anything else. But it this case, it will just give a conversion to pounds, so okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks

• Time should be italicized
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• "He concluded that, as counter-intuitive as it then seemed, slow neutrons were more easily captured than fast ones" - without knowing the science, this seems intuitive; would suggest omitting the intuitive clause or expanding slightly.
  • Omitted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• 'Via Panisperna boys" - check punctuation and consistent italics.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Structure, detail, image licensing and referencing seem fine.
• Copyedited prose, so let me know if I inadvertently altered your meaning. Some outstanding points:
  • "A sign of things to come was that the mass was expressed as a tensor." -- sounds nice and dramatic but not sure it means much to the uninitiated...
    • I thought that would be an "Oh wow!" moment for the reader. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "At first glance, the first paper seemed to point out a contradiction between the electrodynamic theory and the relativistic one concerning the calculation of the electromagnetic masses..." -- to avoid repetition, could "At first glance" be "Initially" or something along similar lines?
    • Dropped the clause. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "This paper was so successful that it was translated into German..." -- perhaps I need to get out more but describing a scientific paper as "so successful" sounds a bit odd, like it's a best-seller; do we mean "well regarded" or something like that?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, now I think of it, I quite like the idea of a best-selling scientific paper... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "typical of Fermi's brilliance" doesn't sound too neutral -- "typical of Fermi's approach" or some such?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Last thing, Tsung-Dao Lee is listed in the infobox as a doctoral student but there's no mention or citation of this fact in the main body -- this is just an example so pls check that everything in the infobox is mentioned/cited in the main body, or else removed.
  • Done. I am more strict that some other editors, restricting it to his PhD students. But I did include Jerome Friedman, who was still his student when Fermi died. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Tks, well doe as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Who's next, Szilárd? IR

Szilárd is on the hit list, but I'm still gathering material on him. Max Born and Hilde Levi are at GA, but unfortunately do not fall within the scope of MilHist. So the next up to bat here will be Luis Alvarez. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Alvarez, Alvarez, what can I remember without looking... Nobel Prize, "jet effect" that helped explained why JFK's head jerked back when shot from behind (and not from the grassy knoll after all)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

He's best known for a wacky theory that an asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs. Air Force types normally remember him for flying on the B-29 The Great Artiste during the bombing of Hiroshima. But Wikipedian seem to consider his greatest achievement to be the exploding-bridgewire detonator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Anotherclown (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

SMS Schleswig-Holstein

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yet another German battleship, this is the first pre-dreadnought to grace the hallowed ACR pages in quite some time. Part of this project which is rapidly very slowly approaching the 50% necessary for an FT, this article will probably go to FAC at some point, so please nit pick away. In addition, this article is a few years old, and some dust has probably gathered - thanks to all who help ensure this article meets the project's criteria for A-class. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Images: On the talk page of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101II-MN-1571-23, Linienschiff "Schleswig-Holstein".jpg someone claims the ship pictured is in fact "SMS Schlesien". The Bundesarchiv does get things wrong. Could you confirm? I smell something fishy on File:Westerplatte makieta.jpg. That to me looks like a board in a museum photographed but not created by the uploader.I have serious concerns looking at the uploader's other contributions (e.g. File:Witraz sw krzyz rumia.jpg - which I very much doubt the user created). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It took some digging, particularly because the bow crest (which would be a dead giveaway) is cut off, but it is in fact Schlesien. Compare the portholes on the photo to this one of S-H and the modernized photos here of Schlesien. I'll report it at the BArch error page and get it corrected in their database. You're right on the second image too - I guess I didn't look too closely at it a few years ago. Thanks for catching these! Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comments by MisterBee1966 based on HRS volume 7 pages 130 to 138
  • I found two of her commanders for which we have articles, Friedrich Bödicker and Gustav Kieseritzky. Maybe integrate them into the article. p130
    • Do you know when they commanded the ship?
      • yes Friedrich Bödicker (September 1910 – September 1913) and Gustav Kieseritzky (June 1938 – April 1939), page 130 MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks, added now.
  • Christened by Augusta Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein, speech Ernst Gunther, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, the Kaiser was also around p131
    • Added.
  • Won Kaiser-Schießpreis in 1913 under artillery officer Kaptl. Gottfried Hansen p131
    • Added.
  • "Inter-war years": I think a reference to article 181 of the Treaty of Versailles should be made
    • Added.
  • "Inter-war years": Is this the best name? Politically the period was the Weimar Republic. The ship went on many representative missions. Can they be mentioned?

(Specifically on the one point) wouldn't that be a bit confusing since the Weimar Republic ended in 1933? "Inter-war years" might be boring, but at least it means we don't break it up based on anything arbitrary (like "up to 1930" for example). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I can get you the specifics on the missions she went. Give me a few days please if you want to include this. Regarding my other point, just as an example from the article as it stands now, the infobox has "Career (German Empire)" followed by three flags. In her career she served under three different types of government in Germany. From my point of view the article needs to make these distinctions more evident. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Atlantic and Spanish cruise 14 May to 17 June 1926, visit in Palma de Mallorca 22 to 30 May along with Hannover, in Barcelona with Elsaß 1 to 7 June. In Vigo from 12 to 14 June with Hessen, Elsaß and Hannover. The chief of fleet VAdm. Mommsen visited the Spanish King Alfonso XIII on this trip. page 132

Educational cruise from 30 March to 14 June 1927. Schleswig-Holstein visited El Ferrol, Porto da Praia, Santa Cruz de Teneriffa, La Luz, Funchal, Horta, Angra and Ponta Delgada. In Lisbon Mommsen is welcomed by the Portuguese president, Óscar Carmona. page 133

Added the training cruises - thanks for this info. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• ordered under the contract name "Q", page 131
• at first Königsberg was intended to visit Danzig, but the plans were chaged because of Wall Weiß. page 136
• the 225 men of II. Marine-Artillerie-Abteilung were transferred to Schledwig-Holstein on 24 August from the mine sweeps M8, M5, M3, M4, M7 and M1. The transfer was made at sea. page 136

This is a comprehensive and interesting article on this important warship - great work. I have the following comments:

• The third and forth sentences of the first para and the first sentence of the next para start with 'the ship'
  • Reworked.
• "The ship's bell is on display in the Bundeswehr Military History Museum in Dresden." - is this still the case? The reference dates to 1990 (before German unification, when it actually would have been the East German military history museum rather than the Bundeswehr museum) and the museum was completely renovated recently. I can't remember seeing this item when I visited shortly after it reopened in 2011, and it's not in the museum guidebook (though this is entirely written in German, which I can't read), so a more recent (post 15 October 2011) source is needed.
  • I didn't see it either MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I haven't been able to find anything on it, but the MHMBW doesn't have an online listing of what's there (even searching their site for the Brandtaucher gets 0 hits. I'd rather not remove or change it, since all we're going on is the fact that neither of you saw it there. The ship was in Soviet possession, so it's not unreasonable that it ended up in the East German museum before unification. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I reckon that two recent eye-witnesses trump a 23 year old reference from the pre-unification era for a statement that the bell is currently on display ;) It's my understanding that the renovations to the museum involved gutting and rebuilding the entire building and reworking the displays from scratch - every aspect of the displays were obviously brand new when I visited the day after it reopened. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
        • But aren't those eye-witnesses original researchers? :P Would you prefer something along the lines of "The bell is currently in the holdings of the Bundeswehr..." ? Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
          • If you have a reference for that, yep. Otherwise it will need to be something like 'as of 1990 the bell was on display...'. Germany features lots of quite new or recently remodeled museums, and this item could very well have been transferred to another museum. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Sounds fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• The dates in the second and third sentences of the first para of the 'Construction' section don't match up.
  • I think I was thinking that Dreadnought was commissioned two years before S-H. Fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• "In addition to being the fastest ship of her class, Schleswig-Holstein was the second most fuel efficient." - what were the extent of these differences?
  • Can anything be added on this? Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• "The training regimen in which Schleswig-Holstein participated followed a similar pattern over the next five years. This included another cruise into the Atlantic, which was conducted from 7 July to 1 August 1909. Fleet maneuvers were conducted in the spring, followed by a summer cruise to Norway, and additional fleet training in the fall." - should the Atlantic cruise sentence be moved to after the Spring maneuvers if this was an annual pattern of training deployments?
  • Sure.
• Schleswig-Holstein appears in the first three sentences of the first para of the 'World War I' section
  • Fixed.
• "They constituted part of the battleship support for the battlecruisers that bombarded Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby " - what did this involve? (eg, did the BBs stand off the English coast while the BCs conducted the bombardment?)
  • Yeah, that's basically it - they stood in support in case the Grand Fleet showed up. See how its worded now.
• The positions of the various ships in the para which begins with 'Admiral Scheer decided to reverse the course of the fleet with the Gefechtskehrtwendung...' is a bit unclear, especually following the 180 degree turn. Why did this place the slow battleships out of position? If they were at the tail of the formation at the start of the turn, wouldn't this have placed them at the head of the new formation and thus in a reasonable position to maneuver?
  • They already were out of position, since they were lagging behind - so when the fleet (basically the I and III Sqdns and Hipper's BCs) reversed course, the II Sqdn was on the disengaged side of the fleet, but still ahead of the line, as you note. The question was where should Mauve position himself, whether he should allow the fleet to pass him and fall in behind, or try to place himself at the front of the line, which is what he chose to do.
• "the gunners aboard Schleswig-Holstein could not make out a target; as a result, Schleswig-Holstein" - repetition of the ship's name
  • Fixed.
• "The explosion tore apart 4.5 m (15 ft) of the superstructure deck and disabled one of the port side casemate guns" - did it inflict any casualties on the crew?
  • Tarrant doesn't specifically say, but it seems reasonable to assume the ship's casualties were caused by the one hit she received during the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• "During the attack, Schleswig-Holstein was forced to turn away by torpedoes." - what did she turn away from?
  • Reworded.
• "Shortly after 05:00, Hannover and several other ships fired repeatedly at imaginary submarines" - I don't think that 'imaginary' is the right word here (unless the crew were delusional by this stage of the battle!)
  • They thought they saw a submarine periscope (a frequent occurrence in both fleets during the battle). Do you have a better word to use?
    • Something softer like 'mistaken sightings of submarines' perhaps. 'Imaginary' makes it sound like the crew were incompetent, when its famously difficult for surface ships to spot submerged submarines (even as late as 1982 the Royal Navy's surface fleet, which was mainly focused on the mission of fighting Soviet submarines, dropped a large number of torpedoes and depth charges on what turned out to be whales during the Falklands War). Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Can you explain why the ship was taken off the front line after Jutland? (presumably because it revealed that these ships were liabilities, or at least a bad investment of resources)
  • Added a clarification, good idea.
• "and an enlarged aft superstructure for the admiral's staff." - which admiral? (and was she the flagship, or did all the BBs receive this accommodation in case they served in the role)
  • No specific admiral, and yes, she was recommissioned in 1926 as the fleet flagship (which the article already says :P
• "In May 1935, the Reichsmarine was reorganized as the Kriegsmarine after Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party came to power." - the Nazis came to power in late 1933, so this is a bit simplistic
  • Reworked a bit.
• The sentence which begins with 'Schleswig-Holstein ceased to be fleet flagship ' is a bit over-complex - I'd suggest splitting it into a couple of sentences
  • See how it reads now.
• "Schlesien" and "Schleswig-Holstein" - these should be in italics
  • Fixed.
• "A force of German marines" - did Germany have 'marines' or 'naval infantry'? (I think it's the latter, though I could well be mistaken)
  • Yup, they had Marine Stoßtruppen, see Kriegsmarine#Marines
• If Schleswig-Holstein was primarily a training ship in 1939, why was she used to spearhead the assault on Danzig? Was she selected for this role as she was the only large warship available? (and somewhat expendable if things went wrong)
  • Presumably because her being in Danzig on a routine training cruise wouldn't arouse too much suspicion. That and Graf Spee and Deutschland were already in the Atlantic, prepared to attack Allied shipping, though Admiral Scheer was available.
    • OK. This should be covered off by the time it goes to FAC though as some source should explain this. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• There's a bit too much repetition of the ship's name in the para which begins with 'The German military then turned its attention westward'
  • Should be better now.
• "hit three times by RAF bombers" - RAF should be spelt out fully given that this is the first and only time it appears in the article Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for reviewing the article, Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Support All my comments have now been addressed, so I'm pleased to support the promotion of this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox
  • Fate: Based on wording for other FA BB articles I think you should put something simple like Scuttled on March 9, 1945 (and research/cite the date) then add a Note for the salvage/target/re-sinking phrasing and leave out the 'still extant' sentence.
    • Found the date of the scuttling, but I think the fact that the ship is still there (in pieces, of course) is a relevant detail.
      • In my head the fate line is supposed to be a date with a description, and this ship seems kind of unique since it was 'sunk' 3 times, scrapped once and yet still exists, that's why I thought you could pick a sinking/date and put the detail in a note. Maybe another editor has a suggestion on the way to FA?
        • I did check the template instructions - "Use Ship fate when the ship sank or was scrapped" and "Only list the event and the date it occurred". Kirk (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Armament - I think this needs conversion to (11") somewhere. I think you can delete (removed in 1940) in the 1926 section since it repeats in the 1939 section.
    • Done.
  • Armor - I didn't see a citation for the 100mm size.
    • Fixed.
  • Add Namesake citation (its in Staff). Also, if you can include which members of the German Royalty were involved in the christening in the prose that would be nice. Kirk (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Added. Thanks for the review, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Added final comment on the fate question - it certainly meets the A criteria. Kirk (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "As of 1990": That's the most recent information? - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I haven't been able to find anything more recent, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I had to fiddle with a lot of stuff, Nate, so please check the changes to make sure they're right. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • All looks fine to me, thanks Dan! Parsecboy (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport. Mostly nitpicks.

• suggest you mention in the lead that she was hit during the Battle of Jutland.
  • Added.
• suggest you state where her original torpedo tubes were mounted (fore and aft, broadside or wherever).
  • Added.
• suggest you re-word "As the last ship assigned to the IV Division of the II Battle Squadron, at the rear of the German line, Schleswig-Holstein was the rearmost battleship in the line.". The repetition of "line" is a bit jarring.
  • Fixed.
• Reinhard Scheer and Grand Fleet are linked twice.
  • Fixed.
• Did Mauve manage to get his ships at the head of the line? Suggest you clarify this to tie off that para.
  • Added a bit more on this.
• It is not clear why they were known as "five-minute ships". Could you clarify this?
  • It's in the note here.
• Do we know which British ship hit her?
  • No, it was quite dark and hazy by that point in the battle, and it's unclear which British ship was firing at which German ship.
• (Pet nitpick) "At around" is precise yet imprecise. No reason why you couldn't just go with "Around" or "About"
  • Fine by me.
• Could you re-word "imaginary submarines", perhaps with a clarification that there were no British submarines in the area (if true) but that the Germans believed the contacts were subs? Or something like that?
  • See how it's worded now.
• CITEREFGardiner_.26_Gray is a formatting thing by the look...
  • Don't know how that happened...
• she wasn't really used as a target by U-boats was she? For dummy runs or practice? Needs clarification.
  • Presumably with dummy torpedoes, but Staff doesn't clarify.
• throughout you might like to format your date ranges consistently. Some are in the format "22 to 30 May" and some "22–30 May". I personally prefer two day events to be in the format "22 and 23 May", but who cares what I think...
• suggest you link "Atlantic", and add that Palma is in the Med.
  • Done, good idea.
• " with the her forefunnel" typo needs fixing.
  • Fixed.
• suggest "by the reforms that created the Wehrmacht instituted by Adolf Hitler" be "by the reforms instituted by Adolf Hitler that created the Wehrmacht"
  • Fixed.
• suggest "and torpedo tubes" be "and her torpedo tubes" as it might be thought that she had upper deck torpedo tubes.
  • Good call.
• suggest "the remaining crew scuttled the wreck," has an errant comma at the end. No reason not to move the citation to the end of the sentence and delete the extra comma.
  • Fixed.
• suggest "resided" in the final sentence be replaced with "was held in the collection of" or similar.
  • Good suggestion, added. Thanks for reviewing the article, Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, it really is a pleasure to review ship articles you've worked on. Moving to support. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Farrell (general)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Another Manhattan Project general. At first I didn't think he'd make the grade, but now I think he just might. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: I made a few minor tweaks. Please check that you are happy with those. The only other points I have are:

• this might need tweaking: "on 6 August as the assistant supply officer with the first lieutenant". Do you mean "with the rank of first lieutenant"?
  • Yes, thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• this seems inconsistent: "Years of service 1916–1951" v "Farrell left the AEC and active duty Army again in February 1952" Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Support with comments:

• "The children helped with the farm chores, and helped deliver the milk" - repetition of helped
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Farrell participated in Battle of Cantigny, Aisne-Marne Offensive, Battle of Montdidier-Noyon and the Meuse-Argonne Offensive." - felt as though there was a "the" or two missing here.
  • Added three. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• "The Great Depression led to a vast expansion of public works activity." - unclear if this was nationally or locally in New York, or both.
  • Both. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Farrell (right) and Major General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., (left), 1945." - I don't think this should end in a full stop.
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• "the old H-20 Portable Steel Highway Bridge." - the meaning of "old" in this instance is slightly unclear (old as in a former design, or old as in an old bridge). I'd recommend losing the adjective, as it's explained in the next sentence.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Because good weather was only predicted until 9 August, Farrell brought forward the date for the next attack" - if you reversed the clauses ("Farrell brought forward... because good weather...") you'd avoid starting with "Because" and bring the main verb closer to the start of the sentence.
  • Good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• " Ironically, the man who had spent a lifetime building things was principally remembered for the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." - this felt slightly non-encylopaedic/POV to me (i.e. it seemed to be suggesting that he should have been remembered as a constructor, rather than for his role in the destruction of the two cities). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Support After reviewing the article, I made a few tweaks to fix typos. Otherwise, looks good. Zawed (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

George S. Patton

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I'm very excited to bring this up here. I expect to have a time of it with "Old Blood and Guts" at FAC, so all thoughts will be appreciated. —Ed!^(talk) 02:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very comprehensive and well developed article - great work. I have the following comments:

• "Patton commanded some of the the first U.S. troops into the war" - large US Army and Marine forces had been fighting in the Pacific for almost a year at this point; I presume that you mean 'European theatre of the war' or similar
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Fearing that he would test poorly" - this is a bit awkward
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "after continued letter-writing and exams" - which exams? (did Patton undertake the West Point entrance exams)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "For the remainder of his career at the academy, Patton excelled as a cadet, though his academic performance remained average. " - is it appropriate to say he 'excelled' when he didn't do well in one of the core areas?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "where he learned fencing techniques under" - this is a bit awkward
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "though the expedition was politically hampered and did not see much action in that time" - likewise
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Not really: what does 'politically hampered' mean in this context? The goal of the operation was never to conquer Mexico. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I've further clarified this. —Ed!^(talk) 21:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Taken as Pershing's aide-de-camp" - this is a bit unclear
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Patton oversaw the training of arriving American troops in Paris until September," - likewise
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "then moved to Chaumont and assigned as post adjutant" - is there a missing word here?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• 'Patton' is used in almost every sentence in the para which begins with 'On 10 November 1917 Patton'
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto the para which starts with 'Patton's brigade was then moved 60 miles' (including twice in once sentence)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "In this time he developed a belief that tanks should not be used as infantry support, but rather as an independent fighting force" - did he reach this view independently, or was he influenced by the other military officers in the UK and elsewhere advocating this view?
  • Nothing's been exactly specific about that. At the very beginning of World War II he evolved these thoughts with Chaffee, but just after WWI I think he was just thinking of these things himself. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It might be worth checking reference works on the development of US armoured warfare doctrine, which should discuss this. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I've put a little more in to make it clear. The budget in the interwar era stopped armored warfare development, but Patton thought ahead. Only he, Chafee, Eisenhower, and J. Walter Christie were pushing hard on developing Armor doctrine, but even they sort of let it slide until another war was stirring. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• "He was nearly killed when he was kicked by a horse which fractured his leg, and he developed phlebitis" - also a bit awkward
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why did he only command the 5th Cavalry Regiment for six months?
  • At this point, Marshall had bigger plans for him than a regimental command, so I think he was grooming him for flag officer positions. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "executing two days of planned objectives in nine hours" - this is a bit unclear
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• When was Patton transferred to prepare for Operation Torch?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "in landings centered around Morocco" - that's a bit vague (and I think that all of the landings under Patton's command were in Morocco)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "removed General Orlando Ward, commander of the 1st Armored Division, after its lackluster performance with the 1st Armored Division" - this is a bit repetitive and unclear
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Interestingly enough, in his recent book The Generals Thomas E. Ricks states that Ward was the only divisional commander Patton ever relieved (which made him somewhat unusual among US army-level commanders, though Ricks doesn't comment on what this meant). Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I noted this in the "As viewed by" section, it helps establish Patton's actions were at times different from what his image seemed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• "After ensuring the U.S. forces would continue to fight to the end of the Tunisian campaign" - what's meant by this? - was there a proposal for them to go into reserve?
  • He was worried they'd be sidelined or not used further once he was removed from the command and wasn't there to vouch for them. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It would be good to add this to the article Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• "any plan to invade Europe from the north" - do you mean 'west' here? Northern Europe is normally applied to Scandinavia and surrounds
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The FUSAG command was in reality an intricately constructed "phantom" army of decoys and props " - and fake signals traffic
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• "In its advance from Avranches to Argentan, the Third Army traversed vast distances, covering 60 miles (97 km) in just two weeks" 'vast distances' seems an overstatement here
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• " Flexibility, improvisation, and adaptation were cardinal requirements for Third Army supply echelons of an armored division seeking to exploit a breakthrough" - this is a bit unclear (and the Third Army consisted of more than just armoured divisions)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Patton's army was instrumental in closing the Falaise Pocket in mid-August." - after the US Army forces had dragged their feet on doing so
  • Noted. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• "and diversion of resources to moving the Communications Zone," - this is unclear
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Why is Patton's poor performance during the fighting around Metz skimmed over? Historians tend to be critical of his leadership during this period.
  • Added more. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Why only reference the views of German generals involved in the fighting? Historians have evaluated Patton's actions here. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Axelrod doesn't discuss it. Put in D'Este's thoughts. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• "one day ahead of Montgomery's crossing at the Remagen Bridge" - I'm pretty sure that the units responsible for this were part of the US-led 12th Army Group
  • Yes, but the point is Patton wanted to cross the Rhine before the British did. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure, but Monty had nothing to do with the crossing at Remagen Bridge, which wasn't within his area of responsibility. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • True, but Eisenhower had intended Montgomery's army cross the Remagen bridge that day, and Patton's forces were scheduled to construct a pontoon bridge and cross afterward. Patton saw it as a slight for him to "follow" the British into Germany, so he disobeyed the schedule and crossed before he was supposed to. —Ed!^(talk) 21:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think that's actually correct. The Remagen bridge was in the 12th Army Group's area of responsibility, and wasn't well situated to support a major offensive. Monty had his heart set on a major assault crossing to the north which was carried out as Operation Plunder on 23 March. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm positive it is not correct. Remagen was in the First Army zone, so neither Montgomery nor Patton. The Monday-morning quarterbacks have queried Patton's decision to make two major river crossings when only one was required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Removed the part about Montgomery. Someone's taken that reference from the library so I'll have to go back in a few weeks to figure out exactly what I misunderstood. I'm just leaving it out for now. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• "an uninformed German soldier putting up resistance" - this is a bit awkward
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • No it isn't; you'd removed the 'an' when its needed, and the issue is the redundancy and lack of clarity within the phrase "am uninformed German soldier putting up resistance" Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• "but was stopped from reaching Prague before V-E Day " - what stopped the army's advance?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• "It had advanced farther and faster than any army in military history," - is this actually true? It sounds dubious (compared to, for instance, the German advance in the southern USSR during the summers of 1941 and 1942, the Mongol armies, etc)
  • Removed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• "With a normal strength of around 250,000–300,000 men, the Third Army had killed, wounded, or captured some 1,811,388 German soldiers" - this is comparing a 'stock' (point in time) figure with a 'flow' figure (a figure which covers a time period), which is a bad idea. The Third Army would have had many more men than 300,000 this pass through its ranks, especially given the high casualty rates the Allied infantry units suffered during the winter of 1944-45.
  • Moved the Third Army size elsewhere. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• "The first tank designed after the war" - the first American tank
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Other actors who portrayed Patton included " - this implies that no-one will portray him again ;)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• "As media scrutiny on Patton increased, however, his bluntness became a liability..." - this repeats material previously covered in the article
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • No it isn't; this repetitive material is still there. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I've removed this statement. Is there another you're referring to? —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Oberstleutnant Horst Freiherr von Wangenheim..." - what's the relevance of the views of a Lieutenant Colonel who held a staff position in a third rate German division?
  • Wanted to establish that it wasn't just German generals who had a professional respect for him, Patton was respected by everyday German troops as well. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The worst commander in the US Army could have thrashed a Volksgrenadier division (the formation of such hopeless units manned by children and old men is regarded as having been one of the crimes of the Nazi regime in modern Germany), so this isn't a meaningful assessment. Why not discuss how modern historians and military leaders evaluate Patton? (note also that the postwar recollections of German generals are often considered suspect given the context in which these assessments were made). Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Maybe not the worst... the 18th Volksgrenadier Division gave the 106th Infantry Divison a fearful hiding in the Battle of the Bulge. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I've pushed the less notable German leaders' opinions into a footnote. Will put in some contemporary opinions, though the subsequent U.S. military leaders tend to be singularly enthusiastic about Patton. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I'd suggest adding in the views of historians as well before this goes to FAC, but that does the job as it covers the main views of Patton. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Please replace the David Irving reference - he's a proven fabricator, and not a reliable source on anything Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Didn't realize his reputation. Removed his refs. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Good Old Blood and Guts.

• Infobox:
  • 3/3 Cavalry Regiment -> 3rd Squadron, 3rd Cavalry
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 00:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 2/2 Armored Division -> 2nd Armored Brigade
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 00:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Can we re-jig the WWII campaigns into the form an American would expect to find them:
    • Algeria-French Morocco Campaign
    • Tunisia Campaign
    • Sicily Campaign
    • Lorraine Campaign
    • Ardennes Campaign
    • Rhineland Campaign
    • Central Europe Campaign
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 00:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Lifesaving Medal is missing
  • Here's my list of his foreign medals: Grand Cross of Ouissam Alaouite (Morocco); The Most Honorable Order of the Bath (England); Commander in the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor (France); Order of the British Empire; Grand Officer of the Order of Leopold w/Palm (Belgium); Croix de Guerre (Belgium); Order of Adolphe of Nassau, Grand Croix (Luxembourg); Croix de Guerre (Luxembourg); Order of Koutusoff, 1st Grade (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
    • To both of these, I thought it best to only list a few major awards (ie, those that have Wiki categories for recipients) and the rest of his honors could be listed at Service summary of George S. Patton as you did with MacArthur. —Ed!^(talk) 00:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I think you'll find some of these do have categories for recipients. (And the Czech one is missing from my list). Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Added some of them in. —Ed!^(talk) 19:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lead:
  • most well known sounds British (British "most well know" equals US "well known"?) Suggest "best known".
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton saw his first combat -> "He first saw combat"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • first commanding the U.S. tank school there where?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • wounded in combat I think "wounded in combat" is a tautology.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Rising through the ranks, Patton commanded -> "he commanded" Also: with the next sentence, we have two sentences starting with "Patton commanded" in a row. Consider re-wording one of them.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • commanded some of the the first U.S. troops into the European theater "into" is the wrong world here. What I think you mean is wrong.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Link "Bastogne" to Siege of Bastogne rather than the town.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it should mention his relief rather than simply noting his command of the Fifteenth Army
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Early life and education
  • Ruth Wilson - Did his mother not take his father's name, as was the custom at the time?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton had one sister, Anne. Younger or older? And did he have any brothers?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • While Patton's own father graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), he did not pursue a military career Subject confusion here. "he" still refers to GSP Jr. Suggest "Patton's father graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), but did not pursue a military career"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • As such, the Patton family was prosperous You haven't introduced anyone wealthy yet apart from Benjamin Davis Wilson, and his relation to Patton's mother is unstated. Suggest deleting "As such"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton struggled with reading and writing (dyslexia) Can you improve this phrasing?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Historians Carlo D'Este and Alan Axelrod note in their biographies of Patton that these difficulties were likely the result of undiagnosed dyslexia Either you have misrepresented them. or they don't know what dyslexia is.
    • How do you figure? Both historians think he had a hard time learning to read and write because he had dyslexia, but he was never formally diagnosed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton met Beatrice Banning Ayer, daughter of Boston industrialist Frederick Ayer. the daughter
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note 3 serves no purpose as the reader, as the younger Patton's bio is only a click away anyway. Consider replacing it with an explanation as to why he was George IV instead of George III.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton was accepted to Princeton University but eventually decided on the Virginia Military Institute. Patton attended VMI from 1903–1904 Two sentences starting with "Patton", you should be using "he" anyway, the abbreviation VMI has been used before, so why alternate, and I'm not at at all fond of the ndash here. Consider rewriting these two sentences.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • He was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the cavalry. -> "... on 11 June 1909."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Junior officer
  • "Second Lieutenant Patton's first posting was with the U.S. 15th Cavalry Regiment at Fort Sheridan, Illinois" Recommend dropping "Second Lieutenant", "U.S." and "Regiment
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Add the Olympic portal
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton redesigned saber combat doctrine for the U.S. cavalry, delete "U.S." Should you mention that he wroteSaber Regulations, 1914?
    • Since this graph discusses French cavalry, I want to make it clear that Patton only revolutionized U.S. cavalry doctrine, not all cavalry doctrine (It sounds like U.S. saber combat technique was behind that of other nations at this point) —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • U.S. 8th Cavalry Regiment Delete "U.S." and "Regiment"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • instability in Mexico might boil over into a full-scale war A civil war in Mexico, or a war with the United States?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • but that event was cancelled with the outbreak of World War I That is not true.
    • Changed "with the outbreak of" to "due to," but otherwise that article backs up that the event was cancelled, and the war was the cause. —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Link "aide"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • he was promoted to first lieutenant ... in the 10th Cavalry
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you double check footnote 46? My sources have him with the 7th Cavalry at Camp Stewart, TX
    • That may be the case; my source doesn't say where he returned to in February 1917, only that he returned. He didn't go straight to Front Royal, that was just where he was told he would be posted next. What's your source? —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Cullum (1930). Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
        • The only reference I can find for that name is " Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the US Military Academy at West Point New York Since Its Establishment in 1802: Supplement Volume VII 1920–1930" which doesn't mention Patton. —Ed!^(talk) 19:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• World War I
  • left almost immediately for Europe Redundancy here - you give the actual dates.
    • Removed "almost immediately"
  • Now you link aide. Should have linked it before. Unlink here.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton was promoted to major on 23 January 1918 Can you double-check this date?
    • Mis-typed. Was January 26. —Ed!^(talk) 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • His DSC citation reads:

    "For extraordinary heroism in action near Cheppy, France, September 26, 1918. He displayed conspicuous courage, coolness, energy, and intelligence in directing the advance of his brigade down the valley of the Aire. Later he rallied a force of disorganized infantry and led it forward behind the tanks under heavy machine-gun and artillery fire until he was wounded. Unable to advance further, he continued to direct the operations of his unit until all arrangements for turning over the command were completed.

    • Clarified in the prose. —Ed!^(talk) 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • He was actually a colonel in the Tank Corps
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • November 11, 1918 -> 11 November
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Interwar years
  • reverted to his permanent rank of captain on 30 June 1920, though was promoted to major again the next day -> ... although he was promoted to major again the next day
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton, loathing duty as a staff officer Probably, but he wasn't a staff officer at this time, was he? He was still commander of the 304th Tank Brigade
    • Added the distinction; he loathed being a peacetime staff officer. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • spent much time writing technical papers and giving speeches on his combat experiences at the General Staff College. This belongs in the next paragraph.
    • Moved. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • . In 1923 he attended the Field Officer's Course at the Cavalry School at Fort Riley No, he became a student at the Cavalry School on 1 January 1922, and remained until 6 June 1923.
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • followed by the Command and General Staff College the next year No, he entered the CGSC on 12 September 1923 and graduated on 12 June 1924.
    • Clarified (the source only gave years he graduated) —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • While on duty in Washington, D.C., in 1919, Patton met Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would play an enormous role in Patton's future career This is out of sequence; move into the first paragraph.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • How about mentioning how he saved three boys from drowning on 21 August 1923, for which he was awarded the Lifesaving Medal?
    • Added in, though my source didn't note the exact day. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • He was temporarily appointed to the General Staff Corps in Boston, Massachusetts, before being reassigned as G-1 and G-2 of the Hawaiian Division No, his next assignment was as Assistant Chief of Staff, G-l, I Corps Area, from July 1924 to March 1925
    • Can't find this in D'Este's bio. What's your source? —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 10 years before the attack -> ten years
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton served under Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur as a major commanding 600 troops of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment I don't think that the reader will follow this. Mac was CoS and brought in troops for the purpose of dealing with the Bonus marchers. Patton was executive officer of the 3rd Cavalry.
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice to see Jean Gordon rates a mention, although you pass over the fact that the affair continued for the next twelve years, that she was a Red Cross aide at Third Army HQ, ended only with his death, and that she committed suicide soon after that. (Where's David Petreus when you need him?)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • U.S. 5th Cavalry Regiment -> 5th Cavalry
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • but he was reassigned to Fort Myer again in December "...as commander of the 3rd Cavalry"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, who ensured Patton was eligible for promotion. How did he do this?
    • It's not specific, but essentially Marshall was prepared to advance Patton quickly to get him in a command position when armored units formed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Why not say that instead? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• World War II
  • How about a sentence of explanation about how the Hell on Wheels Division was organized? The armored brigade structure will be unfamiliar to many readers.
    • Added. —Ed!^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• North African campaign
  • Patton was assigned to help plan and command Operation Torch in summer of 1942 No, as commander of I Armored Corps, he was in charge of the Western Task Force. Sggest deleting "and command". He was in London for the purpose from August to November.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • During this time, he reported to British Army commander Harold Alexander, and came into conflict with Alexander's officers for the lack of close air support for his troops Alexander commanded the 18th Army Group. I don't think Patton was in conflict with Alexander and his staff as with Arthur Coningham and his. Also, Coningham was right, something not easily gleaned from the article.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • On 17 May, the U.S. 1st Infantry Division took Gafsa No, that was on 17 March
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • At the same time, Patton removed General Orlando Ward No, Ward was relieved on 5 April
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • After ensuring the U.S. forces would continue to fight to the end of the Tunisian campaign I would really prefer that this sentence be dropped. I don't think that there was too much doubt that American soldiers would continue to fight.
    • Reworded per Nick-D's comments. —Ed!^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton relinquished command of II Corps on 15 April, and returned to I Armored Corps.
    • Reworded per Nick-D's comments. —Ed!^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sicily
  • After landing, Patton's command was expanded and formed into the Seventh United States Army No, I Armored Corps officially changed its designation at 0001 on 10 July, before the landing.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Initially ordered to protect the British forces' rear flank Oxymoron - "rear flank" - you mean left flank.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice list of controversies, but there is one more: the relief of Terry de la Mesa Allen, Sr., and Theodore Roosevelt Jr.
    • Added. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In September, Bradley, who was Patton's junior in both rank and experience, was selected to command the First Army forming in England to prepare for Operation Overlord. Link First Army. Actually, Bradley was also selected to command the First United States Army Group.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • On 26 January 1944 Patton was formally given command of the Third Army in England, a newly arrived unit Link Third Army, and an army is a formation, not a unit.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • As a result of Patton's actions, the German 15th Army remained at Pas de Calais I would prefer to say "Operation Fortitude" rather than "Patton's actions"Curiously, this is the article's last mention of deception operations. I would say a bit more.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton flew into Europe a month later and returned to combat duty. A think you'll find that Britain is part of Europe, regardless of what the locals say.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson "Secretary of War" has already been linked.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Normandy
  • Patton led the Third during the late stages of Operation Cobra, the campaign to break out from the Normandy hedgerowsTechnically true, but from England. He did not participate in Normandy (ended 24 July) or Cobra (ended 31 July). Delete this sentence
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Link "attacked west into Brittany" to Battle of Brest
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton's army was instrumental in closing the Falaise Pocket in mid-August, in spite of delays from other U.S. commanders Nick asked you to fix this, but it's still wrong.
    • Removed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • assisting in trapping several hundred thousand German soldiers in the Chambois pocket, between Falaise and Argentan Chambois pocket -> Falaise Pocket.
    • Reworded this. —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Move the second paragraph of the next section (about XIX TAC) here from the next paragraph
    • I moved it to the end of this section. Is that what you're looking for? —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, XIX TAC also operated the P-51 Mustang.
    • Added in. —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Consider moving the bit about logistics into the next paragraph. Why do we mention Muller but not Koch when we talk about Ultra? Or, for that matter, Gaffey? While not mention them all?
    • Done, I think? I might be confused which paragraph you mean at this point. —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Fold note 4 into the text.
    • I had it there for awhile but it was very awkward and couldn't fit easily. —Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lorraine Campaign
  • Patton's offensive, however, came to a halt on 31 August 1944 Fine, but how about a brief mention of the advance from Normandy? And what about the Battle of Brest?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Patton's forces were close to the Siegfried Line No, they weren't
    • Added "Patton believed that his forces were close enough to the Siegfred Line..." —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The French 2nd Armored Division had recently been transferred from the Third Army, and many of the unit's soldiers believed they were still part of the latter Delete this sentence
    • Removed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Who's the black guy? And why is the picture so small? Add his name to the caption
    • Enlarged and renamed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Battle of the Bulge
  • Controversy here: Cox predicted the German attack.
    • Can't find mention of it in any of the Patton biographies I have. —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Advance into Germany
  • On 14 April 1945 Patton was promoted to a full General, a promotion long advocated by Stimson in recognition of Patton's battle accomplishments during 1944 decapitalise General. Some editors don't like "full"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Third Army was ordered away from Berlin and toward Bavaria and Czechoslovakia Third Army was never headed toward Berlin; that lay in Ninth Army's zone.
    • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Postwar
  • Could mention what posts Patton wanted to hold
    • From what my sources say, he was pretty unenthusiastic about any post after the war, and after he was relieved as military governor he basically considering retirement. —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Over to you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'll get to work on these and let you know when I've completed them all. —Ed!^(talk) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've responded to all of your comments above. I'll await further replies. —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've changed a few things. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I've made a few runs through the article. These are my edits: [234]. A couple of things I wasn't sure of:
  • Edits look good. Thanks for your help! —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• inconsistent caps and slightly confusing (was it the Chambois pocket or the Falaise pocket?): " in the Chambois pocket, between Falaise and Argentan, the Falaise Pocket"
  • Fixed, I think. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• this might need to be reworded: " Later that month, Patton, Bradley and Eisenhower toured the Merkers salt mine as well as the Ohrdruf concentration camp, an incident which caused Patton great disgust." (this makes it sound like the tour caused Patton disgust, but I think you mean that the concentration camp itself was what disgusted him). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Herbert Ernest Hart

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria for ACR. The article has just gone through a GA review, and since then has had a little extra information added. The subject of the article was probably one of NZ's best territorial soldiers to survive WWI. He had an interesting postwar career as well. Zawed (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

ImagesThe image licencing needs tweaking. I imagine the CC-BY-SA component is in respest of your uploading the file, but if I'm correct to say the file is taken directly from the Internet, then uploading it here will be insufficient to generate a new coipyright, even in countries that follow the "sweat of the brow" doctrine.

Secondly, and arguably more importantly, the files do not have a valid US copyright tag. You must demonstrate that either the works were in the Public Domain on New Zealand's URAA tag date (normally 1 January 1996). This may well require establishing which of the limbs of the existing tag the photograph falls under, i.e. exactly why it is PD in NZ, and then ensuring that if we had been having this conversation on the URAA date that tag would have been appropriate.

If the file was published before 1923, then that would be a valid tag. If not, and I'm right to suspect that when the tag says "1 January 1963" it means "fifty years ago (start of that year)", then 1917 (etc) + 50 will mean the files entered the public domain in NZ in 1967, well before the URAA date. That would mean using the "PD-1996" tag. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just when I think I'm getting to grips with Wikipedia's images and copyright requirements, along comes a spanner in the works :)... To clarify the CC licence, its use is not related to my claiming any sort of rights to the upload, which I think is your concern. The licence is provided by the source website for the items (which asks for a credit and I forgot to do provide it in the description for the first image and have now added). This is not withstanding the fact that I believe all of the images are PD anyway as they fall under either the A, B or D criteria of the NZ PD tag, hence the reason I have used the tag. From your comments, I think that the appropriate tag, in addition to those already used, is PD-US-1996? I have seen it used elsewhere. Unless you advise to the contrary in the next few days, I will add that tag to each of the images. Let me know if it is not appropriate. Thanks for taking the time to provide your feedback; I will eventually figure this stuff out! Zawed (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And done (the ones that hadn't already been done - thanks AR). Zawed (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [235] (no action required).
  • External links check out [236] (no action required).
  • Images all have Alt Text [237] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images review completed above.
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [238] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links.
  • "and the grandson of John Hart, a three time Premier of South Australia." I think it should be "three-time" as its an adjective (grammer is not my strongest area though).
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Australian 4th Brigade should be wikilinked.
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing word here I think: "Hart was wounded in the thigh while supervising establishment of defensive positions."
    • Fixed. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "12 day period" should be "12-day period".
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Hart organised a counter-raid to be conducted by his battalion, and this was successfully executed." When?
    • Clarified. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "During the battle, Hart's headquarters was shelled with mustard gas...", suggest: "During the battle, Hart's headquarters was again shelled with mustard gas..."
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Hart led the brigade into Germany for occupation duties with the remainder of the New Zealand Division." It might pay to clarify that that the armistice had been signed at that point.
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Hart received his orders in mid February to return to New Zealand, leaving England on 12 March 1919." Consider instead: "In mid-February Hart received his orders to return to New Zealand, leaving England on 12 March 1919."
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "...with the appointment as a Companion of the Order of the Bath...", should be "...with his appointment as a Companion of the Order of the Bath..."
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "The French government also awarded him with a Croix de guerre...", should be "The French government also awarded him the Croix de guerre."
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is repetitive: "Upon discharge from the NZEF, Hart resumed his legal work in his Carterton practice." Consider instead: "Upon discharge from the NZEF, Hart resumed legal work in his Carterton practice."
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems awkward to me: "after an initial spell on the reserve of officers...", specifically "on the"
    • Fixed. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "This was a difficult period of time for the colony...", consider instead: "This was a difficult period for the colony..."
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing word here: "and employed tactics of civil disobedience as means...", should be "as a means".
    • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "...was usually the preserve of an Australian and New Zealander...", should it be "...was usually the preserve of an Australian or a New Zealander..."?
    • Yes, should be 'or'. Fixed. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure about the need for quotation marks here: "Although the position, 'Deputy Controller of the Eastern District', was nominally based in...". Probably could also be reworded. Consider instead: "Although the position of Deputy Controller of the Eastern District was nominally based in..."
    • In addition to making the suggested change, I have rephrased this section. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "This required the creation of an organisation to be responsible for the graves of Allied personnel...", consider instead: "This required the creation of an organisation responsible for the graves of Allied personnel..."
    • Done. Anotherclown, thanks for the review. I have addressed the issues specifically noted above, but let me know if anything else requires work. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Gday this is looking good to me, just a couple of other points:
        • "...but traveled to England instead of returning to New Zealand with the rest of the contingent". Do we know why?
          • Sources suggest, but not explicitly state, that it was for travel/holiday. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
            • No worries, obviously best not to speculate so if its not available in the sources its not an issue. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • "However, rather than pursue bookkeeping as a career, he commenced legal studies." Do we know where (e.g. what university / institution)?
          • Surprisingly we don't. My main source says that he biked to Masterton (no university there I can tell you) twice a week for the legal studies but that's it. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Not a problem then. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • This is a little abrupt to me: "Hart immediately volunteered for the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) which was being raised for service in the war on Britain's behalf." Perhaps consider: "Following the outbreak of the First World War Hart immediately volunteered for the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) which was being raised for service in the war on Britain's behalf." (suggestion only)
          • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • "He was also required to divest a number of his more experienced officers and non-commissioned officers to help with the formation of a new 2nd Battalion of the Wellington Regiment. His battalion was re-designated as 1st Battalion, Wellington Regiment...", consider instead: "He was also required to divest a number of his more experienced officers and non-commissioned officers to help with the formation of the 2nd Battalion of the Wellington Regiment. His battalion was subsequently re-designated as the 1st Battalion, Wellington Regiment..." (suggestion only)
          • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Problem with sentence structure/punctuation here: "Hart led his battalion during the Battle of Flers-Courcelette and the subsequent period in the trenches.[15] and was mentioned in dispatches for his work during this time."
          • Fixed. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • "Hart was made commander of 2nd Infantry Brigade when 4th Brigade was disbanded in February 1918..." probably should be: "Hart was made commander of the 2nd Infantry Brigade when the 4th Brigade was disbanded in February 1918."
          • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • This is a little repetitive: "Hart's new role involved overseeing the upkeep of the cemeteries and memorials established by the Commission in the Middle East, Turkey and Greece. Ensuring the upkeep...", specifically "upkeep" twice. As a sugesstion consider: "Hart's new role involved overseeing the upkeep of the cemeteries and memorials established by the Commission in the Middle East, Turkey and Greece. Ensuring the maintenance..."
          • Done. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • In the references section terms such as "Limited" should be omitted from the publisher's field. For instance: "Crawford, John, ed. (2008). The Devil's Own War: The First World War Diary of Brigadier-General Herbert Hart. Auckland, New Zealand: Exisle Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1-877437-30-4." should be just be "Exisle Publishing" (see Template:Cite_book#Publisher). Anotherclown (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Have sorted this for all titles with Limited in the publisher's field. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
            • All my points have been addressed, so adding my support now. Good work for what its worth. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Thanks again for the review. Zawed (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: some suggestions:

• the redlink for "VD": should/could this link to Volunteer Decoration?

My source is very specific about it being the Colonial Auxiliary Forces Officer's Decoration although I do suspect that it is actually the same as the Volunteer Decoration due to the use of the same postnominal. But without knowing for sure I'm a little reluctant to link to the VD. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

G'day, a quick update on this. I did a bit of research into this and I now believe that the Colonial Auxilliary Forces Officer's Decoration replaced the Volunteer Decoration, but used the same post nominals, so essentially you are right not to link to it. Apologies for the bad advice. It would be good to get an article on the award one day. I might do it when I get back from my six week "holiday". Anyway, good work on this article. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• is it "traveled" or "travelled" in NZ English?

Only the finest English to be used here...have changed to BE - i.e. travelled. I actually didn't know this was spelled two different ways until a GA review last week. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• "In speeches that he made during his community and RSA duties" --> I don't think the abbreviation has been introduced;

Have expanded the postwar career section to clarify this. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• "a small community near Carterton in the Wairarapa" --> "a small community near Carterton in the Wairarapa region"?

Tweaked as per suggestion. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• "and would eventually become a director of the company" --> "and eventually became a director of the company";

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• 'The Apex' --> "The Apex" (I believe that the MOS prefers double quotes);

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Hart would lead the battalion back to Gallipoli in early November" --> "Hart led the battalion back to Gallipoli in early November";

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• "battalion would eventually evacuate the peninsula during December" --> "battalion eventually evacuated the peninsula during December"

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I stopped at the Western Front section; I will come back tomorrow (sorry its late here). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the taking the time to review this article. I look forward to your further comments. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the gold badge": is this a proper noun? If so, it should be in caps;

Have used caps. Zawed (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• in the Later life section, the first paragraph seems a little out of chronological order AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Have reordered this section, moving some up into the first paragraph of the "Post-war career" section. Zawed (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Tentative Support: I think the readers must be familiarized about the Gallipoli campaign. Also, can't be the Later life section be expanded because it was around three decades after his post-war career? Arius1998 (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the support. Regarding the later life section, this covers his life from the age of 61 until his death. There isn't much to expand on there. Zawed (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Australian Army during World War II

Nominator(s): Anotherclown; AustralianRupert; Nick-D and Hawkeye7

I am nominating this article for A-Class review as it has recently passed a GA review and I believe that with a few more sets of eyes, it will be up to A-class standard. The article was originally started by Nick a few years ago, but as a result of a recent collaborative effort between him, Anotherclown, Hawkeye and myself, it has been expanded considerably. Thanks to all in advance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed this article for GA with an ACR in mind. The only comment I have on the changes since then is the list of Australian Generals and Brigadiers is sort of unwieldy right now, it doesn't specify who was a flag officer in which era. Still that article isn't part of this one so there is no reason for me to withold support. —Ed!^(talk) 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• How about an infobox? Size, notable commanders and actions (probably hard to do with WWII; maybe campaign?) would be nice for the reader.
• Since this is the all-star editing team, do you all know if there's a GA/FA/A Unit in Conflict article I can compare this article to? I found Hispanic Americans in World War II but I don't think that's up to the current FA standards; it does have a hand-crafted infobox. Kirk (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Gday Kirk, there are a couple of similar articles that I'm aware of:
    • British Army during World War I - currently an A class article
    • British Army during the Second World War - currently a B class
    • Indian Army during World War II - also a B.
  • All of them seem to a little different though in terms of style, layout and information included (and infobox use). Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Indian Army during World War I is GA & there's the 'during' vs 'in' so I'd suggest renaming the article. The Indian ones have the infobox type I thought you should add; the British ones have a timeline box which I thought would be nice to consider.
    • Also, Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War is another way to go (but increases your scope...). Kirk (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I've added an infobox like those in the Indian articles. I wouldn't be adverse to a name change to "Australian Army during World War II". What does everyone else think? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm obviously biased, but 'during' seems a bit detached. It's much of a muchness though, so either option works for me. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks AR - infobox looks good. Given the name adopted by the others it would seem consistent to move it to "Australian Army during World War II" so I'd be happy with this if there is a consensus. Anotherclown (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
            • I've gone ahead and done this now. Happy to revert if its an issue. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

'Comments' overall a very well-written, comprehensive and well-researched article. Just a few nitpicks:

• The article needs a few maps, at least one for the Pacific and one for the Mediterranean theatre.
• In the Campaigns/North Africa section: "During the first years of World War II, Australia's military strategy was closely aligned with that of the United Kingdom's imperial defence policy, of which the Singapore strategy was a key component." How exactly does the Singapore strategy tie in with North Africa?
  • I've tweaked this; does this make the link clearer? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• " in the deserts of the Mediterranean, Middle East and North Africa "found both in the lede and the "background" section. I suggest removing the "deserts" part. I know the popular image of the "desert rat", but neither Greece nor Lebanon have deserts.
  • Removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• MacArthur is first mentioned in the Papuan campaign section ("Due to a lack of supporting weapons and MacArthur and Blamey's insistence") but not introduced until the Leadershop section ("From April 1942 General Douglas McArthur took over command of all US and Australian forces in the newly formed South West Pacific Area"). I think this should be changed, with MacArthur and his role introduced earlier.
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Although the Second AIF not disbanded on 30 June 1947" possibly "was not disbanded until 30 June 1947"?
  • Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than that, an amazing piece of work. Constantine ✍ 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, I've addressed some of your comments and will try to get to the others tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Great! On the Pacific map, perhaps this file would be better as it includes Australia and its territorial divisions and cities. I would still like to see a map for the Middle Eastern theatre, but I can safely switch to Support even so. Constantine ✍ 23:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added a map for the Med, North African and Middle East part. Does this work? Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Cheers. I think the other file that Constantine mentions could work for the Pacific, what does everyone else think? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The good thing about the current map is that it includes the SWPA boundaries which is discussed in the article so it might be useful to keep it. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
        • The Med map is not the best, but I have not seen anything better around, either. On the Pacific, speaking as a non-Aussie, it is of greater help to see where the cities, islands, provinces mentioned in the article are. It is rather obvious from the text which area the SWPA comprises, so IMO that is of secondary importance. Constantine ✍ 09:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I've asked User:SpoolWhippets if he might be able to create a better quality version of the Med map. My concern with the Pacific map is that it shows a lot of planning detail that might owerawe the general reader. Of course, if others agree I've got no dramas changing it, though. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support some small edits made and links added, this is in really good shape and I am leaning towards supporting it meeting the A-Class criteria some questions.

• In the Raising the Second Australian Imperial Force section. as well as an anti-tank and an anti-aircraft regiment is that one regiment or two some British divisions had a joint A/T-A/A regiment.
  • G'day, I've tweaked this to clarify that they were separate units. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Is armoured cavalry regiment correct for the time period, would it not be tank or armoured regiment following British practice? Later in the article it does refer to three tank-equipped armoured regiments.
  • For whatever reason, the Australian Army referred to its divisional reconnaissance regiments (which were equipped with universal carriers and light tanks on the same pattern as the equivalent units in British infantry divisions) as divisional cavalry regiments. The 'armoured' at the front here makes it clear that there were no horses involved! Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked this wording to make it a bit clearer Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• In the Defence of Australia section From 1944 the Australian military was mainly relegated to subsidiary roles is there any detail about how this received by the top brass and/or if it affected moral.
  • I've added a small bit on this. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• In the Casualties section 121,800 wounded/injured in non-operational areas that a very large number compared to those wounded in action 21,853 is there any reason known for it?
  • Note on the ex links checker here [239] FACT SHEET 61 ref 236 is shown as a dead link, but when clicking on it it actually works. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have the source here, but I imagine that tropical diseases would have been a major part of the explanation. Thanks a lot for your comments Jim. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added a brief clarification with a ref. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "with all unmarried men turning 21 being liable for three months training": Apart from the WP:PLUSING problem (not really a problem, more of a suggestion) ... my understanding of the word "liable" is that they owed it, that it was an obligation ... and I doubt that it was an obligation for the disabled, so maybe the word should be different, or there should be some qualification. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Liable" is the word the lawyers use; "obligation" is the word the soldiers use. We always speak of "training obligations". Yes, it did include the disabled; they still had to show up and be medically assessed. As in the Great War, the standards varied as the war went along. There was a whole class of men called B class, who were not rated fit for combat, but could be used in bases and non-operational roles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The disabled probably weren't obligated to do 3 months of training. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I just checked multiple secondary sources, which all stated that all men were liable for this service. However, that's obviously not right, and a wartime summary report on the 'Army War Effort' available through the National Archives of Australia explains that about a third of even the youngest class of men within this age group were granted exemptions on medical grounds or due to hardship. I've tweaked the article accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• "while non-battle casualties were also significant and included 1,088 killed and 33,196 wounded or injured, and another 1,795 killed or died in accidents and 121,800 wounded or injured in non-operational areas.": I don't follow those categories.
  • Non-battle casualties are those not directly related to enemy action, such as accidents and diseases. Four general officers died, all non-battle: three in air crashes (White, Vasey and Downes) and one (Wynter) of natural causes, all in non-operational areas in Australia. Three brigadiers were killed in one campaign, all in operational areas in New Guinea; but one died in an aircraft accident (it didn't crash), one from typhus, and one from enemy action when they dropped a bomb on his headquarters. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Still don't follow how these are non-overlapping categories (all "non-battle"): "killed", "wounded or injured", "killed or died in accidents" (what's the difference?), and "wounded or injured in non-operational areas" - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I've just simplified the material in the lead - is it clearer now (and others; is this wording still correct?) Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm thinking this will be heading to FAC soon-ish, and if so, I'd rather copyedit it now. Understood that this is a high-level article with many editors; also understood that a person who knows exactly what their own writing style is may not feel confident enough to make a change to someone else's writing style. Still ... there are some specific problems that seem to be coming up a lot that I'd like for you guys to work on before I come back to this: see "danglers", "conciseness" and "because" at WP:Checklist. If a sentence starts with "This", ask yourself if it's clear what "this" is, and if that sentence wouldn't make more sense combined with the previous one. There are too many words that don't have any meaning, that just serve as placeholders. See my edits so far (and for that matter, my edits to your other articles). - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The article is the work of multiple editors, and too my mind changes style from section to section, so I would not worry about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Is it headed to FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • G'day, I'm not planning of nominating it. I will try to tighten some of it, but I find it difficult to copy edit my own work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I think that this has FAC potential Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It feels FAC-worthy, though I don't know. Okay, after you guys have run through it, I'll fix stuff and talk about stuff I don't fix. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Update: I see Kirk has some things for you guys to look at, but I'm going to withdraw my comment at WT:MHC and move on. I'm having some success talking with people about GLAM and copyediting projects, and I'm involved in several big RfCs. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm restarting down here - thanks for the infobox & renaming the article.
• The casualty table looks incomplete as if someone is working on it; if not I think its obvious what's wrong w/the headings. I would also see if you can normalize the whitespace on the right and fix the citation.
  • G'day, I've reformatted it somewhat. I'm not sure how to fix the whitespace. Does anyone have any ideas? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me now, thanks AR. I just wonder about the non-operational areas part. All the casualties are in the War against Germany column. Is this right? I assume it shouldn't really be in either - maybe just keep in the total column? What does everyone else think? Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I was hoping to find a way to merge the cells across both the wars (as they apply to both as you say), but couldn't figure out the mark up coding required. Putting it in the total column might be a good work around. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I've done this now. If others disagree pls revert. Anotherclown (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• This is a really, really long article - is there a reason the lead has only 3 paragraphs?
  • What do you think is missing? The lead was much longer, but was trimmed down as it was rather daunting for readers. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry I wrote that unclearly. I was thinking reformatting the lead to have 5 or 6 paragraphs since its still kind of daunting; I'd probably leave it as is.
      • Gday again. According to WP:LEADLENGTH articles of this length should have 3 to 4 paras and no lead should be longer than 4. Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• The whole '...force was larger than Australia could sustain' is very confusing. I think this could be more clear defining what 'the Government' wanted the men to do instead of being in the army. Did something happen? etc.
  • Australia lacked the manpower and industrial base needed to sustain such a strength - I've added this to the lead, and it's noted and cited in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I think we have that book in the stacks I'll try to read it today - I wanted a sentence explaining what it means to sustain such a strength. Or maybe something interesting happened like they ran out of bullets because all the munitions workers were in the Army.
      • I've just expanded this; the issue was that the Army couldn't keep its units up to strength and the allocation of so many people to the military damaged the rest of the economy. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• When you discuss the divisions the article uses types of units e.g. corps, support and service units, kinds of units e.g. company, platoon, section and 'branches' (i don't know the exact name) e.g. infantry, armor, ordnance, electrical and mechanical engineers, engineers, signals, medical services etc. I think it would be better if you listed all the branch options and which type of unit they fall under.
  • I'm not sure I really follow you here. Could you perhaps please give an example? Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • G'day, Kirk, to clarify are you asking for a break down of what branches were in what unit? For example, in an infantry battalion there were infantry corps personnel, transport, ordnance, signals; in an artillery regiment there were artillery corps, transport, ordnance, signals etc.? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
      • The section is heavily sourced on Palazzo, which I can't get but maybe it has something to do with his writing style and too much paraphrasing? For example, In 1942 infantry, cavalry and armour totalled 137,236 men, while ordnance totalled just 29,079 men. - this is cited, but its confusing because you never defined/linked the reader the term 'ordnance' meant logistics/supply and told the reader if it was a support and/or service unit not a corps unit and why those types of units were out of proportion. Again, I'm surprised the source doesn't have a story about why the unit type ratio caused a problem which is why they were intent on fixing this. The 3rd paragraph uses the phrase "support and service units" as well as "service troops" while the 6th paragraph uses "support units". Is Artillery corps, service or support? Kirk (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • G'day, I've reworded this and added links. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• is the Government correct? I don't know if you need to specify that as frequently or maybe you can mix it up so it doesn't repeat as often in paragraphs.
  • I've tweaked the wording here. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• ..one of the largest Allied armies as a proportion of population at the end of the war. It is cited and in the lead but 'one of the largest' is very weasel wordy. Is that what the source says? Is this a source of national pride? Weren't there basically 4 Allied armies at the end of the War?
  • This is the wording used by the source (Johnston). Not sure how its a weasel word though - it is a "relative" statement which is qualified (as a proportion of population). It serves to illustrate how Australia "overmobilised". Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It would be better if you could find out if the Army was #2 or #3 - I'm always surprised what historians get away with in their books. Kirk (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't believe it would have been one of the largest 4 Allied armies in raw numbers (for instance the Russian, American, British and Chinese etc would likely all have been much larger - probably others too - Canadians?). As I said this is a relative figure as a percentage of population. Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I wanted a ordinal number ranking to replace 'one'; I thought maybe you could check another source? Kirk (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
          • How about the statement from Long (1963), p. 587 that the size of the Australian Army combat forces in action for "part of the last year of the war" was the largest as a share of the population of any of the Allied countries other than the USSR? (I presume that he's talking about the force at the end of the war, when the best part of 5 of the Army's 6 combat divisions were in action). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
            • That kind of wording seems much more clear to me. Historians really have to slice and dice this fact - still curious why being #2 is a source of national pride but its not an A-review issue.
• Why is Jungle divisions in quotes? Wasn't that the actual name?
  • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• naval squadron later Royal Australian Navy which is confusing since I assume the RAN had more than one squadron after World War I. Kirk (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the wording of this. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I may have more comments if this makes it to FAC, but I think its pretty good now. Thanks for all the improvements!Kirk (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article successfully promoted --Constantine ✍ 08:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

George S. Patton slapping incidents

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

An interesting insight into military politics. More to come on Patton. —Ed!^(talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is an interesting topic for an article, and it's a nice piece of work. I have the following comments:

• "drawing significant nation-wide attention in the United States" - the 'nation-wide' seems redundant here
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "deceiving military commanders of Nazi Germany that Patton would be leading the Invasion of Europe." - this is a bit awkward
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "misleading Nazi Germany leaders into believing" is still a bit awkward and needlessly unspecific. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Patton had already developed a reputation in the U.S. Army as an effective, successful, hard-driving commander who was extremely critical of those under his command" - the 'extremely critical' bit sounds odd
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think that 'critical' is a good word here. How about "Patton had a reputation in the U.S. Army as an effective and hard-driving commander who punished subordinates for the slightest infraction but also rewarded them when they performed well." or similar? (which removes several surplus words). Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• "commanders had long noted" - who were these 'commanders'? (do you mean Patton's commanding officers, or other senior officers who served under him, or both?)
  • Primarily Eisenhower and Marshall, but I had wanted to wait on introducing them until the part of the article where they play a major role. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Given that a large chunk of the US Army is a 'commander' of some sort, this is needlessly vague. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• "which results from prolonged severe exposure to death and destruction" - as I understand it, a single incident is enough to trigger PTSD, and it doesn't have to be particularly severe or even involve 'death and destruction' (PTSD can be brought on by other traumatic life events, including medical procedures and childbirth).
  • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "it is generally less understood in military circles" - should this be "it was generally less understood"? Modern militaries seem to have a good awareness of it (though how well they deal with it varies)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "and had been under Patton's command since March 1943" - this seems an overstatement given the many layers of command between a private and an Army commander
  • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Patton, unaware of Bennett's condition and symptoms," - why does this matter? There are virtually no circumstances where it is OK for an officer to strike an enlisted soldier, especially well away from the front lines or in a hospital.
  • I think it's critical to note here because Patton did not look down on illness, he looked down on what he thought was "cowardice." Patton took great pains to care for the sick soldiers, and if he had known Bennett had a fever and was dehydrated he probably wouldn't have reacted as he did. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • But the article states that Bennett had been hospitalised primarily as a result of PTSD, and that's what he told Patton he was suffering from. This reads like either an excuse for Patton's behaviour or an implication that it wasn't really OK to be evacuated for PTSD (which I imagine isn't what you're getting at). Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• What was Colonel Donald E. Currier's response to Patton's behavior?
  • Clarified Currier. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• What led Lieutenant Colonel Perrin H. Long to write his report, and how did he research it? (this seems a significant missing element)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Not really: what led this relatively low ranking officer to compile a report into one of the most senior combat officers in the US Army? Why did he do this, and who authorised it? Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Added more details. —Ed!^(talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• "A group of news reporters filed a report on the Kuhl slapping incident with Eisenhower's chief of staff," - was this a joint news story, or were they complaining about the incident?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No you haven't: what sort of 'report' was this? Reporters file reports all the time - was this intended for publication, or were they complaining?
      • Added more details. —Ed!^(talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• "She appeared in True Confessions" - you probably need to explain what this publication was
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• The para which starts with "Patton was passed over to lead the invasion in northern Europe" is a bit confusing; the second sentence seems to undermine the remainder of the material (the distinction between the incidents being public and how the decision was made could be made more strongly)
  • Reworded the graph. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The FUSAG command was in reality an intricately constructed "phantom" army of decoys and props" - and fake signals traffic and material passed to the Germans through double agents and other means
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "As a result of Patton's actions, the German 15th Army remained at Pas the Calais to defend against the expected attack" - this is a major overstatement: lots of factors contributed to this - the deception plan was highly complex, and Patton was only part of it, and the Germans believed that the Calais region was the most logical place for the invasion to be made due to its geographic location
  • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The formation remained there even after the invasion of Normandy on 6 June 1944" - that's true, but several of its combat formations were sent to Normandy Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Fixed. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That wording is still there, and still hasn't been changed. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I've made all of the second round of fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support My comments have now all been addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Images - File:Wounded-on wayto-hospital-RG-208-AA-158-A-015.jpg has seemingly contradictory licences about which government agency was responsible. If we are unsure, I think it would be best to explain in the description and confirm that they are the only potential options. Also I think the caption "Patton was passed over to command..." is a little confusing since the first subject is Patton but the photograph is of Bradley. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed both the license and the caption. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Support I had some points, but decided to add some text about the way that neuropsychiatric casualties were handled. Revert anything you don't like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment Really good work here, and makes a nice change from a proper bio/unit/battle article. I've read this one back to front a couple of times now and have only made one minor tweak. The only comments I have to make are:

• Battle fatigue section: Huebner replied "The front lines. Should there be a colon after replied? (Because of the cap in The)?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• The location of the Atkinson source is given as New York City, New York. None of the other sources published in NYC add the state?

And that's it for me. Zawed (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Fixed. Thanks for looking it over! —Ed!^(talk) 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Ed!, have added my support now. Zawed (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article still meets A-Class criteria - TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class re-assessment because it was recently delisted in this GAR for the heavy use of a source written by an alleged right-wing extremist, Bracke. Pinging original ACR nominator (MisterBee1966, and ACR reviewers @Ed!, AustralianRupert, and Ian Rose: (Anotherclown is retired). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comments The perceived unreliability of the source is based on who the author was and who published the work. The book is not being evaluated on its content nor research which went into its creation. Subsequently, I am under the impression that there is nothing I can do to change that perception now. Any recommendations on content of the article, I can address. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Any source must be assessed on the reliability of the author, publisher and the source itself. All three are important. I have not seen any suggestions so far that the assertions in the source itself are unreliable/inaccurate, the issues have been that the author is unreliable (due to extremist views), and some questions about the reliability of the publisher (although I don't think they have been properly made out at this stage, and are more "unreliability by association" than anything else). Hope that helps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all Peacemaker67 you need to tell as what’s the problem with Bracke. The GAR doesn’t say anything (the nominator only calls it a dubious source without proof) and it was done in hasty fashion. This is very important information because remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. So we need to know what information used in Waldmann article and cited to Bracker are false, unreliable or inaccurate. Bracker is used for plain information about his birth, what school he went and what he did when he was young, what he did when the war broke out and some military stats (units he was part, airplane he flew etc). If someone can demonstrate here that the information sourced by Becker is unreliable I will change my vote to delist. Second, there are multiple GA or FA reassessments on Luftwaffe pilots who are done at the same time and in hurried fashion, like the GA above where people can’t even take part or discuss as it’s done in a swift way with the same editors working together: K.e.coffman and buidhe. The same thing happened to Hartmann article where the contributor fixed the problem and it was still delisted. Remember, Good article reassessment page says that you need to notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. DiorandI

• Assayer is best placed to explain the evidence that Bracke is an alleged right-wing extremist, but there is a thread two above the GAR (under the heading "Tags") which alludes to the issues with Bracke. This brings into question the author's reliability. It is not just the content of the book itself that needs to be reliable, but also the publisher and the author. All three must be reliable for a source to be considered reliable, per WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delist The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Gerhard Bracke makes it clear that anything written by Mr Bracke cannot be considered a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• keep. I don't see any reliable evidence brought up at the GAR or through that link Nick. It doesn't seem to matter now anyhow. Erich Hartmann's article was delisted even though, as was noted, the issues were resolved. It says a lot about the complainant. Dapi89 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delist: a demoted GA, where the issues identified during GAR have not been addressed, is very unlikely to me A-class criteria. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've advertised this on the main page, but I think it is important for the project that we get a consensus here one way or the other. Any suggestions on how to generate more interest? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delist - per Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Bracke's biography of Melitta von Stauffenberg is cited by German historian Ralf Blank in Germany and the Second World War and by Peter Hoffmann in Stauffenberg: A Family History, 1905-1944. Kges1901 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I haven't seen any evidence that the information cited in the source is unreliable or biased. Bracke's work seems to be cited widely among reputable German writers on WWII. If someone can present something that indicates bias in the information cited, please do so. Otherwise, keep. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per DiorandI. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Just for clarity, this was a procedural nomination due to the GA delist, I haven't formed a view about this nomination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul Wurtsmith

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Another commander in the Southwest Pacific Area. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• date format inconsistency: compare the infobox to elsewhere in the article;
  • Bad bot edit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Bernard" or "Bernhard"?
  • Typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• "He married Irene Gillespie" --> is there a date for this?
  • Nope. But it was while he was stationed at San Antonio, her home town. I'm reminded of James B. Conant, who didn't think his wife was important enough to include in his biography. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• "instructor and command positions" --> "instructional and command positions"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The 49th Pursuit Group was soon on its way to the South West Pacific". I wonder if a little context should be added here. For instance, by explaining that war had broken out with Japan, or something like that. It probably only needs a short clause;
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Wurtsmith's promotion to General MacArthur" --> "Wurtsmith's promotion to MacArthur";
  • This comes from reading too much. Hew was always General MacArthur to his staff
• inconsistent caps: "Papuan Campaign" v "North African campaign";
  • Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• "and if cover were not available" --> "and if cover was not available"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• the "p. 457" for the Ancell ref in the References section seems inconsistent with the other entries;
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• publishers for the web citations?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• place of publication for the Craven sources?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• OCLC numbers for the sources without ISBNs?
  • Done. All bar one which doesn't have an OCLC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comments Support All comments addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 12:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • " he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Air Reserve" -- was this through OCS or a direct appointment?
    • Added a bit to say it was a direct appointment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "The P-40 was better armored and faster in level flight than the Japanese fighters and could outdive them." -- It would help to note which Japanese fighters you're referring to here.
    • Zeroes. The source does not say, so I had added another source, which lists the actual aircraft involved in attacks on Darwin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Major General George Kenney assumed command of both the Allied Air Forces in the South West Pacific Area," -- Do you mean two numbered Air Forces? If so it could be linked, or the two units could be noted.
    • No. Of the "Allied Air Forces". Deleted "both". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Wurtsmith also became one of a handful of American officers to be decorated by the Australian government" -- add "during World War II" right?
    • It wasn't common before or since. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Two duplicate links: P-39 Airacobra and B-25 Mitchell; no disambiguation link problems.
    • I'm going to keep the first one, because most people won't have heard of the P-400, but it links to the P-39 article too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm having connection issues with three of the links. [240] Are you having this problem?
    • Tweaked two of the links. As for for Kenney, well the Air Force goes offline all the time. It'll probably come back, but is is a book, and people can read the hard copy. I think it has been archived somewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise in great shape. —Ed!^(talk) 13:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [241] (no action required).
  • External links check out [242] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text [243] so you might consider adding it (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool still doesn't appear to be working but given the editor's previous contributions I have no reason to suspect any issues with copyright violations [244]. Google searches reveal nothing (no action required).
  • No duplicate links (except for the P-39 link which makes sense).
  • In the lead - "...he served in instruction and command positions...", perhaps "...he served in instructional and command positions..." instead?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "...his fighters downed 78 enemy aircraft in the defense of Darwin." Would it help our readers to mention Darwin is in northern Australia and it was against the Japanese? For example "his fighters downed 78 enemy aircraft in the defense of Darwin in northern Australia, against Japanese attacks." (suggestion only - it is certainly implied)
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "...The heaviest Japanese attack had been by 9 fighters and 24 bombers...", should be "...The heaviest Japanese attack had been by nine fighters and 24 bombers..." per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "That month nine P-40s and thirteen Japanese aircraft were lost...", → "That month nine P-40s and 13 Japanese aircraft were lost."
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Wurtsmith also became one of a handful of American officers..." This sentence starts in the same way as the one before it, making it seem a little repetitive. Possibly substitute "Wurtsmith" with "He"? (suggestion only)
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For the Craven and Gillson works in the reference section I wonder if the series each of them belongs to could be included?Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bessas (general)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Bessas is practically unknown today, but his life was colourful and exemplifies the "cosmopolitan" character of military service in 6th-century Byzantium: a Thracian Goth who served in Mesopotamia, Italy and finally the Caucasus, of dubious moral character, unquestionably brave but also responsible for losing Rome to his cousins the Ostrogoths in 546... Written in September, it passed GA without problems, and has undergone only some slight polishing in prose since then. The article is relatively short, but comprehensive per WP:SS. Any comments and/or criticism is, as always, welcome! Constantine ✍ 23:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: only a few minor comments from me:

• in regards to the headings, I'd suggest removing the "Life" heading and just going with the other three as level two headings;
• "Bessas took part in the war as an officer" --> perhaps add a wikilink here to Officer (armed forces);
• inconsistent "Yazdgerd" v "Yazdegerd";
• I found this sentence awkward: "Finally, Bessas proved negligent of the conduct of the defence, so that on 17 December, the city was betrayed to Totila by four Isaurian soldiers". (Is it possible to reword?)
• in the Sources, inconsistent "Cambridge" v. "Cambridge, United Kingdom". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've implemented the suggested changes. I also expanded a bit on exactly how Bessas proved negligent in the defence of Rome, and made the referencing a bit more specific in this section. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 09:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's it from me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [245] (no action required).
  • External links check out [246] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text [247] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals an error with reference consolidation:
    • Martindale, Jones & Morris (1980), p. 228 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • PLRE228 (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • Images are licenced and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [248] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links found (no action required).
  • "There he redeemed himself by the recapture of Petra...", to my ear would sound better as "There he redeemed himself with the recapture of Petra..." (suggestion only)
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "The civilian population were so exhausted by famine that when Bessas finally allowed those who wanted to leave the city, many simply died on the wayside, while others were killed by the Goths." Would this work better: "The civilian population were so exhausted by famine that when Bessas finally allowed those who wanted to leave the city to do so, many simply died on the wayside, while others were killed by the Goths."
  • Otherwise this looks quite good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! I've implemented the suggested changes & fixed the duplicate reference. Constantine ✍ 11:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Reword both instances of "however". (I can't do it because "however" has many different shades of meaning ... for instance, the first occurrence might best be reworded as "nevertheless", "but", "on the other hand", or "lastly".)
• You say "Bessas" too often; use pronouns and forms of address when possible.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, as always, for the review and the copyedits. I've done away with "however" and tried to reduce the repetition of his name. Constantine ✍ 11:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it includes all the suggestion which had been made during the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G) A-class review and previous reviews of the same topic. Sorry for yet another one of these lists. I appreciate your comments. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• suggest Fellgiebel's book "has now been succeeded" by Scherzer's work, assuming that is the meaning to intend to convey. It might be worth clarifying this, as you use Fellgiebel extensively. Perhaps both are considered the key references, but Scherzer's draws some of Fellgiebel's work into question?
  • I am not sure what you are asking for. I have a sentence in the lead "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered a reference work on this topic and is now succeeded by Scherzer's work." Does this not address what you are suggesting? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe the issue is with Fellgiebel's book being "a" reference for many years, when it should probably be described as "the key" or "the main" reference, then the reference to Scherzer?
      • done reworded to "the main" MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• suggest you need to explain in the lead or background that recipients needed to have been awarded the Iron Cross I Class IOT be eligible for an award of the Knight's Cross.
  • I propose to add "Article 2 of the enactment mandated that the award of a higher class be preceded by the award of all preceding classes." just after the sentence "The first enactment, Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 1573 of 1 September 1939 instituted the Iron Cross (Eisernes Kreuz), the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross (Großkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes)." in the Background section. This is more generic since it also applies to the higher grades of the award. Would this work for you? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Happy with that.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• suggest you insert "of the Knight's Cross" between "recipients" and "distinguished" in Background, as you have just mentioned the Grand Cross and it is potentially confusing.
  • done makes sense MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• suggest "the Oak Leaves to (the) Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross" in Background.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• suggest you mention that the unofficial awards were assigned "post-war" by the AKCR.
• query, I assume the service seniority in the Wehrmacht was Army, Navy, Air Force?
  • Are you referring to the sort by rank feature? I am not sure what exactly you are asking here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, no just the order you mention them in the text. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually it is kind of arbitrary and in alphabetical order. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • OK.
• photos all look ok.

Comments Support My comments have been addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure you've heard this back and forth a lot over the history of this series, but how did you decide which terms to italicize? The rule I've been aware of is that it's for other-language words on en.wiki, but though the ranks of each listing are decidedly German words, only some of their titles are in italics. Thoughts?
  • ok, applied to ranks MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't understand why you include bracketed PhDs for those who received them after the war, since it's unrelated to their awarding of the decoration. It would be just as useful to note ranks attained after the receipt of the award.
  • Accademic titles were part of the name at the time. The references also list them with these titles discriminating between titles before and after the KC presentation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Dr. jur. Dipl.-Ing. Albrecht Lanz" -- I can sort of understand the other titles, but this one I have no idea. You'll need to link it or something.
• Also the footnotes section should probably be multi-column because of its length.

Will check back. —Ed!^(talk) 01:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - up to your usual standard, MB - keep up the good work. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Another article on a much-overlooked subject with a perhaps surprising impact. After years of keeping its distance and offering only diplomatic support (and effectively forcing President Kabbah to sign the Lomé Accord), the United Kingdom sent a force of over 4,000 personnel in 2000 to end the brutal civil war that had largely destroyed Sierra Leone. I was surprised to see that this important event had such poor coverage on Wikipedia (this article didn't exist until I created it a few weeks ago and Operation Palliser was little more than a stub), so with some reference material from Operation Barras and some more kindly supplied by WMUK, Nick D, Andrew Gray at the British Library, and eBay, I set about rectifying things.

I'm hoping to take this to FAC, so all comments are appreciated. As it's brand new, very few people have read it, so even just a once-over would be helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work HJ. I think it's great you've taken it on and I'd be happy to help if you come up against any problems. For now, though, I'll consign myself to my usual image review:

• The MoD headquarters: what do you think it adds to this article?
  • Not much other than to break up the wall of text, but it's not in one of the sparsely illustrated parts, so I've removed it.
• I seem to have some difficulty accessing the source of File:Hands ondiamonds 350.jpg. Does it work for you/other reviewers? Might need updating (the other link redirects to a new address).
  • No; I can't load it either
• I notice there aren't any actual images of British military intervention. I'll have a look myself.
  • Alas, Crown Copyright. WMUK have some contacts at the IWM (who have some images), which is an avenue I'll try to pursue in the new year, but I won't be holding my breath. :(

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support: a highly polished article in my opinion, Harry. I made a couple of minor tweaks and I have the following nitpicks:
  • "were exerted on Liberia, whose President Charles Taylor supported the RUF in exchange" (probably need a couple of commas around "Charles Taylor" and I think "President" should be lower case here (not sure though);
    • I can see your point, so I've tweaked it slightly.
  • "Two Royal Navy vessels—aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious and frigate HMS Argyll were ordered to sail to the area, as was the ARG". I wonder if there shouldn't be an emdash after Argyll in this sentence? Additionally, should there be a "the" in front of "aircraft carrier" and "frigate"?
    • Yes on the emdash; I think the sentence works better without definite articles for "frigate" and "aircraft carrier" (though a naval expert may tell me I'm wrong)
  • "the paras". I wonder if this shouldn't be "the Paras" as a defacto proper noun. Not sure, just thinking out loud...
    • I thought about this with Operation Barras, and I'm still not sure; I used lower case there so I followed suit here. I'd be open to changing it if others think it should be treated as a proper noun, but I'm reluctant to do it unilaterally in case an FAC reviewer thought differently.
  • the duplicate link checker tool reports the following examples of potential overlink: Lungi International Airport; Tony Blair; Royal Air Force; Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Foday Sankoh; West Side Boys; Liberia; Strategic Defence Review;
    • I've done some unlinking; I tend to link most things once in the lead and once in the body, and the few I've left that don't adhere to that rule I think are justified because of the distance between the links.
  • in the References also, David Richards is probably overlinked;
    • I wondered about that myself, but I usually link publishers/publications/locations every time in the references section, so I thought "why would I not do the same for an author?"
  • "The STTTs also formed a small special forces unit". The link to "Special forces" here probably should be moved to an earlier mention of "special forces" . AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I've put a link in on the first mention after the lead (I didn't think it was especially relevant in the lead given the proximity of the link to Operation Barras), but left the link you mention because I think it's worthwhile given that the FRU is a red link. Thanks for the review, and for the compliment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• CommentSupport
  • No dab links [249] (no action required).
  • External links check out [250] (no action required).
  • One of images lacks Alt Text [251] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Done. Had forgotten that one.
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a few issues with reference consolidation:
    • Dorman, p. 98. (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • I can't find more than one occurrence of this
    • Dorman, p. 9. (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • Fixed.
    • Dorman 98 (Multiple references are using the same name)
      • Also fixed.
  • Images review completed above.
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [252] (no action required).
  • May 2000 in mentioned three times in two sentences in the lead? This is a bit repetitive IMO.
    • Reworded slightly.
  • "Sierra Leone is a country in West Africa, close to the equator...", I know we are meant to write so that our articles could be understood by a 12-year old but I wonder if we could assume that our readers know Sierra Leone is a country? Perhaps reword? (minor nitpick - suggestion only).
    • Well, according to one of the books, the British public were more likely to think it was a model of car. ;) Seriously, though, I take your point, but I think that's the easiest way to phrase it without torturing the prose.
      • No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "though the British influence began...", perhaps more simiply just: "though British influence began..."
    • Done.
  • "He was replaced in 1962 by his brother, Albert." It seems a little informal to refer to a prime minister by his first name only (suggestion only).
    • I think it's the best way to refer to him in the confusing situation where he succeeded his brother.
      • Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "In 1978, Sierra Leone formally became a one-party state and the APC became the only legal political party...", the abbrev APC needs to be formally introduced at first use.
    • A relic of an earlier draft; done.
  • this is a bit repetitive: "a side effect of which was to effectively sideline UNAMSIL", "side" and "sideline" and "effect" and "effectively". Perhaps reword?
    • Reworded slightly.
  • Missing word here: "while others patrolled the streets of Freetown in attempt", suggest: "while others patrolled the streets of Freetown in an attempt.."
    • Done.
  • Is there a comma missing here: "and the SLA the only force capable of confronting the RUF..."? Specifically should it be: "and the SLA, the only force capable of confronting the RUF..."
    • No; the Unholy Alliance and the SLA (together) were the only force.
  • I wonder if casualties (for both sides) could be included in the Operation Barras section? Anotherclown (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me. I've added my support now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "The next day [7 May], British soldiers began securing the airport and other areas that would be essential to an evacuation, which began on 8 May. The majority of those who wished to leave were evacuated within the first two days of the operation": It's a judgment call, but you tend to give more detail on precisely when things happened than I'm used to seeing at A-class. Maybe: "Over the next three days, British soldiers began securing the airport and other essential areas, and evacuated the majority of those who wished to leave" - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've re-worked this a little, but things happened quickly, so I think some of the detail is justified
    • Not a problem, I just wanted to bring up that that level of date-detail might not be what Wikipedians are used to (not saying it's bad, that's not my call, really) ... but I see you're already on board. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Operation Palliser was the first large-scale intervention by British forces during war": during the war, right? - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Made moot by a previous re-write of the opening.
• "they [did stuff], but did not come into direct contact with the RUF until 17 May, when they attacked a British position ..." "They" means two different groups here, and the "but" makes it sound like it was a long time until the encounter ... it looks like it was a few days. Maybe: "they [did stuff], and on 17 May came into direct contact with the RUF, who attacked a British position ..."
  • It was a few days (nine, I think), but they deployed to a war zone with a rebel force very rapidly advancing, so it's interesting that the two didn't meet straight away. I'd previously re-written it a bit, though.
    • Understood. - Dank (push to talk)
• "During the training mission, a patrol returning from a visit to Jordanian peacekeepers was taken captive by a militia group known as the West Side Boys on 25 August.": Generally, keep time qualifiers together, particularly if you like to us a lot of them: "On 25 August, during the training mission, a patrol ..."
  • I've removed the dates altogether; I don't think they're necessary in the lead
• "agreed ceasefire conditions": agreed to ceasefire conditions
  • "agreed ceasefire conditions" reads fine to me (agreed conditions for a ceasefire) as opposed to "agreed to ceasefire conditions" (agreed to somebody else's conditions).
    • The short answer is: I could be talked out of it, but I think I'm not on board, because this is Wikipedia, and anything that looks like a typo will draw edits ... and to anyone unfamiliar with BritEng, that looks like a typo. The longer answer is that language patterns change more rapidly in Britain that elsewhere in the native-English-speaking world (in a sense, everyone's in the English-speaking world these days), and Brits are fonder of special idioms, too. I don't want to commit a faux-pas and trample on British sensibilities, but when we're talking about Wikipedia, I don't think it's out of place to ask everyone to give at least a little thought to other varieties of English. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I know we Brits do funny things, but I can't see this as a Brits vs. Yanks thing. "Agreed to" in this context means something completely different to what's intended. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        • As it happens, I've rephrased this as part of a broader rewrite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The British armed forces continued their involvement in Sierra Leone long after the initial intervention—the United Kingdom provided the largest contribution of personnel to the international training team, advised on a restructuring of the country's armed forces in 2002, and British troops were sent to the area to ensure stability in March 2003 while several indictments and arrests were made by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.": Too long, and "UK provided ..., advised ..., and British troops" is nonparallel. I'm thinking an "and" before "advised" and a full stop after "2002" (and lose the "and") will do it.
  • Rewritten.
• "The operation in Sierra Leone is a little-discussed aspect of the Premiership of Tony Blair.", "Experience from Sierra Leone influenced later restructuring of the British infantry, particularly with regard to the retention of high-readiness forces, and validated several concepts ...": aspect, experience, influenced, regard, and concepts are words journalists love because, more often than not, they don't mean anything. Nonfalsifiability and vagueness can be useful for journalists (seriously ... I'm not being sarcastic) when they're trying not to get sued and not to irritate anyone (and when they're writing on a deadline ... finding the just the right words can take time), but vague words are bad when you're actually trying to convey information. Btw, I'm not sure what it means that the aspect is little-discussed ... who isn't discussing it?
  • I removed that bit (it's a quote from Blair, which appears near the bottom). The article gets more specific in the body; I've tried to avoid excess detail in the lead.
    • Yes ... and that's actually a perfect good use for vague words, to remove detail from the lead ... but sparingly. - Dank (push to talk)
• "It was the first unilateral ...": long, winding sentence
  • Rewritten.
• Also check out my edits to the lead.
• It's a long article, and there's a bit more here than I'm going to have time to do, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• I did skim a little past the point where I stopped. It's okay for A-class; I would oppose the article in its current state at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments; I'll have a more detailed look at prose when I can. If you find time to read more of the article, your comments would be welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • My sense is it's not ready for FAC. I apologize, of course ... I've been able to shoulder more of the work in the past, but I'm really into my new GLAM project and I'm going to have to cut back a little on copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• suggest the article "The" should precede British intervention... in order to make it a full sentence.
• in the lead, suggest you state who captured Sankoh.
  • Done.
• I don't consider the "Premiership of Tony Blair" is a proper noun, so premiership should not have an initial capital.
  • Quite right.
• suggest "However, Peter Hain, (British) Minister of State for Africa"
  • I think it would be redundant, since the sentence continues suggested that the British government had no choice, and anybody who clicks the link gets is a British Labour Party politician.
• suggest "future UN peacekeeping operations, would have been" has an errant comma
  • Indeed.
• suggest " In response to the deterioration, British troops—at Richards' request—were flown to Dakar, Senegal, to decrease the time it would take them to deploy to Sierra Leone, and 1 PARA (with D Company, 2 PARA—replacing A Company, who were on exercise in Jamaica—along with several attached assets including artillery) was ordered to the Air Movements Centre in South Cerney, Gloucestershire." is far too long and should be broken up.
  • It is; I need to check a fact in the source, so I'll come back to this.
• suggest "The ARG en route, the paras were able to deploy rapidly and with minimal equipment, knowing that they would not have to wait long for reinforcements and supplies should they be needed" needs a "With" or similar in front of it.
  • Perhaps it's me, but 'with X in place, Y could go ahead' makes perfect sense,and the "with" would be redundant (and sound a little odd).
• suggest "hotel, from where" should be " hotel, from which" and "and from Lungi they would be flown to Dakar" should form the basis of a separate sentence stating what aircraft were used for the evacuation.
  • Done the first part; I don't know if the aircraft (C-130s and possibly a couple of TriStars) are worth mentioning
• discretely should be discreetly
  • Done
• suggest " The deployment of British troops to Sierra Leone had lifted morale and halted the RUF advance on Freetown, an unintended consequence of which was to effectively sideline UNAMSIL and there were concerns that violence would resume once the British left." needs attention.
  • Re-worked a little.
• suggest you wikilink mission creep.
  • I don't think the meaning of the phrase is really ambiguous, and that article's not great—it just gives a few examples that somebody thinks are most important without addressing the academic issue.
    • if my non-military mates are any indication, most people don't know what mission creep is, the article may be improved. Not really a reason not to wikilink it.
      • It is a reason not to link it, because links are intended to improve a reader's understanding, but I'll concede this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• the situation of the UNMO's is not clear. We they detained (ie captives needing to be released) or merely holed up with besieged UNAMSIL garrisons? This lack of clarity is throughout.
  • I'm not sure what's unclear. There are two sets of UNMOs mentioned in the article (the group at Makeni who escaped and the group including Andy Harrison, who were freed by force). The first group would fit the description of "merely holed up with besieged UNAMSIL garrisons", and the second were held directly by the RUF until they were allowed to join nearby UNAMSIL troops who were besieged by the RUF.
    • I'll re-look and make some specific suggestions.
• suggest "Such a force could not be assembled while maintaining commitments elsewhere, and British forces' involvement in Sierra Leone was politically unpopular in Westminster, so the use of British forces to confront the RUF directly was ruled out." is clunky and need work.
  • I didn't think it was that bad, but I've copy-edited it slightly.
• suggest you wikilink peace enforcement.
  • The article as it is wouldn't add anything to readers' understanding
    • Still, see my point above.
      • There's no point in linking to it if it a reader wouldn't come away from it with a better understanding of the concept; this especially true when the article is copied and pasted from a US Army manual. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• overuse of the emdash throughout, particularly where sentence should be restructured or broken up.
• the commonly used and official abbreviation for the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment is "2 R ANGLIAN", not 2 RAR, which is the commonly used abbreviation for the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment.
  • [253]
• per 2 RAR, 1 R IRISH not 1 RIR.
  • [254]
• per above, the unit title is 22nd Special Air Service Regiment (22 SAS).
  • [255]
  • Do you have sources that the abbreviations you suggest are correct and the ones in the article at present are incorrect? Certainly RAR and RIR are the abbreviations used in the sources.
    • The sources are definitely mistaken/lazy. I've linked to the British Army website under each one. (OR warning - I served with the Brits and they are the official abbreviations for those battalions/regiments).
      • I've removed RAR and RIR; none of those sources says anything about 22 SAS though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• "battle group" is usually a reference to a battalion-sized force, not a company-sized one. The usual Commonwealth terminology is "company group".
  • Fixed.
• "A Company, 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment" is unnecessary in Operation Barras, "A Company 1 PARA" would suffice.
  • Indeed.
• suggest you reverse "At least 25 West Side Boys and one British soldier were killed in the operation" as it currently makes it sound like "at least" one British soldier was killed.
  • I had put it in numerical order, but that's a good point.
• "Later in the same year, the British Army advised the Sierra Leonean government during a restructure of the country's armed forces into a unified command, which became the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces in early 2002" needs work.
  • Re-worked slightly.
• no sense of whether there are any UK Forces in SL now.
  • I've read nothing to suggest the training teams are no longer there, but I honestly don't know.
    • See [256]
• What is the DSF?
  • Explained and linked.
• A bit miffed at the lack of any photos of Brits in SL in the article. A map showing the major towns/locations of interest would be of benefit, such as File:Sierra Leone-Mappa.gif on Commons. Also perhaps a RAF Chook instead of a US one? per File:Chinook.hc2.za677.arp.jpg or File:Raf ch-47 chinook hc2 za707 arp.jpg
  • I've replaced a couple of images with two of your suggestions; thanks.
• also, Tony Blair and special forces have duplicate links.
  • TB unlinked; the second SF link I think is justified given that it's in a sentence discussing the formation of an SF unit

Overall, needs quite a bit of work on prose, I tend to agree with Dank. Needs a very close run through or a GOCE c/e.

Thanks for your comments; I'll look at the prose in more detail over the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the prose has improved enough for A class now. If it goes to FAC we can work through any remaining point then. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's definitely going to FAC (I'm not really interested in A-class for its own sake, but as FAC preparation), so any more comment you had would be appreciated. Feel free to put them on the article's talk page if you're worried about keeping the ACR on-point; I promise I'll give them the same consideration I would at FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very comprehensive and interesting article - great work

• The lead seems rather long - I'd suggest chopping this back to three paras
  • I think the length is justified, given the length of the article and the relative size of the topic
    • It might be justified, but it's pretty off-putting to readers. I know that I blanched at it the first couple of times I went to review this article ;) Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I've trimmed it a little.
        • That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• The sentence which begins with 'They assisted with the evacuation of besieged peacekeepers' is rather long and complex
  • I've split it up a bit.
• Ditto the sentence which starts with 'It was the first unilateral British operation since his election in 1997'
  • Ditto.
• "a deployment of a small force to support UN peacekeeping operations in East Timor in 1999" - the British did more than just 'support' this operation; the Gurkha infantry company and detachment from the SBS were important elements of the Australian-led force during the initial phase of the operation
  • So I've learned from subsequent research (an interesting topic for an article, methinks, but I have my hands full atm); I'll see about improving this
• "after which Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the British ambassador " - which British ambassador? (the British ambassador to the UN I presume?)
  • Indeed.
• The sentence which begins with 'Two Royal Navy vessels' is a bit over-complex and confusing; I'd suggest splitting this into a sentence on the forces which were dispatched at this time, and another sentence on the forces which were placed on alert for a potential deployment.
  • Done.
• "Jones requested in the afternoon of 8 May that Richards begin the operation and it began almost immediately." - 'begin' followed shortly by 'began' sounds a bit odd
  • Tweaked.
• Do we know where the Nimrod R1 flew from? (Dakar, I presume)
  • Ascension, I think; I didn't think it was worth mentioning really
    • Fair enough (though I think it's interesting) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I checked the books, and the Nimrod and a tanker were flown to Ascension for the purpose. Interesting, certainly, but I'm less certain that it's directly relevant...
• Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration is linked twice
  • I know; the links are a long way apart and the term is important but not necessarily well-known
    • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• " British forces' involvement in Sierra Leone was politically unpopular in Westminster" - this is a bit unclear; was the deployment unpopular within parliament, or within the government departments? (if it's the later 'politically' isn't technically appropriate, though it's probably not terribly far from the truth!)
  • The Tories used it to beat the (Labour) government round the head with in the House of Commons, basically.
    • But does that make it 'unpopular'? Presumably most, if not almost all, of the Labour MPs supported it, and they had a comfortable majority at the time. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The LibDems joined in as well, and Labour has never been very good at getting its MPs to all agree on something, so I think "unpopular" is probably accurate.
• "British forces were sent to the area in March 2003 to ensure stability" - how large was the force deployed at this time?
  • I don't know; I think it was a couple of naval vessels and a Royal Marine detachment; I'll check the books.
  • It was a Royal Navy frigate and a company of Gurkhas; I've added this to the article
• I have a vague memory that the National Army Museum in London had a small display on this deployment when I visited it in 2011. If it's a) still there (or was ever there!) and b) the museum's photo policy allows it, photos of this display may provide a source of images to enliven this article (I've checked my photos, and if this exhibit existed I didn't photograph it)
  • Their website mentions it briefly; I'll see if I can get there next time I'm in London, but I've no idea when that will be and I'd have to borrow a camera from somebody
• Also as a suggestion, you could create further maps from Open Street Map screenshots - its coverage of Sierra Leone seems OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no idea how to do that; do you think the article would benefit from more maps? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • A map of the general area around Freetown would be useful. To create a map, scroll to the area in open street map, take a screen shot, paste the resulting image in an graphics editor (MS paint or equivalent works fine for this purpose) and crop it if necessary and then upload the resulting map under a creative commons license (which are compatible with Open Street map's licensing conditions [257]) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Let me see what I can do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments - this is in really good shape on a subject I am likewise surprised we had nothing substantial about.

• In the Mission expansion section did you mean Westminster or should it be linked to Palace of Westminster.
  • I don't know; it's a metonym, but I'm sure an article about a building works much better than an article about the place
• The Parachute Regiment's Pathfinder Platoon - I know what you mean but in reality its an all arms/brigade formation perhaps just The Pathfinder Platoon.
  • All the books refer to it as belonging to the Parachute Regiment, but OK
• 22 Regiment, Special Air Service normally written 22 Special Air Service Regiment or just D Squadron Special Air Service.
  • Done

Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Operation Trio

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently undergone a GAN review and I consider it ready for ACR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: is there a contemporaneous map (perhaps of the NDH)? I found it a bit hard to contextualise the area of operation with only modern boundaries. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

G'day, the short answer is no. I have asked a couple of editors that have done map work for articles I've worked on before, but no dice thus far. The eastern boundary of the NDH and the current eastern B&H border are essentially the same (ie the Drina). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: I am hopeful this will be done soon. The editor in question is working on another map and hopefully will do this location map next. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We now have a template and map for the NDH (both lots of borders). I've substituted the map, let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Better - is there any way to make it smaller without losing the detail? Also, what's the dashed line? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've explained the dashed line (the Vienna line, between the Italian and German zones), and reduced the map slightly, but any more and I'll have to start removing the locator pogs. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tinkered with the original map and cropped it down to the eastern NDH and reduced it to 200px. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Much better. I'm sorry this got bogged down over a single map. (A scale would be a further improvement.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. I got to learn how to create location map templates, always happy when I learn something new. Happy with the images now? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentSupport
  • No dab links [258] (no action required).
  • External links check out [259] (no action required).
  • A couple of the images lack Alt Text [260] so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required)
  • Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required)
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [261] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links found (no action required).
  • "General Bader was named tactical commander of the combined forces...", should just be "Bader was named tactical commander...", rm rank following previously formally introducing subject per WP:SURNAME.
  • "overall command of the Italian Second Army, commanded by General Roatta...", just "Roatta" as above.
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "The original planned start date of 15 April was pushed back when the Italians had problems transporting to their start positions and later had trouble establishing lines of communication across the Adriatic." Specifically "...Italians had problems transporting to their start positions...". Perhaps consider something like: "The original planned start date of 15 April was pushed back when the Italians had problems moving to their start positions and later had trouble establishing lines of communication across the Adriatic due to a lack of transport." (suggestion only)
  • "In the wake of Francetić's offensive, the Germans moved pre-emptively to clear the area...", suggest "In the wake of Francetić's offensive, the Germans pre-emptively moved to clear the area..." (suggestion only)
    • Note: the above four prose issues have been taken care of. - Dank (push to talk) 00:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of references that don't appear to have corresponding short citations:
    • Burgwyn, H. James (2005). Empire on the Adriatic: Mussolini's Conquest of Yugoslavia 1941–1943. New York: Enigma. ISBN 1-92963-135-9.
    • Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2004. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-271-01629-9
  • Unless there are used in an inline citation they should probably be moved to a "Further reading" section. See WP:LAYOUT.
  • Overall this is a concise and well written article, which has been completed with an obvious high degree of attention to detail. Only a couple of minor issues to deal with / discuss that I could see. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• G'day Anotherclown, all done. I didn't add alt text to the map as I think the caption covers it. Thanks very much for the review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good, adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• I'm seeing too many cases of "as a result" and other cause-and-effect words ... enough to weaken, rather than strengthen, the arguments. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe I have removed or modified most of the "cause and effect" words and phrases. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Much better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• The last sentence is a little unclear to me.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've tidied it up a bit, hopefully it is clearer now. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: just a few nitpicks from me:
  • in the infobox, currently you use the strength field for units, I wonder if this shouldn't be changed
    • I assume you mean to a numerical strength. I've been back through the sources and haven't been able to get figures for the various units involved, so I think listing units is as good as it gets.
      • Sorry, I didn't explain that well. What I meant is that instead of "|strength1= ", you could use "|units1= " to display units instead of strengths. Only a minor point, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • in the lead, should the quote "confederacy of local warlords" have a citation next to it?
    • whoops, misuse of scare quotes. Fixed.
  • "ten towns and 92 villages" --> "10 towns and 92 villages";
    • Fixed.
  • in the Planning section, the link to the Second Army (Italy) should be moved to the first mention (where you talk about General Mario Roatta);
    • Fixed.
  • in the Further reading section, place of publiction for the Ramet work? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
      • Thanks for the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Arthur W. Radford

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I like this one. Especially the pic in the infobox. Okay, comments:

• Commander Air Force, Pacific Fleet should be Commander, Naval Air Forces, Pacific Fleet and linked to Commander, Naval Air Forces
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Link Carrier Division Eleven to Carrier Strike Group Eleven (most of your red links are actually blue)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Similarly, Carrier Division Six is Carrier Strike Group Six
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• he was ordered onto the light aircraft carrier USS Independence (CVL-22) What does this mean?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• How about adding the WWII campaigns to the infobox?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air, visited Radford and was so impressed with him that he ordered rear admiral John H. Towers to transfer Radford to a newly formed training division. But you haven't said what Towers' job was. (And it gets more confusing below when you mention him again, because he is no longer in the same job.)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• However, in an attack on the night of 26 November, Edward O'Hare, the group commander of the Enterprise air group, was shot down and killed. I'm not sure what the significance of this is. Suggest dropping the sentence.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• in March 1944 he was ordered to Washington, D.C. and appointed as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations. He assumed this new duty on 1 April under Vice Admiral John S. McCain, Sr. No, that is not correct.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• After six months in this duty, new Chief of Naval Operations Aubrey W. Fitch returned Radford to the Pacific theater. No,no, no. The CNO throughout was Admiral Ernest J. King. Look these people up on the Wikipedia. (more to come) Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• he was appointed as commander of the First Carrier Task Force in Carrier Division SixNot quite right.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Radford flew to Ulithi where he reported to McCain You should say what McCain's command was (TF 58)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Returning to the Third Fleet and being re-designated Task Group 38.4 No, the Fifth Fleet became the Third again, so the TF and TG numbers changed.
  • Yes, this was July 1945. 5th Fleet became 3rd Fleet for the last time in April 1945. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Radford was promoted to vice admiral in late 1945 Can we do better than that? Vague phrases make it hard for the poor schnooks trying to paraphrase us.
  • The reference only gives the year, and the other sources confirm it was between V-E Day and 1 Jan 1946. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Radford also questioned the Air Force idea that U.S. air power should focus on nuclear weapons as its primary deterrent to war Can you double-check this? Because my recollection is that Radford was a strong supporter of naval nuclear weapons; but I am on holiday and my books are not here, so I am doing all this from memory...
  • Clarified. He was an opponent specifically of USAF over-relying on nuclear-delivery airpower, not of nuclear weapons in general. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• You should note what UNC stands for
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Still, the trip made enough of a good impression on Eisenhower that he sought to nominate Radford to be his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff I think you mean Radford rather than the trip. The point is that in acquiescing to Truman's decision to remove MacArthur, the Joint Chiefs, and Bradley in particular, had become politicized, and Eisenhower removed them all. So Radford, whose career had been in a tailspin after the revolt, suddenly found himself recalled from exile.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Following the end of his second term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Radford opted to retire from the Navy in 1957. Following this, Do we have to repeat "following"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Radford died at 77 on 17 August 1973I think you mean at age 77?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh, that should do it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments at this stage:

Early life

• "After several months of tutoring at an Annapolis, Maryland, he..." - at an? I think the location should mentioned at first mention of the academy. Also was he a tutor or was he receiving tuition?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• "among other students" doesn't read well to me - just a suggestion, perhaps "to his fellow students".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Should 59 be 59th?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Military career

• Is the use of tour of duty appropriate for the navy? Should it be posting or something similar? I suggest combining the first two sentences; maybe "Radford's first posting was aboard the battleship USS South Carolina,[2] on which he saw his first duty during World War I."
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• was his second tour on South Carolina?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Aviation Training Division

• "Radford convinced Congressman Carl Vinson, chair of the House Naval Affairs Committee." Convinced him to do what?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• repeated use of established, professionals and variants in last sentences of this section.

Sea duty

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• "This operation successful, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz sent Task Force 15, with Lexington, under Rear Admiral Charles A. Pownall, and Radford and Pownall steamed for Tarawa Atoll to strike it." Repeated use of Pownall, suggest rephrasing. Also, was Radford still commanding Princeton?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Major combat operations

• Repeated use of operation in first few sentences.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• In first para, Radford commands Task Group 50.2; in second he commands Carrier Division Eleven?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• "make learn" - might need to explain this term?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

• "In these years," should that be "In this position" or "While in this position"?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• The first sentence repeats the last part of the last sentence of the previous para
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• In the para starting "In 1956, Radford..." there is repeated use of "reduce" and "reductions"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick passover of the text and fixed the odd typo. Otherwise, this article looks good. Zawed (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

All good Ed!, adding my support now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• What evidence is there to link the modern Carrier Strike Groups with the WWII-era Carrier Divisions of the same number? The Navy doesn't seem to make the connection anywhere that I looked. The page for CSG 7 only traced its ancestry back to 1956, not Carrier Division 7 and CSG 11 only seems to go back to the late '60s.
  • Jumping in here: the Carrier Divisions were renamed Carrier Strike Groups in 1973. [262] Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You seem to be correct, but that's not really what I was talking about. The Navy does not trace lineage and honors the same way that the Army or the RN do where the units of the same name or number are considered to be the same unit, just temporarily inactive at times. Battle stars/honours in the USN are only valid for the actual ship that earned them; those earned by earlier ships are irrelevant. In the RN battle honours accumulate under a ship's name and the current incarnation is considered to have earned all of them. And much the same is true of US Army units. The official history of CSG 7 makes no reference to the lineage of CarDiv 7 [263] and the capper is [264] which explicitly states that lineage and history cannot be traced to all units using the same name/number, p. 541. To do so a unit must have been in continuous existence, regardless of its designation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, but see also the articles on Carrier Strike Groups One, Two, Three, Six and Ten, which all reference the WWII Carrier Divisions. Now, although the USN does not handle things the same as the Army or RAN, the idea of the link is to direct the reader to where more information can be found, and by and large this is the case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • You might want to look a little more closely at the sources for those articles because I found only one that was from an official Navy website (CSG 10) and that traces back to Destroyer Flotilla 2, not a carrier division. And from reading the other histories of the CSGs they all mention ancestry from a postwar CruDesRon, not the wartime CarDivs. I certainly can't find a conclusive source, but I'm about 99% satisfied that there's no official lineage/traditions connecting the wartime divisions with the modern units. GlobalSecurity.org really isn't a RS and doesn't count; that's the primary source for WW2 connection in the current articles. So AFAIK, these should all be redlinks, but I won't hold it against you, Ed, if you choose to ignore me in this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't know much about Naval unit lineage, so I don't want to mess with it either way. —Ed!^(talk) 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Totally irrelevant to this review, but I found it very odd to note that I've been to every place Radford lived in the Early Life para.
  • Well that's unusual. What are the odds? —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I know, how many people have ever been to Grinnell, Iowa?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Fighter squadrons aboard 2 battleships and a seaplane tender? Is somebody calling scouting units fighter squadrons? Tucker seems to be confused here.
  • Agreed. Changing this to "aircraft squadron units" so as to avoid SYNTH. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a terrible term. Is there some other source that you can use that covers that part of Radford's early career? The DANFS entries for the ships might mention what squadrons they hosted and you might be able to track them down through [265] Mind you, it will immensely tedious, but you should be able to find Scouting One, if that was his squadron, in there somewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I changed the word to units as that's more generic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Now VF-1B was a fighter squadron and should be called that.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• established training literature should be "wrote" training literature.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Change "american football" to just football. This is an American-centric article afterall.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• How could Radford be assigned as a carrier division commander before he got command of Division 11? I suspect that Tucker meant that he was tapped for division command because he spent several months learning division command before getting his own division.
  • Agreed. Changed the wording here too. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't actually think that Galvanic was the first time that the Americans faced Japanese land-based air power while the ground pounders fought it out. That dubious honor goes to Guadalcanal, IMO.
  • Ugh, that's also right. Clearly this book needed some more proofing. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• This confuses me since I don't know the hierarchy here First Carrier Task Force, Carrier Division Six Did he command both or was one or the other superior to the other?
  • The task force was a sub-unit of the carrier division. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'll need to look at this one again, now that you've answered my question.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The carrier division was primarily an permanent administrative unit, the task group an ad hoc combat one. A task group in 1944 usually consisted of one or two carrier divisions, one or two cruiser divisions and a destroyer squadron. Now the CarDivs and CruDivs had flag officers commanding them, so the senior CarDiv commander became the task group commander and the senior CruDiv commander commanded the screen. (Note that the latter might actually be senior to the former, but the senior carrier admiral was always in command.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • If it is wrong, then it is my fault and not Ed's. I would unlink rather than red link, as no ship divisions have articles as such. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Who did Radford replace in TG 38.1?
  • Added the name. (a redlink) —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Oooh. We should write him up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• What is meant by this? Radford's force continued its use of night raids, which by this point were effective in repelling Japanese attacks on U.S. Navy ships Does this mean preemptively attacking Japanese aircraft before they took off, or is this some sort of night CAP?
  • Both. The source indicates he supported night fighters and used them both to defend his ships at night and to attack Japanese aircraft they spotted. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sounds more like night CAP coupled with fighter sweeps around his ships than actual raids since I'd associate the latter term with attacks over Japanese territory in daylight. Can you find a source that clarifies this? Check the online docs from the Navy Library at [266] for possible material.
      • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• The DCNO (Air) has no formal relationship to the Secretary of the Navy. Is there a link for DCNO (Air)?
  • No unfortunately, and I don't know enough about the position to create one. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but redlink it anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• What are fast-attack carrier aircraft? As opposed to slow-attack carrier aircraft. If you mean jets, then say so, although this is way early for any significant deployments of Navy jet-powered attack aircraft, AFAIK.
  • • • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Jumping in again. Fast attack carriers were the large ones, as opposed to the smaller slower anti-submarine warfare (ASW) (or escort) carriers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, so I was parsing the phrase wrongly by focusing on the aircraft, not their carrier. Clarify the wording then to emphasize that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• When was Radford appointed High Commissioner?
  • No source gives a specific date. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I was just wondering how long he was Commissioner since it seems like a few months at best.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, he spent a very short time as VCNO before being nominated as CINCPAC. It's not unheard of, much like Martin Dempsey as the Army Chief of Staff, likely the result of an unexpected political shift in favor from one general to another. —Ed!^(talk) 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Shouldn't most of the last para in the Postwar section be moved to the Commander Pacific Feet or Revolt of the Admirals section?
  • No, all of that occurred while Radford was VCNO and before his nomination. Only after he became CINCPACFLT did those debates intensify into the "revolt." —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• This seems a bit too fluffy: gained an in-depth understanding of the sociopolitical issues facing each nation and the region as a whole. Learned about I could accept, but this seems like something from a resume or something.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• The caption in the picture of Radford and McArthur is wrong. MacArthur is on the right.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Fix the wording in the ribbon array: it's the "Order of the Bath", not Order of Bath.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• This seems kind of redundant: accorded to a former four-star admiral, and a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff The primary difference is that there's a higher-ranking and more numerous crowd for ranking individuals vs. a lieutenant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 14:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [267] (no action required).
  • External links check out [268] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text [269] so you might consider adding it (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Most images are PD as seem appropriate to the article, couple of points:
    • File:Uss south carolina bb.jpg lacks author, date etc so its difficult to assess its claims for PD.
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again the Earwig Tool doesn't appear to be working but given the editor's previous contributions I have no reason to suspect any issues with copyright violations [270]. Google searches reveal nothing (no action required).
  • One duplicate link: Ernest J. King.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Is the terminology right here: "In his over 40 years of military service..." Specifically do Americans refer to service in the Navy as "military service"? Or would "naval service" be more accurate? British and Australian English (AFAIK) makes a distinction between the two, that is the military is Army and Air Force (and Navy is obviously naval).
    • That's the norm in the U.S. anyway. I've never heard of Naval service being a special distinction. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems a bit redundant to me: "...Navy's naval aviator training programs...", consider instead: "...naval aviator training programs..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I know this has been the subject of deliberations above but I wonder if this might be further reworded: "...and served with aircraft squadron units...", couldn't this be more simply worded as "aircraft squadrons" (suggestion only).
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems redundant: "training and refining their aircraft operations...", perhaps just "training and refining aircraft operations..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Presentation here I think: "On the night of 17–18 September..." probably should be "On the night of 17/18 September..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "...missing the battle of Leyte Gulf which took place...", as a noun "Battle of Leyte Gulf" should be capitalised.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems a little awkward: "...Radford was a principal opponent in a plan to merge the uniformed services...", consider instead: "Radford was a principal opponent to a plan to merge the uniformed services..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "...a political Navy victory...", might this work better as "...a political victory for the Navy..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "As commander of U.S. forces in the Philippines and Formosa...", should this be "The Philippines"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Radford died at age 77 on 17 August 1973...", do we know what from?
    • Natural causes, presumably. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There seems to be little infomation included about his personal life. Is anything like this available in the sources? Specifically was he married? Did he have any offspring? etc.
    • The only reference to a wife was from his memoirs, which I added. I had been trying to avoid primary sources so it wouldn't be a problem at FAC, but I think this detail shouldn't be a big issue. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this looks quite good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • That's everything. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • All my points have been addressed so I've added my support. Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Colin Hall Simpson

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Another article in the series on Australian generals of World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I made a few tweaks and have the following comments:

• the images seem appropriately licenced (I added US tags where appropriate);
• in the infobox it says his years of service were 1915-1946, but the article states that he joined the Army in 1914;
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• the wikilink for 49th (Prahran) Battalion currently points to the 29th Battalion (Australia), is this right?
  • Don't think so. Re-linked to the 14th Infantry Battalion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• do we know what Simpson did to be mentioned in despatches on 4 January 1917?
  • No. There is no recommendation in the War Memorial files, and the mid is part of a very long list of names from Sir Douglas Haig. It's a bit of a mystery to me, because his unit was not in action. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• "where he was gassed and wounded for the second time". I might of missed it, but when was he wounded the first time?
  • Going to have to look this up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• inconsistent "I Corps" v "the I Corps";
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• "He commanded the 39th Infantry Battalion from 1 July 1929 to 30 June 1933": do we know why he went back to the infantry?
  • No, but it was not unusual. The signal corps was small, and there were not too many jobs for a lieutenant colonel. jack Stevens did the same thing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, that's kind of what I was thinking. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• the infobox mentions his involvement in the Aitape-Wewak and Bougainville campaigns, but these doesn't seem to be mentioned in the prose;
  • He is seen at Aitape in the picture on the right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Added a pic of him on Bougainville. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Works for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• the "Corps Memoranda No 3" link appears to be dead. Is there an archived version that can be linked to? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Aaarghh cursed link rot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for fixing it for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No worries. Added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments - As I seem to find when reviewing your articles, this is in good order and most of what I have commented on is nitpicking stuff:

• Simpson's postnominals include the VD - this is not mentioned in the main body of the article. Also, according to the wikilink that award was phased out in 1907? I'm not an expert on these so would defer to your experience but I'm wondering if perhaps it should be the ED?
  • Nope. Double checked against his Army file. This article is correct; the linked article is wrong. The VD was superseded by the TD in the UK in 1908, but not in Australia, where there was no Territorial Army. The VD continued to be awarded here until it was superseded by the ED in 1930. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm just a bit puzzled because if I have read the article correctly, he joined the Militia in 1914, so his 20 years to qualify for the VD would have come up in 1934, after it was superseded. But if that is what is in his records, that's fine. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The period of active service in the Great War counted double. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Ah, got it. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• The citation in the First World War section - this might look better in the quote template.
  • It already is. Something to do with the pic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• In the South West Pacific section, I think the first sentence would read better if it was made more explicit that I Corps was being transferred to the SWP.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• It might be my system, but the first image in the SWP section is just showing a linked caption? All the others are fine.
  • Could be your system. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Damn my system. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Simpson, who was on an inspection tour of New Guinea, was on hand for the first message." Perhaps that should be "Simpson, who was on an inspection tour of New Guinea, was on hand for receipt of the first message sent to Port Moresby.?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The large numbers of women in Signals..." Should that be something like "The large numbers of women serving in signal units..."
  • Done. Even today there are large numbers of women in Sigs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Zawed (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [271] (no action required).
  • External links check out [272] (no action required).
  • A couple of images lack Alt Text [273] so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [274] (no action required).
  • Duplicate links ok.
  • I reviewed for GA and have re-read the article again and believe it also meets the A class criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Australian Signal Corps", "Australian Corps of Signals": are both right?
  • Yes. Officiallly, the corps is the "Australian Corps of Signals" but everyone calls it the "Signal Corps" or just "sigs". I've standarised on "Australian Corps of Signals", although this sounds cumbersome at times. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay ... another option would be to lowercase "signal corps" when you don't want to use the proper name. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Colin_Hall_Simpson#South West Pacific. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Lalakaon

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

This is an old article (mostly written in 2009, when it also passed GA) on an important turning-point in the Arab-Byzantine Wars. I've revisited it over the past few weeks and added a few more details using a source I previously lacked. I feel it now meets A-class criteria and submit it for your criticism and commentary. Constantine ✍ 12:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Images: File:57-manasses-chronicle.jpg needs a US copyright tag, probably PD-100 (to replace PD-70). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Another great article.
  • Background section: " ...the Arab army numbered 40,000 men. Modern estimates lower that number to circa 20,000, while the contemporary Muslim historian Ya'qubi claims that Umar had 8,000 men at his disposal." -- You might want to account for the difference in numbers, probably an exaggerated claim.
  • Battle section: "Al-Tabari records that the emperor himself assumed command of these forces" -- I believe that, as the title referrs to a specific person and a proper noun, it should be "Emperor." Wanted to confirm this.
  • There is a problem with one of the external links. Looks like it is dead and needs replaced. See: [275]
  • Disambiguation and duplicate links show no problems. Images all have author and licensing information. All of the references seem to be working. Just a few quick points. —Ed!^(talk) 17:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Ed. I've fixed the "emperor" (and the "emir", since I was at it), as well as the broken link. On the numbers, they are pretty much guesswork, so I'll check again in my sources to see what exactly they have to say. Constantine ✍ 16:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section on the numbers of Umar's army. Constantine ✍ 20:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Great work. The article has seen substantial improvement. —Ed!^(talk) 20:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment
  • No dab links [276] (no action required).
  • External links check out [277] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text [278] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required)
  • Image review completed above (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [279] (no action required).
  • No duplicate links found (no action required).
  • Are casualties of each side available? Could they be added to the text (and the infobox)?
  • Could strengths be added to the infobox?
  • "where Petronas was located, in hopes of achieving...", should this be "...in hope of achieving..."?
  • Otherwise this looks quite good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. "in hopes of" is correct ("in hope of" isn't), but on re-reading this it is probably not the best way to phrase it, so I rephrased it. On casualties and numbers, well, we don't know anything at all about the Byzantines' numbers, and have contradictory information about the Arabs'. Personally I would go with the rather realistic figure of 8,000 men for Umar's strength, and judging by the totality of his defeat I'd say that almost all were either killed or captured, but since there is a considerable degree of speculation involved I'd rather leave this off the infobox. Constantine ✍ 14:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Please remember to take the hyphen out of "counteroffensive". - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dank. For future reference, could you please explain why the hyphen is wrong/inappropriate? I've certainly seen both forms around, but even our own article uses the hyphenated form. Constantine ✍ 09:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy editors often leave hyphens alone, if they're consistent and even arguably correct, and SOED doesn't have either form. OTOH, oxforddictionaries.com and dictionary.cambridge.org both list "counteroffensive", not the hyphenated form, and it's unhyphenated in AmEng. Do any BritEng dictionaries list the hyphenated form? - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, the printed dictionaries I have also don't display the hyphen, but my browser's BritEng spellchecker does. Odd, that. I'll keep that in mind, thanks. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Shouldn't the River Lalakon be generally capitalized? It is a proper noun.
  • Missed the one in the lede, but I fixed it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Need publisher and location for Kiapidou
• Need location for E-Cheikh, although I can pretty well guess where.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions implemented. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• "was able to brush off the initial Byzantine resistance " - "brush off" felt overly informal to me
• "Nevertheless, the Arabs managed to evade the Byzantines " "evade" felt wrong (given that they were caught in battle). "escape"? (or "the remaining Arabs managed to evade...")
• "Charsianon was raised to a full theme." - it would read more easily if it was something like "and the region of Charsianon...", making it clear that its not a person like the first half of the sentence.
• "The Battle of Lalakaon, as depicted in the Madrid Skylitzes." - should this caption have a full-stop? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Some well-spotted trouble points. I've made the necessary changes, thank you for taking the time. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• " thus ensuring that this nation would come within the Byzantine cultural sphere": I'm not a fan. Can you just say what happened, rather than what had to happen?
• "however": We're getting some resistance to overuse of the word at FAC, and with good reason. Please rewrite each occurence of "however" using different words. If you're like most people who use the word a lot, you'll find that "however" actually means something like ten different things, depending on context ... and words that are this vague generally aren't good choices. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your edits, Dank! Reduced the "however"s, but I don't quite follow you on your first point. This is a summary of the statement made in the main article body. What exactly should I change here? Constantine ✍ 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You're giving a prediction, that the conversion would inevitably lead to a cultural shift. Instead of predicting a change that was likely to happen, state something that actually happened that will convey the general idea to the reader. Which bits of Byzantine culture did Bulgaria import? - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, the point is that by default, a people that accepted a new religion, whether Byzantine Christianity, Islam or Western Christianity, did not simply choose the religion, but imported most of the "parent" culture's norms, ideas and concepts as well. Indeed, choosing a new religion was more a choice to which cultural and political sphere one wanted to become part of, rather than simply which God to pray to. So it is not really a "prediction" at all; from the moment the Bulgarians "chose" their path, they were bound to come under Byzantium's cultural influence, and barring a cataclysmic event they would (and did) keep this influence to this day, since it became part of their national identity. Anyhow, I could rephrase this to remove the "prediction" element ("thus beginning the absorption of the nation within the Byzantine cultural sphere" perhaps?), but I'd rather not go into a discussion of the Byzantine cultural norms adopted by Bulgaria in an article about a battle. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"absorpton ... into" is a little better than "... within". Yes, that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've rephrased both instances. Thanks again for the review! Constantine ✍ 08:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

United States v. The Progressive

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Don't mean to flood A class with articles, but this one had been listed for GA review back in October, and only just got through. At some point I'd like to send it to Featured, but who knows how long that will take. However, although it is a legal article, it is still within the scope of WP:MILHIST, so eligible for a review here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this article at GAN a couple of days ago here Talk:United States v. The Progressive/GA1 and it not only met all the GA criteria, but in my view it surpassed many of them significantly. I consider it is A class material. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Extremely high quality article. Excellent quality improvement efforts by Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs). Quite commendable. — Cirt (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Without question, this meets the criteria for A-Class, and it should be considered for FA. GregJackP Boomer! 03:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments: I made a few minor tweaks, but to be honest I'm out of my depth with this article. I only have a couple of minor nitpicks:
  • inconsistent "hydrogen bomb" v "Hydrogen Bomb" (the section header should probably be "Hydrogen bomb");
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note 74 probably needs a retrieved date;
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • there are a few examples of potential overlink: in the References both Hewlett and Morland are linked three times in a row, which is probably excessive;
    • Used authormask=1 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • other examples of overlink in the text are: Robert Oppenheimer; Hans Bethe; Howard Morland; United States House of Representatives;
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • could ISSNs be added for the journal articles in the References?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • alt text for the magazine cover and Federal building images? [280] AustralianRupert (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at United_States_v._The_Progressive#Legal arguments. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Donald Wilson (general)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

An unusual article on an American air general. Like Kenneth Walker, he was a key figure in the doctrine debates of the 1930s. World War II was not kind to these thinkers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comments Support Comments addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "This unit was called to active duty at Laurel, Maryland in June 1916 for service on the Mexican border," -- this doesn't specify if he actually went on the expedition or if his unit was just garrisoned nearby as it happened.
    • Like almost all NG units, it was the latter. I have clarified this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WWI section: " in response to an appeal from AEF headquarters." -- should spell out what AEF stands for.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "2nd Corps Aeronautical School at Châtillon-sur-Seine." -- Are you referring to U.S. II Corps?
    • No. See here Donald Wilson gets a one-line mention. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I recall in ROTC learning that the industrial web theory led to some technology development for strategic bombing which was then used in WWII. Maybe a little context would help?
    • Added a bit. industrial web theory has its own article, so I didn't want to give more than a summary here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't find a lot of issues with the article, so I'll leave it at that. —Ed!^(talk) 18:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentSupport
  • No dab links [281] (no action required).
  • One external links reports as dead [282]:
    • The Origins of Joint Military Professional Education
      • They moved it. Switched to a new link,. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Images lack Alt Text [283] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required)
  • Images are all PD and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [284] (no action required).
  • Quite a number of duplicate links:
    • Army Air Forces
    • United States Army Air Forces
    • Baltimore
    • Alabama
    • Washington, D.C
    • Industrial College of the Armed Forces
    • National War College
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Also some duplicate links in the references section but I'm not really certain of the policy on that.
  • "all instructors at the Tactical School, who became known as the "Bomber Mafia."" By whom? Could this be clarified?
    • Not sure. It appears in many books, including the title of this one. I've found it in over 20 books on the shelves here. It seems to have been bestowed by the aviation historians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this seems very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments Interesting to read of the reasoning behind the US conducting daylight bombing. Not much to nitpick here, but I did make minor tweaks to the text in a few places.

• "The 5th Maryland Regiment returned to Baltimore in February 1917." There is no mention of the regiment being in Baltimore at all prior to this..
  • Anne Arundel county is half way between Baltimore and Washington. Changed to "Maryland". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "his request was disapproved." Disapproved seems to be an unusual term to use here. Unless it has a specific meaning in military terminology I would suggest replacing with not approved or declined.
  • It is military terminology. Changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The school embraced the doctrine that strategic bombing was the most important aspect of air power, but Wilson rejected those parts of the doctrine of Giulio Douhet that called for mass bombing of cities to break the morale of the enemy". This sentence doesn't flow well, particularly the second part. Perhaps this: The school embraced the doctrine of air power theorist Giulio Douhet, who argued that strategic bombing was the most important aspect of air power. However, Wilson rejected those parts of Douhet's doctrine that called for mass bombing of cities to break the morale of the enemy.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neurasthenia. Should the lower case n be used? Upper case used both in lead and main body of article.
  • Maybe. Lower-cased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "one of the leading theorists...during the thirties": spaces around the ellipsis, and attribute quotes.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• "railroads, where critical breaks could disrupt the entire system": Is this just saying that trains can't travel on a broken rail line?
  • Yes, that is what a break is. The point is that railroads can re-route to minimise disruption, but in some cases breaks can cause disproportionate disruption. There is a branch of mathematics here, called network topology. I might add that the enormity of the intelligence effort required to identify critical points was not really considered until World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Wilson accepted the argument, most forcibly advanced by fellow instructor Kenneth Walker, that fighter aircraft did not have the range or speed to accompany bombers and probably could not shoot them down. Wilson termed this doctrine "industrial web theory".": That doesn't seem like an industrial web theory ... maybe move that bit?
  • Moved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Otherwise, So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Donald_Wilson_(general)#World War II. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

USS Saratoga (CV-3)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Support —Ed!^(talk) 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You noted in my GAN of Philippine Sea that carriers like this one need detailed sections devoted to their air groups similar to what Ark Royal and Courageous have, though I do note that Lexington does not have. It's particularly apparent the air group info is lacking in some places while the number of aircraft is not, such as in the inter-war period, but the necessary information is there right at the beginning of the WWII section.
    • I have a book with FAA squadron histories that details when each squadron is reequipped and tracks every move on or off ship. There's no American equivalent that I'm aware of, aside from exceedingly incomplete coverage of a very few squadrons done by the Navy. You'll notice that I give the air group in as much detail as I can during the WW2 period, but that's because that information is readily available, which is annoyingly not true for the interwar period. In fact, even tracking squadron lineages isn't easy as they were redesignated multiple times both before, during, and after the war.
      • Well, that's rather frustrating. But I'm glad to hear it's a problem with US Navy sources in general, so my own carrier articles might see some improvement without that information. —Ed!^(talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• beam, displacement and draft numbers are different in the infobox from the design section.
  • Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• "...two twin .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun mounts were installed in 1929. They were unsuccessful..." -- This wording implies the mounts were unsuccessful at being installed. They weren't, it was the guns themselves.
  • Really? What's your source? Friedman just says that they were unsuccessful without giving details. Hell, I'm not even sure if these .50s were air or water-cooled, although I suspect the latter. At any rate, I'm not aware of any signficant problems with the guns themselves at any point, but I'm not an expert on the Ma Deuce, although I've fired a few in my time.
    • What I mean to say is you call the installation "unsuccessful" but then note in the next part of the sentence that the mounts remained on the ship and one was replaced. So, the mounts were installed successfully, they just didn't work, right? Or were they partially installed but left incomplete? It should be clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think that I can clarify it. Friedman: "In 1929, both ships were armed with experimental machine-gun batteries: two twin .50 caliber in Saratoga... They were not successful and were removed." Stern: "during her 1933-34 overhaul the twin .50 cal mounting on the roof of No. 2 8-inch mount was replaced by two single .50 cal Mk3s, while the older twin mounting on No. 3 was retained." What do you suggest given these sources?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Inter-war period: "Captain Rufus F. Zogbaum relieved Steele, who was ordered to immediately retire, on 1 January 1933" -- Was his retirement a result of the grounding incident? I assume so.
  • Me too, but my source doesn't directly say so.
• "Saratoga's task force was delayed by the necessity to refuel its escorting destroyers" -- Since you note the support ships here, why not the ships in the screen?
  • You'll note that the information on her screen is often pretty cursory throughout the article. I mentioned the oiler because they were critically important in the early war period and were often the limiting factor in US operations of that time.
• "Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo" et. al. I've recently been informed that the MOS for military ranks before names is they shouldn't be capitalized.
  • That makes no sense because they would never be capitalized if that were true, ever. Appended to a name they become proper nouns and deserving of capitalization. Examples would be "the archduke said..." vs. Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated..." You'll need to show me that rule...

Let me know. —Ed!^(talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Jumping in re ranks. Per WP:MILTERMS and WP:JOBTITLES ranks should be capitalised when used as a proper noun, but lower case when a common noun. Specifically:

"Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under Titles of people above. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general." (WP:MILTERMS)

As such Sturm's usage above seems correct to me. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been told differently using the same policy (point 4 here). Was that incorrect? —Ed!^(talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope ARs comments seem spot on... I think you might have misunderstood what he wrote though. He said exactly what I said above (unless its so late here that I'm reading it wrong). He has differentiated between a functional position and a rank. So whilst the position is in lower case the rank is in upper case, note the example he used: "squadron executive officer Lieutenant Commander Dick Cevoli". Anotherclown (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahh. I see my mistake. Strike that then. —Ed!^(talk) 16:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Images- one interesting chink here. I'm not convinced File:5in-25 guns on USS Saratoga (CV-3) c1927.jpg was actually taken "during the course of the person's official duties". It is apparently taken from a personal scrapbook. Clearly there is scope to conclude that any photograph taken whilst a sailor is aboard ship is "during the course of his duties", but I'm not sure about that, it seems rather too wide. The material, given it includes ball tickets, must have been donated and to the extent that the National Museum asserts it's in the public domain (they don't seem to do this openly, but I'm not sure about the collections as whole) they may be mistaken. Could you look into a bit? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're right in that the photo was probably not made by an official photographer, but the real question is its copyright status. Was that assigned to the museum or does it remain with the photographer? I supposed we could ask the museum what its stance is on these sorts of donations, but I'm not really inclined to spend the time to do so. Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The general rule is that it's difficult to surrender your copyright without an explicit declaration which even the museum does not seem to have made, even if post-donation it held the copyright (and that's far from clear). Alas, I think deletion was the only route open. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, Grandi, it seems to me your theory here would introduce a loophole that a truck could drive through ... "Oh, I know this work product is supposed to belong to you, but I intended to put it in my scrapbook, so it isn't work-related!" I'd prefer we get a copyright lawyer to advise on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence, I think we should be cautious (as we usually are) and assume the file is not in the public domain. I think there is a clear case to suggest that the photograph is personal, rather than as an employee. Every employee takes personal photographs, and I'm sure only very rarely is there any question over copyright. If the Navy ever questioned who held the copyright in this instance, then either they or a court of law would have to satisfactory resolve the evidential hole. That aside, we still need to come to some sort of conclusion. The rule is that the artistic work must be made pursuant to the terms of the contract between employee and employer. I believe the Navy employee identified was not an official photographer or anything of that sort, but he also has an obligation to follow the appropriate direction of higher officers and to do such tasks as might be necessary for the running of the ship (in general terms). It's in this role that most of our government employee works appear to have come into being. In those circumstances, the physical photograph (or file) is normally passed over, because the photograph had some sort of purpose, and they enter the Navy archives that way. The fact that the photograph, before being donated, was in the hands of the Navy employee, and the fact it formed part of his scrapbook, are indicative that it was personal, that it was not done for some Navy purpose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 00:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "early warning radar in early 1941": I went with "first quarter" to avoid early ... early; correct that if it's wrong, or name the month if you know it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Done.
• "partially as a result of British experience": I went with a little more detail: "After the war the ship was extensively redesigned to solve structural problems discovered in British battlecruisers during the war." Feel free to tweak or expand that.
  • Friedman doesn't really discuss the stress issues mentioned in the Lexington-class BC article, which needs serious revision, but focuses on improved boilers and lessons received from the British.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "incorporate improved boiler technology and British wartime experiences": which experiences? If they simply adopted new British designs, you don't have to say more than that, but "incorporating ... experiences" is too vague. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Added more specifics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)#Service history. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• I did skim a little past the point where I stopped. It's acceptable for A-class; I would oppose the article in its current state at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Umm, could you be a little more specific, so I can take a stab at fixing whatever issues you've identified? This is likely to be my next FAC so I might as well do the work now rather than after the nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm up to my eyeballs in work, so I'll have to go with the short answer: look at the reviews I've done of your work up to now, and my edits, and look at this article, and see if anything jumps out at you. If you're not seeing anything, get someone else to look at it. You've done a massive amount of work around here, and I think it would be reasonable for you to ask people to return the favor and help with your articles. I'm trying to give you a heads-up that I don't expect that I'm going to have time to fix everything myself at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• I reworded the lead slightly to emphasize Operation Crossroadss.
• Infobox: changed the deep load to match the prose and I deleted the uncited 1945 figure.
• I think the range was also a typo; changed to match prose.
• changed 5" guns to use same format as Lexington. (And that one doesn't have the metric conversions?)
  • If they're linked they don't need to have the conversions as they can just click on the link to see the conversion in their own article.
• I would consider adding a summary of the new AA armament in 1944 in the infobox since it was significantly different.
  • Generally, I'm opposed to doing that sort of thing barring a major reconstruction like that done to the Courageous-class ships. The infobox is plenty long enough already.
    • Its in the prose for the curious but I was just thinking since every one of those guns was removed by 1943 the reader would be better served with a 1945 summary.
• Similarly, in 1943 the air group was 90 planes, not 78, probably worth mentioning in the infobox too.
  • As noted at its top, this infobox is generally for the ship as built with modifications noted in the text.
• Consider a citing the Pop. M article and removing it from the external links.
  • What in there is worth incorporating into the text? Most of it really isn't encyclopedic.
    • I guess I don't get the point of these sections - if the text isn't useful I don't see the point of referring readers to it just because it happens to be free.
• The article sometimes wiki links battle names and other times island names; I would specify the battle names when possible.
  • That's deliberate; I linked them as I thought most suitable. Just the islands when discussing the general situation and then the battle to discuss the ship's part in it. Don't forget that the hatnote for each section covers the general campaign or battle, so I didn't feel like I needed to be really strict with the links. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Here's some of the ones I found: Instead of Bougainville Island you should link Bougainville Campaign which is in the lead but not the prose; I'd also remove the easter egg attack to talk about the Bombing of Rabaul (November 1943) in a single paragraph (and not the best name, this action has a lot of redirects to it!). Also, the offensive in the Gilbert Islands ... later easter egged in 'the invasion of the Marshall Islands, amphibious landings on Iwo Jima --> Battle of Iwo Jima, invasion of the Treasury Islands --> Battle of the Treasury Islands. Finally, there were a few air raids on islands which don't seem to have individual articles, not exactly sure what to do there. Overall, when I click on an island name I expect the battle article, not the island and many island articles don't have the link to the specific battles in WWII. Kirk (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Overall, a very good article. Kirk (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentSupport
  • No dab links [285] (no action required).
  • External links check out [286] (no action required).
  • One of images lacks Alt Text [287] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images review completed above (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [288] (no action required).
  • Not quite sure what you mean here: "but the only Japanese airstrike of the day was looking for the carriers and ignored the transports entirely." Do you mean "but the only Japanese airstrike of the day targetted the carriers and ignored the transports entirely..."?
    • Done.
  • Some inconsistency in the presentation of Task Forces, sometimes: "Task Force-X", sometimes "TF X" and still others "TF-X", probably best to select one and be consistent. Also I would recommend introducing the abbreviation "TF" at first use. Anotherclown (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Good idea; I think that I've caught all of them, although I do still use both task force and TF.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Looks good, adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Howard Kippenberger

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the requirements of ACR, having gone through a GA review in November. And it sure would be nice to have an article on a New Zealand general amongst all the MilHist A-class biographies... I look forward to the feedback of the reviewers. Zawed (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Support —Ed!^(talk) 18:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Early life: Any idea what his parents' names were or how many siblings he may have had?

Have added some more detail. Zawed (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Greece and Crete: The unit is referred to interchangably as "10th Battalion" and "10 Battalion."

Have fixed. Zawed (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "In April 1957, his wife's health deteriorated and she was hospitalised. " -- Is this the first mention of his being married?

No, she is mentioned in the civilian life section (1st paragraph). Have added extra material about her death to the article. Zawed (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• • External link tool shows status issues with three links which might need to be altered.

I'm not entirely sure what needs to be altered here, I'm not familiar with the External link tool. I assume this relates to the stability of the webpages that I have cited? I have added archived urls for each (I had to change one as it looks like it is no longer available; more the reason to archive the links!). Zawed (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Duplicate Link tool returns five results: Egypt; Battle of Crete; 21st Battalion (New Zealand); 23rd Battalion (New Zealand); 22nd Battalion (New Zealand)

Sorted these. Zawed (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Dab links are fine. Images all appear to be licensed. So I just had a few small comments to address before supporting. —Ed!^(talk) 19:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to conduct a review Ed!, I have responded to your comments as above. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: I made a few tweaks, please check you are happy with those and adjust as you see fit. I also have the following suggestions:

• consider adding alt text to the images [289];

Done. Zawed (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• inconsistency: "Major-General" v "major general"; and "lieutenant colonel" v. "Lieutenant-Colonel";

Hyphenated as appropriate, caps used when part of individual's title. Zawed (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, the hyphen was all that I was concerned about. The caps are fine. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• "File:MG Kippenberger, 1946.jpg" probably needs its licence tweaked given the 1946 date. I think it is ok to use, but it probably needs the same licences as "File:Howard Karl Kippenberger, 1952.jpg". I'm not 100 per cent sure of this, though, so hopefuly Grandiose will be able to confirm or deny whether or not this is good advice;

Have added the cc 3.0 licence. Zawed (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is right, but you probably need to add the bit about the Crown releasing the photos under that licence also. E.g. "The Crown has released this work under the CC-BY 3.0 unported license. Refer to source website for details: http://natlib.govt.nz/about-this-site/copyright-and-privacy. This work's copyright expired 50 years after creation in New Zealand and probably also in countries following the rule of the shorter term." AustralianRupert (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, will add that now. Thanks. Zawed (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• where you use distances such as miles, etc. I suggest adding {{convert}} to assist readers that can't conceptualise these;

Done. Zawed (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• in the References, could page ranges and an ISBN be added for the Harper 2000a ref?
• in the References, could an ISBN be added for the Harper 2000b ref?
• in the References, could OCLC numbers be added for the McClymont, Mason and Pringle refs? These can usually be found at www.worldcat.org AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, it is greatly appreciated. I have responded to your queries as above. All your suggestions regarding references have been attended to as well. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments This article is in good shape, and I found it to be an interesting read. I have the following comments:

• A red link for Territorial Force (New Zealand) (or Army Reserve (New Zealand) might be better thank linking to the NZ Army article

The link was to the Territorial section of that article, but it is in such poor shape that I have followed your suggestion of a redlink for the Territorials; Hmmm, I think I have a good resource for that article... Zawed (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Territorials: The History of the Territorial and Volunteer Forces of New Zealand by Peter Cooke and John Crawford is rather good in case that wasn't the book you're thinking of. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Watch out for passive voice like "He would remain in the front lines" and "whom he would marry in 1922" - this can be easily converted to more interesting active voice wording such as "He remained in the front lines" and "whom he married in 1922"

Yeah, I can be bad for that. Have gone through article and tweaked both what you noticed and some other text. Hopefully it is satisfactory. Zawed (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Should Canterbury College be linked?

Done. Zawed (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Should 10th Brigade and New Zealand Divisional Cavalry be linked?

10th Brigade was an adhoc unit that existed for only a few weeks, I don't think it warrants a link. I have linked the Div Cav.

OK, fair enough Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "On reaching Baggush, he met up with Freyberg, who extremely pleased to see him and promptly promoted Kippenberger to brigadier and command of the 5th Infantry Brigade on the spot." - what had happened the the commanded of the 5th Brigade?

Have clarified. Zawed (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Should Queen Mary's Hospital be linked?

Done. Zawed (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "This was an organisation formed to deal with the housing and welfare of the expected influx of New Zealand military personnel newly released from prisoner of war camps in Germany. " - this is a bit complex; how about something along the lines of "This organisation had been formed to arrange accommodation and other services for the New Zealand military personnel who were expected to be released from prisoner of war camps in Germany when the war concluded"

Revised as suggested. Zawed (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can anything be said about how Kippenberger's performance as editor of the official history is seen? (also, could this material be expanded given that it essentially covers his main activity during the last 12 years of his life)

Have added material from the Official History article and expanded further on some points. Zawed (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• " Ruth, his wife, " - can this be replaced with "Ruth Kippenberger"?

Done.

• "as well as teaching of undergraduate students" - this is a bit awkward Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Have rephrased.

Nick, thanks for reviewing this article and providing your feedback. I have responded to all of your comments, but let me know if anything else needs to be tweaked. Zawed (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I just saw this now, but the link to Leslie Andrews doesn't seem right. It currently points to an American actress. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, that was a whoopise! Have fixed, thanks. Zawed (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support All my comments have now been addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentSupport
  • No dab links [290] (no action required).
  • External links check out [291] (no action required).
  • One of the images lacks Alt Text [292] so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).

Done. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• • The Citation Check Tool reveals a number of issues with reference consolidation:
    • Harper, 1997, pp. 124–125 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • McGibbon, 2000, pp. 400–401 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • Harper29 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Harper43 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • McLean184 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Harper124 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Harper92 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • McGibbon400 (Multiple references are using the same name)

These have been fixed. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Image review completed above.
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [293] (no action required).
  • This is a bit wordy IMO: "...where it underwent training more intense than previously experienced." Perhaps more simply: "where it underwent more intense training."

Fixed as per the obvious (in hindsight) suggestion. I don't why I chose such a wordy way of explaining the training! Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Not sure about this: "...mainly of artillery and Army Service Corps men (sans their heavy equipment)...", Service Corps was primarily transport so do you mean that the force lacked lack its heavy artillery or it trucks? Would this be more precise like this: "mainly of artillery (sans their heavy equipment) and Army Service Corps men..."

Checking the source again, my original wording is incorrect. According to Harper, the brigade did have two trucks and three artillery pieces which lacked sights. Have changed text to refer to lacking most of their heavy equipment and trucks. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Missing word here: "who extremely pleased to see him and promptly promoted Kippenberger...", consider: "who was extremely pleased to see him and promptly promoted Kippenberger..."

Fixed. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "It was only in Syria for two months before Panzer Army Afrika attacked into Libya...", what was? As this is a new section you should probably be specific.

Have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "failed to make it clear to the inexperienced commander of the 21st Battalion, Lieutenant-Colonel Allen...", do we know Allen's first name? If so it should be added per WP:SURNAME.

Yes, have added given name. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "meaningful support until the intervention of Herbert Lumsden", what was Lumsden's rank? It should be added per WP:SURNAME.

Have added rank. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• • This seems awkward to me: "to establish his headquarters as forward as possible...", perhaps: "to establish his headquarters as far forward as possible..." (nitpick - suggestion only)

I agree. Have amended as per your suggestion.

• • Typo here I think: "Despite this, he still lost contact with the leading the 23rd Battalion..."

Has been fixed by AustralianRupert (no worries AR, happens to the best of us ;). Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "He did not return to command of the 5th Brigade until November...", consider more simply: "He did not return to command the 5th Brigade until November..."

Done. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Rank needs to be included here: "When the corps commander, Miles Dempsey..."

Have added rank. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "he triggered a land mine which exploded, destroying one foot entirely." The word "destroying" seems a little out of place here to me (sounds like machinery being damaged). Perhaps consider rewording?

have replaced with "severing". Zawed (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, having thought about it, have reworded some more. Zawed (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• • This seems a bit repetitive: "By the following October, the overwhelming majority of released New Zealand personnel had been returned to New Zealand, negating the need for the Reception Group." Specifically use of "New Zealand" twice in the same sentence. I wonder if something like this would be more economical but still say the same thing: "By the following October, the overwhelming majority of released personnel had been returned to New Zealand, negating the need for the Reception Group."

Done. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • "...an account of his war time service...", should be "wartime".

Done. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Slightly repetitive: "It was a work that began in 1944, as he worked with the Reception Group and it was largely complete by late 1946." Consider "It was a work that began in 1944, as he worked with the Reception Group and was largely complete by late 1946."

Done. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Missing word here: "He also intended write one or two volumes..."

Have slightly revised this section of text. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Otherwise this is a good article about a very interesting character. Happy to discuss any of the points above. Anotherclown (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anotherclown. I have attended to some of your comments as noted above. I will get to the others tomorrow.

Have now attended to remaining comments and suggestions. Thanks again for the feedback. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Gday again Zawed, those changes look good to me. All my comments have been addressed so I've added my support now. Excellent work once again (its good to see some high quality Kiwi content being added as this seems to have been a neglected area for a while). Anotherclown (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments.

• I was working this one when it was promoted, so I'll add my comments to the archived page:
• "A serious wound in November 1916 saw him repatriated": "saw" is sometimes used in this sense, but it's not the best use of the word. It's better when a time period is the subject of the sentence, for instance: "The 1950s saw an upsurge ..."
• "He led the battalion for two years, through the Battles of Greece and Crete as well as part of the North African Campaign before being promoted": If you begin a parenthetical comment with a comma, then end it with a comma as well unless there's already some punctuation there. A comma is needed after "Campaign" here.
• "He was wounded on 3 March during the Battle of Cassino when he stepped on a land mine. As a result of his wounds, he lost both his feet.": It's not a big deal because you don't overuse cause-and-effect words, but see WP:Checklist#because. I'd probably go with: "He lost both his feet after stepping on a land mine on 3 March during the Battle of Cassino."
• "Editor-in-Chief": Judgment call, but it's generally best to lowercase if you can get away with it, and you can, here.
• "Intellectually advanced for his age, he was not academically challenged at school and misbehaved in class. This, together with a low attendance rate, led to the school authorities asking him to leave high school.": As a rule-of-thumb, think about whether it works to rewrite a sentence that stats with "This" (despite the fact that copy editors start sentences that way all the time :). I'd go with: "Intellectually advanced for his age, he was not academically challenged at school. The school asked him to leave because of his misbehaviour and low attendance rate." - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Zaian War

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

This is a little known (at least outside of France and Morocco) French colonial war and an article that I would love to eventually take to FAC. I have been gradually working on it over the past three years and it has recently received a peer review which has helped me with the style and grammar in particular. I think this article is ready for an A-class review and welcome any comments, bearing in mind that it was four years yesterday since my last article went through a review and I am almost certainly out of touch with current requirements here and at FAC! Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! A couple of things about images (generally good):

• File:SenegalSoldats1914.jpg says the author's death date is unknown. In the circumstances life+70 is untenable without it. The file might need moving to en.wiki only or you can look into the Russian copyright (entirely feasible).

Gah, this is why I hate Commons sometimes. I originally had the file uploaded locally here but someone transferred it to Commons and added a PD tag. I have reuploaded a local version here and will nom it for deletion at commons - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• It would be nice to get a publication date of File:Abdelhafid.jpg to know which licence applied, although, granted, between them they cover the ground.

I swapped for an equivalent I know to have been published in Spain in 1914 - Dumelow (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ditto File:030Arab.jpg as well as regard to country of origin.

I had no luck with tracking a location for this one. As you say, it has been tagged for PD in any country it could have been taken in - Dumelow (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• File:Pacha hassan.jpg should have a PD-1923 tag which more accurately reflects the possibility of foreign publication in the text

Done - Dumelow (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• File:Thami El Glaoui.jpg needs a US copyright tag.

Couldn't prove it to be PD so I have uploaded a painting which is certainly PD - Dumelow (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The couple of odd poor resolution photographs of Morocco are nagging at me a little. They look like they've been scanned or something. Would definitely require further thought at FAC if you take the article there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just checked the original author and he has several copyright warnings on his talk page. I have swapped out these images for more believable equivalent images - Dumelow (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Zaian_War#Groupes mobile. These are my edits. All your edits in response to my comments at the peer review look good. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and improving the article, your help at PR was great too - Dumelow (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing. "He initially co-operated with the Germans, renouncing his former pro-Allied stance in autumn 1914 and moving to Barcelona to meet with officials from Germany, the Ottoman Empire and the Moroccan resistance. However he was working as a double agent and was providing information to the French": I don't follow; are you saying he was a double agent while he was cooperating with Germans, or changed loyalties later? When? - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I have rewritten the Abdelhafid section to better clarify what happened - Dumelow (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [294] (no action required).
  • A couple of external links report as being dead [295].
    • Fixed the two I found (French embassy and Lazaro) - Dumelow (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Images lack Alt Text [296] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images review completed above (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool detects no issues with copyright violation [297] (no action required).
  • Some overlinking - First World War, Central Powers, Abdelaziz, Abdelhafid - should only be linked at first use (other than the lead of course) per WP:REPEATLINK.
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Repetition here: "A split in the Zaian between those who supported submission and those still opposed led to infighting which led to the death of Hammou in a skirmish in Spring 1921." Specifically "...led to infighting which led...", perhaps reword.
    • Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Can units, strength and casualties be added to the infobox?
    • Added strengths of both sides at their highest points (end of war for French, start for the Zaian). I also added casualty figures for the French (though they do pertain to the end of pacification of the region in 1933 they do, at least, give an idea of scale of casualties) - Dumelow (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent presentation of ranks: in places Lieutenant-Colonel and in other Lieutenant Colonel
    • Standardised with hyphen - Dumelow (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This seems counter-intuitive: "of at least four men and one officer killed and 19 injured...", suggest presenting losses of highest rank first, i.e. "of at least one officer and four men killed and 19 injured..." AFAIK such figures are more commonly presented this way in most serious histories (minor nitpick though).
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Same here: "The encounter was Henrys' first major engagement with the Zaian and owing to their "extraordinary stubbornness and tenacity" his losses were high, 16 men and one officer killed and a further 75 men and two officers wounded..."
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And here: "French losses were again significant with ten men and one officer killed and thirty men wounded."
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "had sent 37 infantry and cavalry battalions and 6 artillery batteries to the Western Front", should be "six artillery batteries" per WP:MOSNUM
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Similar to the above comments re casualties recommend presenting strength with officers first then men: "On 13 November Laverdure decided to disobey these orders and marched to El Herri with almost his entire force, some 1,187 men and 43 officers with supporting artillery and machine guns."
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "The French troops also lost 4 machine guns...", should be "four machine guns" per WP:MOSNUM
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "at the cost of 3 French dead and five wounded...", shoudl be "at the cost of three French dead and five wounded..."
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Moroccans pressed to within 50m", unit of measure should be spelt in full and have a conversion in parethesis per WP:MEASUREMENT. Consider using the {{convert}} template.
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Presentation of casualties as above here again: "At M'Rirt a sizeable Zaian attack was repulsed with 200 casualties but the French suffered the loss of 24 men and one officer killed and 56 wounded." IMO it would work better as "one officer and 24 men killed".
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "After General Henrys left Morocco", should just be "After Henrys left Morocco...", removing rank after formal introduction at first instance per WP:SURNAME.
    • Done - Dumelow (talk)
  • Repetition here: "The failure to find a suitable leader led...", perhaps reword?
    • Reworded with "caused" - Dumelow (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A couple of the titles in the reference list use lower case when they should use title case.
    • Done - Dumelow (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Overall this is an impressive and well written article in my opinion. Only a few points above to address / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot. I will try to run through the items in your review today, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks good, I've added my support now. I made one change because I think a typo may have been introduced by you prev changes. Pls review and revert if I got it wrong. Anotherclown (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that and for your support! - Dumelow (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Support a really well-written, well-researched article. It is accessible even for someone not familiar with the region, and certainly helped explain Lyautey's enduring reputation on colonial warfare to me. I've made a few tweaks here and there, but nothing major. Only a few minor outstanding issues that do not affect my vote:

• It would be helpful for the average reader to explain briefly what a qaid is. I assume it is meant as a provincial governor here?
  • Correct I have tried to add some clarification on this point - Dumelow (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Lyautey, who had lost most of his own possessions" I suppose this refers to the Franco-Prussian War? If so, this should be added.
  • It was during the opening stages of the First World War, I have linked to the relevant Battle of Lorraine article for clarification. Lyautey was sadly devastated by the loss of his family home containing almost all of his papers, vast book collection and antiques dating from the Revolution and before (more details can be found in Singer and Langdon p210). It seems the Germans recognised his name and sought out the house for destruction - Dumelow (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, excellent work! Constantine ✍ 11:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I had great fun writing it! I agree with all your edits (I mistakenly reverted your groupes mobile pluralisation but checked my sources and you were correct, my French must be a bit rusty!), except I removed one second linking of Western Front. I will see if I can attend to your two questions shortly. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for clarifying the two points above. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: interesting topic. I only have a few nitpicks, really:

• I found this sentence quite long: "Lyautey received orders from Army headquarters in Paris on 28 July 1914, the day the First World War began, requesting the dispatch of all available troops to France in anticipation of a German invasion and the withdrawal of his remaining forces to coastal enclaves." Perhaps reorder and split, for instance: "On 28 July 1914, the day the First World War began, Lyautey received orders from Army headquarters in Paris. The orders requested the withdrawal of his remaining forces to coastal enclaves and the dispatch of all available troops to France in anticipation of a German invasion."

I am not sure about this one, I don't think it is overly long myself and I quite like a variety of sentence lengths. perhaps someone else could comment on this? - Dumelow (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, its nothing to oppose over. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• " A further 35,000 Moroccan labourers were raised" --> " A further 35,000 Moroccan labourers were recruited"?

Done - Dumelow (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• inconsistent "Moulouya valley" v " Moulouya Valley";

Standardised to "Moulouya valley" - Dumelow (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The money would be transferred" --> "The money was be transferred";

Done - Dumelow (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "French and British intelligence agents operated in co-operation..." --> "French and British intelligence agents co-operated in..."

Done - Dumelow (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• inconsistent "Zaian War" v "Zaian war";

Stanardised to "Zaian War" - Dumelow (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, are there ISSNs that could be added for the Francia and The Field Artillery Journals?

Added - Dumelow (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• as above, an OCLC for the Lazaro thesis?

Added - Dumelow (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• as above, an ISBN for the Tucker book?

Added - Dumelow (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• as above, a place of publication for the Jones, Slavin and Strachan books? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed Slavin. I have left Jones and Strachan - when I was taught academic referencing I was told to leave off locations where it was obvious and would be repetitious such as "Oxford: Oxford University Press". That said I don't know if Wikipedia MoS contradicts me? - Dumelow (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not major but it's a consistency thing, which would most likely be raised at FAC. Additionally, I believe that both those publishers print books in locations other than their main location, i.e Melbourne etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, done - Dumelow (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, it's much appreciated. I will try to work through the points you have raised and answer/fix them - Dumelow (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

SMS Oldenburg

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Since I have the time, now that the semester is over, let's see if I can handle another ACR at the same time. This is the last German dreadnought-type battleship to grace the ACR pages. As usual, thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article, I look forward to working with you. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The caption for File:Bundesarchiv Bild 134-B2656, Linienschiff Oldenburg, Kaiser Wilhelm II..jpg could use a year.
• Please be consistent about including OCLC numbers in the references.
• The infobox differs from the Lead in the presentation of "Helgoland class" vs "Helgoland-class"
• Recommend changing the "Footnotes" section to "Notes" since it has a subheader with the same name.

Just minor things. —Ed!^(talk) 00:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Should all be taken care of, thanks again Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Support —Ed!^(talk) 20:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

SupportComments by MisterBee1966

• Christened by Duchess Sophia Charlotte of Oldenburg, blabla by Frederick Augustus II, Grand Duke of Oldenburg, HRS v6 page 194
• Please add the footnote for Ersatz
• check the armament of the 8.8 guns. It states 16 and 14 just like you had it on SMS Thüringen. HRS p. 193 states that initially 14 x 8.8 SK, then 12 x 8.8 SK plus 2 x 8.8 Flak, then 10 x 8.8 SK plus 4 x 8.8 Flak

• The Flak configuration still doesn't match HRS. Can you double check and comment please. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed now.

• Hermann Bauer was her commander in November and December 1918, HRS p. 193
  • Added both of the pieces of info from HRS (thanks again) and the Ersatz footnote. You'd think I was writing these two articles at the same time or something ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Clarify in the lede that it fought against the Imperial Russian Navy, not just the Russian Navy.
• Clarify that the oil was sprayed on the coal lest readers think that she no longer burnt coal at all.
• Need cites in the infobox or a short paragraph covering armor in the description (preferred)
• You might consider starting stubs on the various squadrons of the HSF not already begun. Covering their composition at certain dates would be useful.
• Add # and type of boilers to description.
• VTE engines use ihp, not shp. Also need to add to descriptive paragraph. Or cite.
• I expect that these comments generally apply to your other ACR so go ahead and make the necessary changes there as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing the article, Sturm - everything should be taken care of, and I'll check the other article as well. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

CommentsSupport

• I've made some edits consistent with my review of Thuringen, feel free to revert if I've got it wrong.
• in Subsequent operations, it appears you still need to substitute Oldenburg for Thuringen in a couple of spots in the second para?
• can you clarify whether the Oldenburg crew participated in the mutiny?

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your edits all look fine to me, and I fixed the Thuringen bit in the paragraph. I'm traveling for the holidays, so I can't answer your last question until Thursday at the earliest. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• It is a small issue, and don't think it should stand in the way of the article being promoted. Moving to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Co-ord comment: has Peacemaker's final comment been dealt with? If so, this review can probably be closed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not yet. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

But see above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Is the installed power right? Seems kind of low - it doesn't match the class article (prose/infobox).
• Infobox: the designed displacement, complement are uncited.Kirk (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Messines (1917)

Nominator(s): Keith-264 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it has been substantially revised since the GA review and the recent peer review so needs to move on to the next step. I hope to learn enough to begin reviewing and to work through the rest of the "3rd Ypres" pages before the centenaries. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sourcing comment: several of your References entries have no corresponding footnotes - try this script to see the errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, have removed redundant references to talk page temporarily.Keith-264 (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Added material from commons.Keith-264 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments: G'day, Keith, just a few quick comments from me at this stage. I will try to take another look after someone else has taken a more comprehensive look. As I've done a few edits (30+), I might be a little too close to the article to give it a full review.
  • "Research in the last two decades": I suggest rewording this to provide some sort of date range, otherwise it will need to be updated as time goes on;
    • Changed it to be specific.
  • Note # 4: "...54 100–130 mm guns, 24 150mm guns" --> this should probably use a slightly different presentation to avoid confusion, for instance "...fifty-four 100–130 mm guns, twenty-four 150mm guns";
    • Done.
  • in the References section, are there any more details that can added for the "Historical outline of the federalisation of Belgium" source? Is this a book, or a website? Currently it uses the cite book template, but if it is a website, I'd suggest changing it to cite web and adding the accessdate for consistency with the other website references;
    • How do I do a "cite web"? (i.e. is there a wiki page showing the form)
      • I've tweaked it for you, but the documentation can be found here: {{cite web}}. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistency: "Hart & Steel" in the short citations, but in the References "Steel, N.; Hart, P. (2001)";
    • Done
  • in the External links section, some of the links are not actually "external links" and would be better either cut out altogether (if already linked to in the body of the text), or moved to a dedicated "See also" section per WP:LAYOUT. I would suggest definately cutting the links to "Western Front (World War I)" and "Third Battle of Ypres", as they are already linked in the article itself. The other two might not be necessary, either, but that is a judgement call that I will leave up to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I put a lot of things there early on, which were already on the page from previous editors so I've no objection to moving them. I'll look up layout.Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Tinkered around with headings.Keith-264 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the cite web page, I haven't found a literary source for the belgium reference though. If you cite a book with the origional edition then add the reprint edition you're using does the harv follow the reprint date? I hope so as that's what I've done. [no I haven't I've used the original date!] Are the External Links ok now? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the ext links look good to me now. The harv links also seem fine for the works with reprint dates (the links click through). The only final suggestion I have is to make the See also section a level two header, rather than a level three. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• See also done. I had a look at the pages attached to the Somme 1916 page, to practice B-class assesment as promised and managed to start re-writing it so I'll have another try today on some of the other pages.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've spent a bit of time this morning copy editing. Please check that you are happy with my changes and tweak anything you don't agree with. I have added my support for promotion of this article to A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, this link doesn't seem to be working (in the German Fourth Army counter-attacks section): Stoßtruppen. Are you able to try to fix it? I had a crack, but couldn't get the mark up to work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I gave up and took the {{}} off.Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd reorder part of your lead sentence to read thus: First World War offensive by the British Second Army, under the command of General Herbert Plumer, on the Western Front near the village of Messines in West Flanders in Belgium.
• Capitalize division and divisional when used after a number because it's a proper noun. Forex 11th Division.
• On the flip side Corps Heavy Artillery, etc., should not be capitalized because it doesn't refer to a specific unit, just a type.
• I'd like to see at least a summary listing of the forces involved on both sides before the prelude section with a link to a more detailed order of battle list.
• The maps are useful, but higher-resolution versions would be much easier to read.
• What do you mean by corps aircraft?
  • Described
• Link to Major General Franks, both the rank and he himself.
  • No link so gave his name
• Wouldn't "all in addition to the field artillery" read better than all superimposed on the field artillery? I'm stopping at the Battle section for now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've used "Division" since it's part of a title 11th Division and not capitalised for plural and divisional because they are common nouns rather than titles. I capitalised Corps Heavy Artillery following Edmonds and Farndale under the impression that they were proper nouns.

I'll add a description of corps and army wings (one each per RFC brigade). Maps are the best of a bad job. Franks dosn't have a wiki page but I've added his initials. Re-did the lead sentence and Every 45 yards (41 m) of front had a medium or heavy howitzer for bombardment, which required 378 guns, with 38 super-heavy guns and howitzers, (5% of the total) deployed with the field artillery that was due to fire the creeping and standing barrages.. I'll do the OOB tomorrow.

Thanks for the suggestions, they're gratefully received.Keith-264 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• OOB done, details in a note, (there's another one later in the article, maybe redundant now?).Keith-264 (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• RFC organisation noted.Keith-264 (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "running north from Ploegsteert ("Plugstreet") Wood–Messines–Wytschaete–Mt. Sorrel": I'm not sure what this means. Maybe this? "running north from Ploegsteert Wood through Messines, Wytschaete and finally Mt. Sorrel". Also, I believe "Mt" is more common than "Mt." in BritEng, but if you find "Mt. Sorrel" predominates in BritEng, of course go with that.
  • Looked on Wiki, allows both.
• "Fourth Army", "4th Army": consistency
  • Done.
• "The Second Army contained five corps, of which three conducted the attack, with a corps available in "General Headquarters reserve" (GHQ reserve) and two corps on the northern flank, not engaged in the main operation.": I'm not sure how that adds up.
  • Reworded.
• "from which the British intended to conduct the "Northern Operation", to advance to Passchendaele ridge, leading to the capture of the Belgian coast up to the Dutch frontier.": to advance to Passchendaele ridge and then capture the ...
  • Reworded
• "the capture of Messines ridge, (part of the southern arc of the Ypres Salient)": either drop the comma or replace the parentheses by commas
  • Comma refers to the rest of the sentence. (I prefer brackets to two commas).
    • Right, that's what I'm saying, that's a punctuation error; commas almost never go in front of parentheses. (Another comma error I'm seeing: never separate a simple subject from its predicate by a comma.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• "due to the effects of": after. See WP:Checklist#because.
  • Done
• "When it became apparent that the Nivelle Offensive (16 April – 9 May 1917) had failed to achieve its most ambitious objectives, Haig instructed the Second Army to capture the Messines–Wytschaete ridge as soon as possible,[11] to force the Germans to move troops from the French on the Aisne front, who had become demoralised amid the failure of the Nivelle Offensive, leading to many mutinies.": Split the sentence.
  • Done
• "Messines ridge", "Messines Ridge": consistency. I'd go with "Messines Ridge", provided there's support for that in some sources. If you don't capitalize Ridge, you need a "the" in front of the phrase, usually.
  • I can't make up my mind if the term is a proper noun. The sources vary so I tend to follow the usage in the Official History which distinguished between titles and descriptions - Battle of Messines Ridge and ridge, that geographical feature at Messines.
    • A-class requires consistency within any one article in what you call something; you capitalize "Ridge" (in a caption, I believe) ... so either go with caps or lowercase at each occurrence. Personally, I'd uppercase based on what I'm seeing in your article; it would be tedious to stick in "the" in so many places (and maybe tedious for the reader, too). - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• "overlooked": Generally, avoid this word in this sense, since it more often means "not observed by mistake"
  • I'm not convinced that the gentle reader is this ignorant but as a superannuated 1970s egalitarian I'm open to persuasion. Oh as it happens there's a wikilink describing the geographical term, which I've added.
    • Readability is hard for every writer. Yes, the readers can figure out all sorts of things; the goal is not to make them back up too often when they realize from context that a word they were expecting to mean one thing means something else. I agree that this one is a judgment call, and that's fine. And I'm also a 1970s egalitarian. - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Land Drainage Companies": lowercase, probably
  • Copied from the OH, taken to be a title.
    • It might need a little description or context, then. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• OK.
• "(50 m))": avoid the double parens. Also, this sentence feels a bit too detailed for prose to me.
  • Done
• Skipping down a bit:
• "... Messines ridge, where it met Menin ridge led to the frontage of the 204th (Württemberg) Division being kept to 2,600 yards (2,400 m).": ... Messines ridge, where it met Menin ridge, kept the frontage of the 204th (Württemberg) Division at 2,600 yards (2,400 m).
  • Changed.
• "southeast": It's usually "south-east" in BritEng, although the American "southeast" is also well-represented.
  • Typo blammed
• " In the southeast, 4,800 yards (4,400 m) astride the Douve River was defended by the 40th Division.": I don't know what "astride" means here.
  • Edited
• Otherwise, So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Battle_of_Messines_(1917)#Prelude. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble, it's my first go at an A-class so all suggestions gratefully received. I've tinkered with it so much that a fresh pair of eyes is a great help. There may be inconsistency in the page, because I haven't removed previous writing (except where it's wrong according to the sources I've got).Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• It was a good call to bring this article to A-class, and the general style is quite good; it would be a bad call to bring it to FAC before first going through all the prose carefully and fixing the kinds of problems I've been mentioning. They don't like fix-it-as-you-go there. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll capitalise Ridge rather than "the" them. ;O). As for commas, is there a difference between American and English usage?Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Many, but we've generally been able to keep everyone happy with some straightforward compromises. See for instance WP:COMMA (and note that the comma is after the parens in the first example, not before). If you can search for specific strings on a page or website, pull up any website where you like the style, and search for ", (" ... you'll get few hits, at least in running prose. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've R'd the ridge but can see that I've been inconsistent over deciding which terms are proper nouns. I try not to litter the prose with capitals and I fear I've gone too far sometimes. I had tended to treat a comment in parentheses as an aside so the comma has gone before, since it refers to the next clause.Keith-264 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• CommentSupport
  • No dab links [298] (no action required).
  • External links check out [299] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text [300] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all public domain and seem appropriate to the article, although some may need PD-US tags (I'm no expert on images - perhaps Grandiose might be able to check these out for you).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [301] (no action required).
  • Infobox
    • Units could be added to provide an overview. If your not familar with this parameter have a look at Battle of Long Tan for an example (poor or otherwise).
    • Suggest adding Australia and New Zealand to the infobox. There seems little reason to use "British Empire" to me, and no doubt some drive by will add it sooner or later (suggestion only - I won't oppose on the basis of this).
      • I've expanded the infobox a little per my comments above. Pls review and revert/amend as required. You might consider listing corps and divisions as well though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • This seems awkward to me: "The Battle of Messines (7–14 June 1917) was a First World War offensive of the British Second Army, under the command of General Herbert Plumer on the Western Front near the village of Messines in Belgian West Flanders." Suggest rewording something like: "The Battle of Messines (7–14 June 1917) was an offensive conducted by the British Second Army, under the command of General Herbert Plumer, on the Western Front near the village of Messines in Belgian West Flanders during the First World War."
    • This too: "The failure of the Nivelle offensive in April and May 1917 to achieve its more ambitious aims resulted in the demoralisation of French troops and dislocated the Anglo-French strategy for 1917." Consider instead: "The Nivelle offensive of April and May failed to achieve its more ambitious aims and this had resulted in the demoralisation of French troops and the dislocation of Anglo-French strategy for 1917." (or something similar).
    • "to advance to Passchendaele ridge, then capture the Belgian coast up to the Dutch frontier." Should "Passchendaele ridge" be capitalised? Seems like its a proper noun (i.e. a place name) so probably should be.
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "The British mines, barrages and bombardments benefitted from advances in artillery survey..." how can inanimate objects and battlefield effects benifit from something? I think you might mean somelike: "The effectiveness of the British mines, barrages and bombardments benefitted from advances in artillery survey..."
  • Background
    • Overuse of "1916" in the first para, this could probably be thinned out (minor nitpick/suggestion).
      • Done.
    • Punctuation through the article is a little interesting (to me at least!). I'm an Australian of a certain vintage so my formal training ended at about the age of 10; however, I'm not sure information in parenthesis should really follow a comma. For an example from the article: "recommended to Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig the capture of Messines Ridge, (part of the southern arc of the Ypres Salient) before an operation..." Think it should read: "recommended to Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig the capture of Messines Ridge (part of the southern arc of the Ypres Salient) before an operation..."
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Capitalisation here I think: "Messines ridge is "well-balanced soil"..."
      • Done.
  • Prelude
    • Terminology here: "Target-finding", or would "target acquisition" be more appropriate?
      • No, that's anachronism.
        • Not sure I quite follow you here, are you saying "target-finding" is anachronistic or "target-acquisition" is? I'm assuming you mean "target-finding" was the correct term back in 1917 so its been used here (which makes sense to me). If thats the case then no worries. For what its worth in my experience "target acquisition" is currently used by those that do it for a living (but thats not really relevant). Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm a bit picky about which modish Americanisms to use, because American English lost its mojo circa 1979. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Too easy. Anotherclown (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Not sure about use of italics here: "The 2nd Field Survey Company also...", pretty sure the MOS only uses italics for foreign terms. See WP:ITALICS.
      • Done
    • Terminology again: "air photographs", or "aerial photographs"?
      • Done
    • Repetition here: "to points deep underneath the German front lines, despite German counter-mining", suggest: "to points deep underneath the German front lines, despite counter-mining..."
      • Done
    • Inconsistent presentation of "Wijtschate Salient", in places you use italics and in others you dont.
      • Started
        • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "In May, the 4th Australian, 11th and 24th divisions...", these units should all be wikilinked at first use.
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Capitalisation here: "Second Army which were preparing to attack Messines ridge...", specifically should be "Messines Ridge" unless I'm mistaken.
      • Started
        • Done.
    • Other instances of italics being used that I'm not sure is MOS compliant include "Bombardment Flight", "Bombardment Groups", "Contact-Patrol Flights". These might work better in quotation marks.
      • Done.
    • I'm unclear what you mean here I'm afraid: "Large numbers of machine-gun posts for an overhead barrage were built...", what do machine-guns have to do with an artillery barrage? Machine-gun fire was often concentrated (in companies or even battalions to provide direct fire support to a brigade or a division in the assault, sort of a "small arms barrage", is this what you mean?) Or do you mean that machine-gun positions were dug in with overhead protection to protect them from German artillery?
      • Done.
    • terminology here: "2,000 bullets" should be "2,000 small arms rounds" (nitpick).
      • Not done, not laconic.
        • "2,000 rounds" would say as much in a few words and would be more technically correct than "bullets" IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
          • used 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
    • Abbrev has not been introduced here: "The 18-pdr standing barrages..."
      • Done
    • Italics not required here: "barrage line", "Control Post", "Aeroplane Compass Stations", and "Aeroplane Intercepting Station". Again quotation marks might be more appropriate.
      • Done.
    • Incorrect presentation here: "100 Squadron" should be "No. 100 Squadron RAF" AFAIK.
      • No. 100 Squadron RFC, done.
    • Missing word here I think: "Great attention paid to counter-battery fire, the artillery barrage time-table and machine-gun barrages..."
      • Done
    • This could be improved: "It was expected that much of the artillery would need rapidly to switch...", consider: "It was expected that much of the artillery would need to switch rapidly..."
      • Not done, switch is the verb.
        • Indeed it is, but I'm not sure why that would make my suggestion incorrect. Regardless its a minor point so if you prefer your current wording then consider my comment struck. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Punctuation here: "howitzers, (5% of the total)", should be: "howitzers (5% of the total)"
      • Done
    • Inconsistent presentation of "Oosttaverne line" IRT use of italics.
      • Started
        • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Capitalisation again: "The first section was begun six miles behind Messines ridge..."
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "Crown Prince Rupprecht re-examined the Warneton (third) line...", should just be: "Rupprecht re-examined the Warneton (third) line..." removing rank/honorific at second instance following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME
      • Done
    • "General von Laffert, commander of Gruppe Wijtschate was sacked two days after the battle...", is his full name known? If so it should be used to formally introduce him at first use per WP:SURNAME.
      • Done
    • "headquarters of XIX Corps, led by General von Laffert, holding the ridge", von Armin should be formally introduced with rank and full name at first use per WP:SURNAME.
      • Done
    • Caps here too: "The vulnerability of the north end of Messines ridge where it met Menin ridge"
      • Done
    • What do 1c etc mean here: "third breastwork, (Ic) were to conduct immediate counter-attacks to recapture Ia and Ib." Are these being used to denote successive defensive lines? Not really sure this is helpful (might be if you were describing a map though). Also if you're using them as abbreviations they need to be formally introduced at first use.
      • No, breastworks. Wikilink added and terms described.
    • "British artillery observation machines", suggest use of "aircraft" instead.
      • Done
  • Battle
    • "(From 15 May – 9 June the weather was "fair" or "fine" except for 16, 17 and 29 May, when it was "very bad"). Couple of issues here: 1) it shouldn't start with a capital as it is in the middle of a sentence, 2) "from" indicates a specific point in time yet you use a date range (i.e. non specified point in time). I suggest "between 15 May and 9 June".
      • Done
    • Quite a number of units that should be wikilinked at first instance, including 3rd Australian Division, New Zealand Division, 16th Division.
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Other wikilinks required such as Lewis gun and Vimy Ridge, among others.
      • Added those two. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "from 2:30–6:55 p.m. for an attack...", → "between 2:30 and 6:55 p.m. for an attack..." as above.
      • Done
    • Is there a missing word here: "The unexpectedly large number troops..."?
      • Done
    • This seems awkward: "The 24th Division brigades captured and six field guns...", consider instead: "The brigades of the 24th Division captured and six field guns..."
      • Done
    • 100 Squadron is wikilinked twice, you should remove one.
      • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "Artillery observers watched for German gunfire and made 398 zone calls...", whats a "zone call"?
      • Done, footnoted.
    • I don't understand the chronology of the article, in particular the detonation of the mines on the morning of 7 June is covered in the first paragraph of the "German Fourth Army counter-attacks" but you seem to have already described the events which occurred after that (i.e. the Second Army's assault in the preceeding paragraphs 11 or 12 paragraph. Am I right about this?
      • I've tried to avoid anglocentric bias by writing the German sections from the point of view of German sources. This allows the reader to see it from both sides, despite saddling the article with two descriptions.
        • A worthy goal but often difficult to pull off. I'll have a look at it again and see if it makes more sense with some sleep. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Repetition here: "Both Eingreif divisions were plagued by delays, being new to the area and untrained for Eingreif (counter-attack) operations...", consider instead "Both Eingreif divisions were plagued by delays, being new to the area and untrained for counter-attack operations."
      • Done
  • Aftermath
    • "a reserve battalion was sent to reinforce the 49th Battalion...", 49th Battalion should be wikilinked at first use (you do so a few sentences later).
      • Done. 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "which led General Plumer to order a further advance...", should be "which led Plumer to order a further advance..." per WP:SURNAME as above.
      • Done
    • "The combination of tactics devised on the Somme and at Arras, the use of mines, artillery survey, creeping barrages, tanks, aircraft and small-unit fire-and-movement tactics created surprise and rapid infantry infiltration." Consider instead: "The combination of tactics devised on the Somme and at Arras, the use of mines, artillery survey, creeping barrages, tanks, aircraft and small-unit fire-and-movement tactics created surprise and allowed rapid infiltration by the infantry."
      • Done
    • Unexplained italicisation of "Northern Operation" (and inconsistent also).
      • Done
    • "General von Laffert, commander of Gruppe Wijtschate was sacked two days after the battle...", just "von Laffert" as above.
      • Done
    • "Sir Douglas Haig discussed the possibility of rapid exploitation of a victory...", just "Haig".
      • Done
    • The language here seems strange to me: "unmitigated British tactical and operational success...", why would the British want to mitigate their success? Normally one might try to mitigate a failure. Perhaps this is just my poor command of the English language but do you possibly mean something like "unqualified British tactical and operational success..." instead?
      • Sheldon's word. Can alter.
        • I think it would be an improvement if you did but ultimately its up to you. I'm not going to oppose on the basis of this.Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Tried "unmitigated" then thought of (sic) then got rid altogether
        • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "Hindenburg called the losses at Messines "very heavy" and...", consider instead: "Hindenburg "described" the losses at Messines "very heavy" and..."
      • Done
    • Inconsistent caps here: "was necessary before the northern operation (the third Battle of Ypres)" (previously you have capitalised Northern Operation).
      • Done
    • Might a link to Battle of Hill 60 (Western Front) be included somewhere in the article?
      • Done.
  • Notes
    • Incorrect capitalisation of "brigade" and "wing" here: "From 30 January 1916, each British army had a Royal Flying Corps Brigade attached, which was divided into Wings..."
      • Done
  • References
    • Bean is missing place of publishing.
      • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Inconsistent presentation of isbns - some have hyphens, others don't.
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Bülow and Kranz seems to be missing some bibliographic information including location, publisher, and an oclc/isbn. This could probably be found using WorldCat.
      • Done
    • Hart and Steel also missing location of publishing.
      • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This must seem like a lot of points, and I guess it is. Some may be issues and others may not as I admit I'm not overly familiar with the battle in particular or the period in general. The fighting on the Western Front was of a scale that must make writing about it concisely and with clarity a very difficult task. I commend you on your efforts to date as writing this must have been quite time consuming and it is a definite improvement on what previously existed. With further effort to copy edit it I can see it passing ACR. If you have any questions about my cmts pls feel free to ask / challenge me etc. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies everyone but I'm nursing a poorly cat so I won't be able to do any work on the article for the next couple of days.Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No rush, all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've done a couple of them for you (I've marked the ones that I've done). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all, poorly cat on the mend. I've done and noted a few recommendations, more later.Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having another look AnotherC, I might get time for another session later.Keith-264 (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Apropos the structure of the article, I've tried to bear in mind the strictures on anglocentric bias found on lots of Great War pages describing British military operations, hence the semi-autonomous nature of the German sections and far fewer sources which I have to piece together. I can add an explanation or note if it's thought that it interrupts the narrative (the revisionist school tends to ingnore German sources since they put British behaviour into a context other than mud, blood and poetry). As for the narrative, I wondered at first how to add material to Great War pages, which I thought leaned too much on polemical and derivative writing, without causing a permanent punch-up with the revisionist school. While I made my mind up I did the easy bits - describing what was supposed to happen and comparing it with what did from both sides, as far as anglophone sources allow. It occurred that this was the way to avoid historiographical complications, since description is either right or wrong and interpretation is a matter of preference. By adding detail from secondary sources, minutiae are described which I think helps to put armchair generalship in its place. Mind you, my accumulating disdain for Prior &Wilson has received some spirited rejoinders from Paul Turtle.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok I've read over this again and after completing another copy-edit believe this meets the ACR criteria. Pls review my changes and amend / revert any you disagree with. I still think the infobox could be further developed though. Nonetheless this is an impressive article in my opinion, which does a good job covering a broad topic in detail without being too long. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it contains all relevant information concerning the subject without going into unnecessary detail, and because it highlights a critically under-recognized conflict (being the Anglo-Cherokee War). This article, in its completeness, provides a snapshot of that conflict, and links a reader to practically every other Wikipedia page concerning the war. Lastly, I have all of the pictures relevant to the subject that are worth having. I believe this meets the criteria, but I'm new to this, and welcome any suggestions/criticisms. Cdtew (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• File:Fort Dobbs Scale Model.jpg: This doesn't give a location, but I'm assuming it's in the US. If so, you may find that the underlying art work is copyright. It depends on when it was made, but I think that the US doesn't have "freedom of panorama".
  • I've removed the photo, but am in the process of trying to clarify copyright with the original creator of the scale model. In the meantime, I'd like to try and get A-Class without that photo.
• File:ArthurDobbs.jpg: some of the file information could probably be fleshed out.
  • I take it you mean by listing the artist, date of completion, etc? I did alter the PD tag, which was incomplete for US.
• "a British Provincial Fort" - is the capitalisation correct here?
  • Corrected to a British provincial fort.
• "gave permission to the settlers in Rowan County " - I wouldn't suggest that you play out the whole of the colonisation of North America in this article (!), but the article as written assumes that the reader knows who these are, when they arrived, the issues involved in the use of North American land etc.. As a result, it feels a little one-sided (the Native Americans raid settlers, for no apparent reason, the settlers are "subjected to attacks" etc.)
  • This one needs some more thought. I don't believe the violence was really very even on both sides (ie: I think the natives, who had justification for their anger, committed more violent acts in this specific time period), but after the Cherokee opened their full assault on the English, the violence was distributed fairly evenly. I guess I can source and discuss why the Cherokee were upset about English settlers invading their prime hunting territory, and about the English not keeping promises during the F&I War. See what I've done now. Cdtew (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• "a sum of ₤10,000" - worth considering how you communicate to a modern audience if this was a large sum of money at the time or not (e.g. an equivalent figure, a comparison statement, etc.)
  • Using this site ([302]), I can determine that 10,000.00 = 1,490,000.00 in 2005 currency, which I can then convert to $2,403,966.00 -- I will cite the underlying work, and give a citeweb template including the link to that handy chart. What are your thoughts on that method?
    • Guys, User:Dank/Copy2#inflation may be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Point well-taken; I will use a contemporary comparison point; I've found references to Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania) and Fort Stanwix (both complex, modern star forts) costing 60,000 pounds in 1759 -- I'll try to dig up a good reference for that and insert the info. Done. See Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)#Construction and early use Cdtew (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• " a company of provincial rangers" - what's a provincial ranger?
  • This should be changed anyways, as truth be told the soldiers were basic militia who functioned sometimes as rangers, and other times as garrison troops. I changed it to just "militia". The only reference to them as "rangers" comes from the Governor of Virginia at the time, who didn't have direct contact with the unit.
• "560-acre tract" - this and other distances/sizes need alternative figures (try the convert template, which will do this for you).
  • Done for all listings of acreages
• "The new settlements required somewhat regular protection, as the settlers in the area attributed many crimes and forms of harassment to nearby Catawba raiding parties." - "somewhat" seemed awkward.
  • Eliminated as unnecessary.
• "and killing around 19 white men, women and children. " - unclear if this means that they also killed non-white people as well, or if there was something particularly important about their racial origins? Also, does this include the 18 scalps taken in the previous bit?
  • Nothing important about race -- no mention in the record of non-whites being killed, so this is probably my archaic usage. I eliminated the race descriptor, and clarified the fact that that does include the 18 scalps.
• "Violence between the Cherokee and British settlers continued with little abatement." - "between" would imply that violence went the other way as well, although its not been mentioned so far.
  • Clarified this a bit. Up until this point, the British settlers were taken somewhat by surprise, especially given the conciliatory tone of the Cherokee leaders communicating with Charleston. I'll comb through the literature to see if I can find instances of retribution running the other way. Added further explanation. How about now? Cdtew (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• "of which more than fifteen were destroyed" - MOS would have this rendered as "15 were destroyed" I think
  • Done.
• "To date, archaeologists and historical researchers know the exact location of Fort Dobbs..." I'd advice avoiding "to date", and giving a particular date, as the wiki isn't a dated source (someone could be reading this bit of the article in 2050, or 2100!).
  • Clarified the date; ref still good to official site
• "presented a study which claimed to present a concrete reconstruction plan for the fort" - "claimed" seemed odd; was there a problem with the plan?
  • No -- that word is unintentionally weaselly.
• "Yearly attendance to the site runs about 27,000 people." - a word missing here I think.
  • Altered that for better flow by changing "runs" to "is".
• Worth checking for missing spaces in some of the citations.
  • I think I found them all?
• Some citations go surname, name; others go name surname. Either works but they should usually be consistent.
  • Done --> Name-Surname format used on all (but required tinkering with the citenews template.
• Formatting of Further Reading is inconsistent; some give publisher, others publishers and location. Formatting isn't the same as the main citations, btw.
  • I think this is correct now...
• "Encyclopedia of North Carolins" - spelling of Carolins? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Corrected! Cdtew (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good to me! Support at ACR. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

• Hi Clark, are you interested in taking this one to WP:FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Dank: Thanks for the help above. I was sort of considering at least getting GA status after meeting the criteria for A-class, if possible. This is my first time, so I didn't presume to think this article could ever reach FAC. If you think it has a chance, I'd be willing to do so, but I'm not sure if I'd need to do that after A-class, or simultaneously therewith. Cdtew (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • FAC tends to be doable when the subject is narrow enough. This could probably make it at FAC with a bit more research. Since you haven't done WP:GAN yet, I'll cover the prose issues relevant to GAN, mainly WP:LEAD and WP:WORDS. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• "presented a study which presented a reconstruction plan for the fort. To date, this study has been generally accepted by the academic community and the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources." See WP:DATED. In some cases, we recommend "as of (year)", but I think this will be good enough here: "presented a study and a reconstruction plan that has been generally accepted ...". - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I've fixed this correctly. Cdtew (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The "to date" is a WP:WORDS problem ... see the WP:REALTIME section. I've fixed it, and it's a little better not to repeat "presented" and "study"; I fixed those too. Otherwise, reading quickly, I don't see any violations of WP:WORDS. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the sloppy rewrite. I did that at work and was distracted. Thanks for catching the repetitiveness. Cdtew (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• To summarize the article per WP:LEAD, maybe add just a couple of sentences (and this probably tips you over into two paragraphs for the lead), one about the fort's sole engagement, and another about the recent archeological discoveries.
  • Done. Cdtew (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• "In 2005-2006": in general, use an en-dash for date ranges, but I wouldn't use it here. If it happened in 2005, say that. If in 2005 or 2006, but you're not sure which, use "or". If in 2005 and 2006, use "and". - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • the source makes it clear that the study was conducted 2005-2006, but the findings were presented in 2006. Changed. Cdtew (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. After GAN, let's talk about FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your help, and I agree wholeheartedly with your edits. Do you recommend that I get GAN, or should I just move straight to FAC? Cdtew (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The main question at FAC is going to be comprehensiveness. Where have you checked for possible sources? - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm fairly certain that I've cited every significant source from the 20th century that discusses the fort with anything more than a passing mention; as far as sources that discuss the background topics, I've cited several principle sources. I think there's only one more widely available source, which I cite over at Hugh Waddell (general) that I need to add for thoroughness. Cdtew (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'll ask some people to come have a look while it's at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• "North Carolina's State Historic Sites" by Gary L. McCullough has some bits on the early 20th century history of the site I think, that should be visible on Google Books Hchc2009 (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You generally like to see a map or two to illustrate some of the events, right? - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Hchc -- That's on my list of things to add; Dank -- There's not a map that demonstrates battle positions -- in fact, the people at the site don't know for certain where any of the action took place. There's an educated guess that most of it occurred near a stream about .2 miles from the fort to the south, but that's a hunch based on a cluster of military artifacts found there (all of this info is un-sourced OR, as far as I'm aware). As for a map of the area including the fort, or a map of the area, there's the Collett Map of 1770, depicting Fort Dobbs, but I'll need to figure out how to get that on here without copyvio issues. I'm certain since its a work over 100 years old, I can put it up, but I'll need to do some digging on that. Map is here. Finally, there's a map of the Fourth Creek Settlement (which was, in actuality, less of a settlement and more of a close collection of farms and homesteads. See that map here. Both may add some flavor and much-needed illustration. Cdtew (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I've added an excerpt of the Collet map. I believe it's PD, but the part that worries me is whether any rights lie with the library that scanned it. I used to work for UNC libraries, and I bet I know the person I could call to ask. Cdtew (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Heh, when I worked for UNC libraries, I was helping with their card catalogs :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Haha, when did you work there? I worked in Wilson (Manuscripts Dept/Southern Historical Coll.) from 2003-2007. I think this falls under the PD-Art claim, because the map is a bare reproduction of the out-of-copyright original. See what I did with it on the page, and let me know your thoughts. Cdtew (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
            • For articles where I'm a reviewer, I cover prose issues only. Early 80s. The Southern Historical Collection is awesome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Under US law, you'll be fine for the map I think. If you want something done with a modern map (this isn't the right scale, but something more like File:USA North Carolina relief location map.jpg, for example), with some of the locations plotted, or arrows, etc. and need any help, let me know; I can usually do something with a .svg file. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• CommentSupport
  • No dab links [303] (no action required).
  • External links check out [304] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text [305] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Done - added Alt's for all of them!
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images review completed above.
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [306] (no action required).
  • "in the event assurances that the settler would be brought to justice under the province's laws didn't persuade the Catawba to remain friendly with North Carolina." Contractions should be avoided per WP:CONTRACTION. Suggest: "in the event assurances that the settler would be brought to justice under the province's laws did not persuade the Catawba to remain friendly with North Carolina."
    • Done!
  • Ampersands shouldn't be used: "the focus of combat in the French & Indian War" should be "the focus of combat in the French and Indian War" instead.
    • Done!
  • "including 8 scalps from settlers living on Fourth Creek..." should be "eight" per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Done!
  • A couple of references lack isbns: Clark, Greene and Saunders. I'm assuming this is because of their age (as isbn's wouldn't have been arround at time of publishing). As such could OClCs be provided instead? These are available on www.worldcat.org. Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Done! Added OCLC's; Saunders and Clark are generally consolidated into one series, so OCLC provided shows the series of volumes (1-26) that make up the Colonial and State Records of NC. Thanks for your comments and assistance! Cdtew (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Looks good - adding my support now. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Air Rhodesia Flight 825

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk)

This just passed GAN following a very helpful review from Nick-D, who was complimentary of it, and suggested that I also nominate it here. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support As noted in the nomination I recently assessed this as GA class, and think that it also meets the A class criteria. My only additional comment is that Lockley 1990 should be replaced as it doesn't appear to be a reliable source (though the single statement which is cited to it is probably correct). Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Nick. I've replaced the sole reference to Lockley with another to Cilliers 1984 (page 21). Hope you're well. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not supported at this timeCommentsSupport A couple of minor points initially, but a really major issue overall.

• vessel? aircraft?

• Are they not the same thing? Changed anyway.

• "by ZIPRA guerrillas on the northern side of the Zambezi" perhaps "from the northern side of the Zambezi"?

• Okay, have changed this.

• I note that Sibanda is used, but I am very concerned that his claims about the Selous Scouts, Red Cross and UNHCR statements etc aren't even mentioned. Either he is a reliable source, or he is not. I feel it is inappropriate and potentially misleading to use him for some material but not mention his other claims. As a result, I am feeling quite uneasy about this article in its present state, and I am not happy to support it for A Class on that basis, and don't feel that this article describes the issues from a disinterested viewpoint. Very happy to discuss of course. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What's the gist of his statements about the Selous Scouts, Red Cross and UNHCR? - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• p. 191 [307] gives you an idea. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'll have a go at putting some more of Sibanda's stuff in. I omitted a lot of his claims before because they simply didn't seem credible to me based on what I know from other sources, the unabashedly partisan tone of much of his prose and the fact that he occasionally makes really rather elementary errors (for example, he renders Ron Reid-Daly's surname "Reidy-Daly"). But I've now put in a lot of the material I believe you are referring to, making sure to qualify most of the claims as they seem rather fringey to me. I'll put here what I have added to save you looking it up:

In "Nkomo claims responsibility, but denies killing survivors"

"According to Eliakim Sibanda, a professor and human rights speaker who wrote a history of ZAPU, Nkomo was implying that responsibility for the massacre actually lay with security force pseudo-guerrillas, more specifically the mixed race Selous Scouts unit, which had been known to brutalise rural civilians with the goal of shifting public opinion. Sibanda blames the massacre on the Scouts, and also supports Nkomo's claim that the Hunyani had been used militarily, suggesting that ZIPRA may have believed there to be Rhodesian soldiers on board: "Rhodesian television, before attacks on ZANLA in Mozambique, had shown Viscounts ferrying paratroopers for the job," he writes, "... [and] ZIPRA intelligence knew there were paratroopers stationed [at Victoria Falls]"."

In "Operation Gatling; the "Green Leader" raid"

"Sibanda describes Freedom Camp as "a refugee camp for boys",[30] and says "351 boys and girls" were killed.[30] He writes that the Red Cross and the UN Refugee Agency "confirmed ZAPU's claim that Smith's forces struck at defenseless, civilian trainees"."

• I hope this is all to your satisfaction and helps resolve your concerns with the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Great response to a curly issue, the in-text attribution and neutral wording are good. I will do another run through. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• the controversy about the deaths at the site and the retaliatory strikes should be mentioned in the lead

• Okay, I've added "The attack on ZIPRA in particular brought great controversy as many of those killed were refugees camping in and around guerrilla positions. Some, including writer Eliakim Sibanda, contend that the massacre at the crash site was carried out by deep cover Rhodesian soldiers rather than ZIPRA cadres"

• if the aircraft name was Hunyani rather than the Hunyani, suggest deleting the "the" in front of the name

• In sources it is always referred to as the Hunyani, which also seems to be the name it was referred to by at the time (based on contemporary newspaper reports). I see no reason why we should change this.

• suggest "spared" is not the right word. Perhaps "a further five lived because..."

• Yes, you're right here

• it's not clear how the sources know that the ditch was "unseen" if the flight crew were killed in the crash

• I imagine Hood still would have had radio contact while landing (we know he had it at 1710), and, even if he had chosen to land on the cotton field having seen the four-metre wide ditch, it seems logical that he surely would have mentioned its presence. Granted, he was being forced to land, and so may have acted in a way he would not have normally, but it still seems unlikely to me that he would have chosen an attempted landing site knowing that such a natural obstacle was there.

• ok

• I wonder about the use of Smith. He's hardly going to paint himself badly, and his views on the attitudes of rural blacks are quite self-serving

• Nkomo's attitudes regarding the crash and massacre are equally self-serving. Why not use Smith also? Even if you don't believe him, I think it helps to see the Rhodesian government's attitude at the time, which did include the belief—probably somewhat misguided in many cases—that the vast majority of rural tribesmen only helped the communists because they had guns to their heads.

• fair enough

• suggest "3 September 1978 Sunday afternoon" is unnecessary

• I don't think so, we should give the date and it's also important to give the fact it was Sunday afternoon, to explain the timing of the weekend holidaymakers' return to Salisbury from Kariba.

• "nationalist guerillas"? weren't they communists?

• They were communists and nationalists, but saying "communist nationalist guerrillas" seems superfluous and overexacting. I've changed a couple uses to use communist rather than nationalist.

more to come. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Look forward to it. Thanks for the helpful comments and a fine, thorough review. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• all external links ok.[308]
• no dablinks [309]
• Reflinks check out [310]
• "respectively" is unnecessary regarding the girls ages, you haven't named them so there is no need to differentiate

• OK

• there are a few WP:CLICHEs I suggest you replace. "hail of automatic gunfire", "almost unbridled fury", "redoubled his efforts", "hurtled towards the ground"

• OK. "by a sustained burst of automatic gunfire"; "with caustic fury"; "Smith again worked to bring Nkomo into the government ..." Hope these are better

• suggest you link Rhodesian Air Force

• OK
• that me done, I think. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the pleasant review, Peacemaker, which I think has been very productive. I look forward to interacting again —Cliftonian (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well done, moving to support. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again Peacemaker. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • Images all have Alt Text [311] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all public domain or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation [312] (no action required).
  • Is there a word missing here: "the Rhodesian Air Force took control of airspace over Zambia during the raid...", specifically should it be: "the Rhodesian Air Force took control of the airspace over Zambia during the raid..."?
    • Yes
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherclown (talk • contribs)
    • Blast... forgot to sign! Thanks Dan. Anotherclown (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review and support Anotherclown! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Shootdown": Agreed that this section title is a tough call. Oxford Dictionaries says it's "shoot-down", but only in North America, and this article isn't AmEng or CanEng. Neither Cambridge Dictionaries nor Merriam-Webster lists "shoot-down" or "shootdown" as a word. I get your point that we don't want to obscure what happened with the section title. I'll ask Ian and Nick for help, they should know. (Some journalists say "Downing", but that has always felt a bit made-up to me. "Missile attack and crash"?) - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of 'shootdown' (which always seems a bit colloquial and informal), but I can't think of a better word to use in this context. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "Shootdown", for better or worse, is pretty common (and, Dan, most places I've seen it eschew the hyphen). "Downing" is often used as well but rarely on its own. "Such-and-such and crash" sounds a bit clumsy to me, and "shootdown" implies a crash anyway, so I'd go with the latter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'm trusting you guys on this, SOED also doesn't have "shootdown". It's odd; there ought to be a standard word for it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• The word "cadres" is the wrong word throughout, for a variety of reasons. (Readers are unlikely to suspect that it's meant in some technical sense; a "cadre" is a group, not a person; and the link suggests the word is non-neutral in this context.) "Members" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. Many, many sources (many of them anti-Rhodesian) describe the ZANLA and ZIPRA fighters as "cadres", which in this context refers to their being both guerrilla combatants and political commissars; in effect, vanguard revolutionaries. See Sibanda 2005: p. 9, "... ZAPU nationalists and military cadres during the war."; pp. 96–97, "China accepted both ZAPU and ZANU trainees. However, Algeria, Cuba, Bulgaria, the Soviet Union, and North Korea took only ZAPU cadres for training until 1966 ... Training for the ZAPU cadres who went to Russia was very comprehensive ... before the High Court on 13 August 1968[, a] cadre told of how he and his eleven comrades were flown to Moscow via Tanzania for training." The Road to Democracy in South Africa, South African Democracy Education Trust 2004: p. 495: "The success of the crossing greatly contributed to building morale and bringing the MK and ZIPRA cadres closer to one another." War Veterans in Zimbabwe's Revolution: challenging neo-colonialism & settler & international capital, Zvakanyorwa Wilbert Sadomba 2011: many uses throughout, see for example p. 39 and p. 48 —Cliftonian (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hm, I see "Mphoko, one of the senior ... cadres"; If Mphoko is a person and not a group, then that writer doesn't know that a cadre is a "a cell of indoctrinated leaders active in promoting the interests of a revolutionary party" (M-W), and similar descriptions in other dictionaries. In one of your other links, ZANLA is said to be made up of 200 cadres; they don't mean 200 men. The other potential problem is: the links you're giving are talking for the most part about cadres in general; that's different than saying that any particular person was a member of a cadre. Using a gun in a thuggish way doesn't prove you're a revolutionary, interested in advancing the goals of the party; it only proves you're a thug. If a credible source has evidence that a particular group of men were revolutionaries, then sure, feel free to call the group a cadre. When you're talking about the actions of cadres in general, you're on firm ground, the best I can tell. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I understand that the dictionary definition of a cadre is a group of people, but based on what I have seen in sources it seems to be used in the Rhodesian context to mean a single man. Mphoko is a person, yes. If you are referring to Sibanda p. 224—where he says they had about 200 cadres sometime in 1971—I believe he is saying they only had 200 men. The rest of the paragraph uses words liked "armed men" and "soldiers" as if they are similes. Fay Chung, a ZANU official, is quoted here saying that at some point "ZIPRA had 800 soldiers and ZANLA had 12". This isn't a typo, as Sibanda writes a short time later that ZANLA then had "212, a gain of two hundred". I'm not questioning your reasoning regarding whether a particular group were revolutionaries or thugs, or what the definition is in the dictionary, but it seems to me that the word "cadre" is used correctly in this context, based on what I have seen in sources on the Rhodesian conflict. A Very Merry Christmas, by the way. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh, SOED does have that definition ... an official or a member of a group. So I can't insist you remove it, but I can't support either, because the word is likely to lead to confusion among readers who aren't well-read in the literature on communist insurgencies. I'll move on. Best of the season, and best of luck - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, this won't do, particularly at this time of year. Perhaps a footnote might be helpful, making clear how the word "cadre" is used in this context? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'll think about it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Operation Snoopy; Rhodesia hits New Chimoio", and several other subheadings: Per WP:Heading and WP:MOS#Article titles, headings should be nouns or noun phrases.

• Okay, I'll look at fixing this

• "whites became resentful and wary towards blacks in general", and other statements regarding emotions: See WP:Checklist#mindreading and the last 3 bullet points at WT:Checklist. Descriptions of emotional states should be rare ... it should be possible to give readers a clear picture by describing what people did. Describing mental states carries a lot of different risks, including the risk of non-neutrality: we don't want to say in Wikipedia's voice that blacks were the cause of all white resentfulness and wariness. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right. I've rearranged this in an attempt to show this was Nyarota's personal interpretation: "Geoffrey Nyarota, who was then one of the few black reporters at the Rhodesia Herald newspaper, says that many whites became resentful and wary towards blacks in general, believing them all to be 'terrorist sympathisers'." —Cliftonian (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I recommend deleting the paragraph that begins "At the end of the service"; angry, grieving crowds aren't reliable sources for anything.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done for now; I got down to Air_Rhodesia_Flight_825#Smith–Nkomo talks halted. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the great review so far Dank! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted--Constantine ✍ 07:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Kosta Pećanac

Nominator(s): PRODUCER (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk)

We are nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed a GA review and has been further improved upon to meet the necessary ACR standards. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Images

• File:Kosta Pekianec.jpg - needs a look. No author given, so life+100 can't apply. There will be a suitable licence for the United States, publication outside the US before 1909 or 1923. The licence for its home country then needs to be established, including what that country is. If not, it should bee transferred to en.
  • Added PD-anon-1923. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• File:Srpske Vojvode u Staroj Srbiji i Makedoniji.png - Serbia isn't a member of the EU, and the work is not obviously anonymous and no evidence has been provided that the author has not claimed ownership, and no evidence has been provided that it has been seventy years since the photograph has been made public.
  • The original image contains no claim of authorship. Added PD-anon-1923. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• File:Kosta Pekyanets1916.JPG needs a US licence (as with the first image). The anonymous claim is incorrect, since it was "scanned from old newspapers" and newspapers and copyright go hand in hand.
  • The original clipping says the image was published by a trade union as a card that was sold for housing funds in 1916-1918 during World War I. Added PD-anon-1923. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• File:Kosta Pecanac.jpg - I think it would be helpful to link [313] alongside the main website and the image links. (Copyright fine though.)
• File:Proclamation issued by Kosta Pecanac.jpg ditto for [314]
  • I believe these links were avoided because they are unstable. Will add and see if that's the case. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• The World Cat authority control link doesn't work. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't a lot to do, and it was easy to follow. Good stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article for GA and believe it meets our A class criteria as well. Anotherclown (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments:
  • "vojvoda": I wonder if this word shouldn't be presented in italics the first time it is used in text as it is a foreign word (I note that it is in italics in the infobox)?
    • done.
  • as above: "comitadji"?
    • done.
  • "the Morava division": is this a proper noun? If so, "division" should be capitalised;
    • done.
  • "the Osogovo mountain": is this a proper noun? If so, the "the" should be dropped and "mountain" capitalised;
    • done.
  • in the Balkan Wars section, I wonder if you might include a couple of dates/years to provide a little more context;
    • good point, added dates. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I found the first part of the World War I section a little confusing. It seems to jump straight into him receiving medals for service, but it seems like it might be smoother if it mentioned first what he did at the beginning of the war, and then the medals. If the sources don't say, I'd suggest just adding a sentence saying as such and then mention the medals;
    • I've re-ordered it, hopefully it is clearer now? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "several hundred men at the Toplica River valley". I wonder if this wouldn't sound smoother as "several hundred men in the Toplica River valley"?
    • done.
  • "Pećanac's force remained intact after German occupation of Serbia". Should there be a "the" before "German occupation"?
    • done.
  • " In the early summer of 1941 the detachments of Pećanac fought" --> " In the early summer of 1941 Pećanac's detachments fought"?
    • done.
  • I found this a little awkward: "All but Pećanac were killed within days, but Pećanac remained...". Perhaps it could be reworded? "All were killed within days except Pećanac who remained..." AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • done.

nearly done, just need to work through the Balkan Wars and WWI sections. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think all AR's points have been addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)

I've added my support now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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